BCBill,

Okay I get what you mean. If I was able to limit my intake to say 2000 calories of highly processed carbs and I used 2500 calories a day I would lose weight. I would have to. It would be scale weight and I would not be healthy by any stretch let alone be able to build solid muscle.

techswimmer: well said. I agree with you. reverse-extrapolating :) Nice. I love words. It is true too.

Jessica - Mighty Max

Bill

That's not actually true about calories in versus calories out.  They keep testing it and keep not being able to prove it.  There are variables, like how your body processes each.  It's just too oversimplified to say that in vs out is weight loss or gain.  It would work for a bit and certainly in general theory, but it's not as black and white as it's been made to seem.

Your body will only release so much fat if it doesn't have enough essential fatty acids so it is accurate to say that you need dietary fat to release fat. 

Also, although yes, excess calories make us fat.  The one that really gets people is excess insulin, from carbs.  Carbs, however, are not just a filler.  Without enough carbs we cannot use the protein to build muscle and regardless of how much water we drink, will be dehydrated.

 

Jessica, it is that simple regarding the basics of weight loss or gain. I'm not talking about fat loss or gain but weight loss and gain. If you create a large enough caloric deficit for a long enough period of time, you will die. It's pretty simple. Once your body has fully depleted all energy stores of fat and muscle that's all she wrote it's played out in 3rd world countries every day.  

Now, efficient, healthy weight loss for the obese. Well that's a billions dollar industry with what seems like millions of contradictory view points and as yet I don't think there has ever been a conclusively "best " way. One thing though that is a recurring theme of pretty much every "sane" diet is creating a caloric deficit, the best ones like BFL do it with a solid nutrition plan and intense exercise. 

Also, excess calories do not make a person fat. Excess calories, unbalanced nutrition and a sedentary lifestyle make people fat. Excess calories, balanced nutrition coupled with progressive overload weight training is the basis of every strength and muscle building program for the last 100 (or more) years. You read any weight lifting, power lifting or natural bodybuilding book or website (steroid users are a whole other kettle of fish)) and it is the one recurring theme. To build muscle, strength and size you need to eat a caloric surplus. Bill even covers it in the BFL book regarding "hard gainers". The nutrition breakdowns are  similar, you just eat a surplus instead of a deficit and lift progressively heavier weights for couple years if the goal is to go from a 130lb skinny guy to a 175lb well muscled physique. 

Carbs are a filler in the sense that they round out the diet after you get the levels of protein and fats that are essential for your goals. I am not a low carb guy at all and not saying they aren't important.  What I'm trying to get across is they are calculated in after the proteins and fats for daily intake. If you figure out how much protein and fat you are working into the daily intake, it's easy to figure out your carb levels so you don't over do it.

Bill

I know you were talking specifically weight, not fat.  The in versus out theory is still not that black and white, if only talking scale weight.  It's not that simple and I've yet to see a study prove your theory.  The don't even know if protein really has 4 calories per gram.

Why would you consider carbs after the protein and fats and not with?  They are an essential macro nutrient to be calculated with the others.  

oh the marks daily apple chart, how funny.

tell that to pro bb'er like jay cutler whose prep for the olympia is 500g pro/ 500g carb

BCBILL - I doubt anybody here is looking to just lose scale weight and be skinny fat. Fat loss is kinda what I was hoping this discussion would be about.

Charlie - I doubt anyone here wants this to be their goal. He is a mesomorph and I am an endomorph.

actually bryan, cutler is a mesoendo and regardless if anyone wants to be a pro bb'er, the point is he eats 500g of carbs a day and is not fat at all, as your lovely primal brainwashed blueprint likes to point out.

So I should not cut back on carbs (and only eat fruits and veggies for carbs) and eat more healthy fats? I am 5'6" 185ish with 19% body fat and I gain fat easily.

Bryan

I don't see why you can't also have brown rice, yams, quinoa, etc.  It's a matter of how much.  I wouldn't do more than 185 grams per day of carb and maybe less.  What made you switch to Paleo?  Were you having more carbs than 185g when you did?

Without commenting further one way or another, it is interesting that one diet professor lost 27 lbs eating two-thirds of his diet in twinkies and other terrible carby/fatty food to prove that weight loss *could* be reduced to a math equation where you just eat fewer calories than you burn. Even he says it was a "test" and obviously composition is equally or more important than just counting the calories:

www.cnn.com/.../index.html

Obviously not scientific with a sample of 1, but it is interesting.

Additionally, the documentary Fat Head (response to Supersize Me) also does a similar experiment where he eats only McDonalds food for a month, but loses weight by counting and limiting total calories.

Please don't think I'm suggesting calories don't matter.  They absolutely do matter.  My point is only that the math is not so absolute, despite best efforts to prove it.  There are a multitude of factors.

Also, for how long did he do it?  Short term vs long would make a huge difference.  

Jessica - Mighty Max

Bill

I know you were talking specifically weight, not fat.  The in versus out theory is still not that black and white, if only talking scale weight.  It's not that simple and I've yet to see a study prove your theory.  The don't even know if protein really has 4 calories per gram.

Why would you consider carbs after the protein and fats and not with?  They are an essential macro nutrient to be calculated with the others.  

Here is a 2 year study by the New England Journal of Medicine regarding calories in vs out and macro make ups of 4 popular diet trends.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748

According to all the testing done on calories in food, I'll go with the calorie calculations that are the accepted base lines and founded in science. I'm honestly curious, if you don't believe the theory of thermogenics and calories in vs out what do you base eating decisions on? I hate to break it to you, but even the BFL palm/fist method is a just a simplified way of moderating caloric intake without the necessity or complication of actually counting every calorie or weighing food.

Everything is to a certain extent trial,error and experience in figuring out what works for any given person, especially in figuring out what your personal BMR is without extensive testing. That said, the information and study out there regarding caloric balance and nutrition is a solid starting point for anyone embarking on a weight loss or fitness journey. 

You're spliiting hairs here on the carb calculating thing. All three are "calculated" in conjuction. Of the there macros, protein is the most important for maintaining muscle while in a caloric deficit hence why it is the first thing I look at when planning my meals. Fat is second because as discussed here, essential fatty acids and fat soluable vitamins are well, essential to good health.  Carbs are easy, everything left after the other two in my caloric budget is carbs.  As I have played with my daily caloric intake, carbs are what I play with decreasing or increasing. My protein and fat intake though has remained fairly static. 

BryanL

So I should not cut back on carbs (and only eat fruits and veggies for carbs) and eat more healthy fats? I am 5'6" 185ish with 19% body fat and I gain fat easily.

If it works for you , you should do it. At the end of the day, that's what's important no? If you like the Paleo diet, feel good following it and it's something you can stick with (probably the most important thing) than whose to say it's wrong?

Personally I function poorly on low carbs.Doesn't work for me and I found I had low energy for lifting. I feel best near around 45/35/20 split for my intake and found that is what worked for me.

Bill -

You threw up a paper tiger!  Your tone and words suggest that I don't think calories matter or that I don't get it and my posts clearly indicate otherwise.

That study doesn't prove your point at all and that's what I'm trying to explain to you.  I've read that one and it proves that eating less will get you to lose weight.  Well of course!  I never denied that so again, paper tiger.  Obviously if someone has 3000 calories and needs 2000 they are going to gain.  Obviously you need a deficit to lose, but what you're not getting is that deficit cannot only be calculated in actual calories eaten.  That's my point.  Why else would bodybuilders, who count everything, not count the calories in their fish oil.  My point is there are lots of factors and it harms people to suggest that counting calories will give them the weight loss they are seeking.

My point is that you can have more if you are smart about choices and have more results.  Also, having more muscle will allow you to burn more naturally and obviously some diets more support that than others.  Differences in metabolism also matter.  

My point was that your point made it sounds black and white and that is absolutely incorrect.  

I'm not at all splitting hairs on carbs.  They are not a filler.  They are an important macronutrient that needs to be respected with the others.  

You hate to break it to me?  Please!  I get the science behind BFL

I want to avoid this.......

Can everyone agree processed carbs and excess carbs cause weight gain?

Jessica - Mighty Max

Bill -

You threw up a paper tiger!  Your tone and words suggest that I don't think calories matter or that I don't get it and my posts clearly indicate otherwise.

That study doesn't prove your point at all and that's what I'm trying to explain to you.  I've read that one and it proves that eating less will get you to lose weight.  Well of course!  I never denied that so again, paper tiger.  Obviously if someone has 3000 calories and needs 2000 they are going to gain.  Obviously you need a deficit to lose, but what you're not getting is that deficit cannot only be calculated in actual calories eaten.  That's my point.  Why else would bodybuilders, who count everything, not count the calories in their fish oil.  My point is there are lots of factors and it harms people to suggest that counting calories will give them the weight loss they are seeking.

My point is that you can have more if you are smart about choices and have more results.  Also, having more muscle will allow you to burn more naturally and obviously some diets more support that than others.  Differences in metabolism also matter.  

My point was that your point made it sounds black and white and that is absolutely incorrect.  

I'm not at all splitting hairs on carbs.  They are not a filler.  They are an important macronutrient that needs to be respected with the others.  

You hate to break it to me?  Please!  I get the science behind BFL

No paper tiger at all. As I said the basis of weight loss is calories in vs calories out   The Basis, the starting point. The study I linked showed exactly the point I am trying to make. 811 people over 2 years,all different metabolism, body types etc etc. 4 different nutrition plans that are popular today the only constant was creating a 750cal per day deficit through caloric restriction and exercise. The results were similar across all 4 diet plans in weight loss, no matter the percentages of which macro they ate. 

The vast majority of people will see positive results in their weight and body composition with a proper balanced nutrition plan that delivers a caloric deficit coupled with weight training and cardio. It's not rocket science.

Watching your caloric intake is the basis of creating a caloric deficit. I do not see how telling someone to use one of the available BMR+burn calculators that are out there as a guide for what they burn in a given day, then calculating how many calories they intake is harmful. It is the starting point for healthy weight loss. How else does a person with little to no knowledge of what or how much they should eat find a starting point if not calories?  It is the one thing they can control, starting a food log, recording and regulating what they eat. Again, starting point, to be tweaked as time and experience accumulates. 

Making "proper choices" does not in fact allow you to eat more calories and still create a deficit and lose weight. Making good food choices allows you to eat more FOOD as whole food is less calorically dense,  the physical volume is greater, not the calories.  No matter how much you rail against it, the basis of weight loss the calories in vs calories out and as much as people like to believe it, the differences created by metabolism etc is minimal. The vast majority of people fall into the "norm" in those regards. I showed you mine, show me a reputable study that proves otherwise.

As to the differences in muscle mass, age etc, all of that is taken into account by BMR calculators. If you go to

 http://www.hussmanfitness.org/html/TFCalories.html

and click on the BMR calculator and play around with age, height, body fat% etc, all the factors that affect a person's BMR the end calculations are pretty damn close.  If I plug in where I was when I started last year 38,245lbs 33%BF my BMR was 2040. If I plug in now, 38,205lbs BF16% my BMR is 2093.

50 calories.

As to the carbs thing, I can't figure out if you are being obtuse or not. I have explained it twice now, yet all you seem to glob onto is my use of the term "filler".