8 ms·

Agreed. The Four Hour Body's "Slow Carb Diet" completely changed my life. I was insulin insensitive and game from an Italian background of low-protein high carb

Agreed. The Four Hour Body's "Slow Carb Diet" completely changed my life. I was insulin insensitive and game from an Italian background of low-protein high carb. I lost 30-35lbs in 3.5 months. It was unreal. The weight came off, without exercise, every day. When I plateaued, I cut diet soda as a treat and the weightloss continued. I got to 150lbs at 6'0 -- too skinny. Now I eat more Paleo, but still low carb and still eat some legumes (lentils!) I don't subscribe to the calories in calories out model at all. Everyone seems to discount body composition. Someone eating 2,000calories of carbs is going to look AND feel a lot different than eating 2,000 calories of protein and carbs bound with fiber. I hate the crowd here that subscribes to some sort of human body perfect thermodynamic engine. It's complete bullshit.

uaygsfdbzf 12y ago
I often try to argue with a few friends that modeling the human body as a perfect thermodynamic engine (the idea that your energy output being the same, the consumed calorie count is all that matters WRT weight gain). I haven't been able to get any interesting discussion about nutrition started because of this fundamental disconnect -- if you do treat the human body as converting calories to energy regardless of how you take in the calories, a lot of very interesting research (e.g. the importance of gut flora) becomes practically irrelevant if you're talking about weight loss/weight gain. Does anyone have any pointers on research or well-supported arguments that clearly show that this model (only calories matter) doesn't do the real world justice? If you have research/pointers suggesting that the model is actually good enough, I'd be interested too.