On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Michael Audette wrote:

> Uh, I thought this was the Paleo list. There is no need to count calories on
> this diet, and also, didn't calorie counting come from Kellogg? I eat till
> no longer hungry, and from what I heard, accelerated reproduction, was
> something that started with agriculture, not survival.

I think you're right about agriculture.  I'm not so sure about
calories.

I don't know whether Kellogg invented calorie counting, nor am I
clear on what it would mean if he did.  I think there is a lot
more to be said about calories and diet than what is said in
Neanderthin.  Some people want to lose weight; others want to
foster robust health.  The two goals undoubtedly overlap, but it
is yet to be shown that significant weight loss can be achieved
without a caloric deficit (except in people with metabolic
disorders such as diabetes, which may involve substantial
excretion of fats).

The food we eat has a certain energy content.  That content must
be either used by the body's energy expenditures, stored, or
excreted.  As a rule, calories excreted are quite low.  Thus, the
body must do something with the rest.  To some extent, the body
attempt to accommodate the caloric intake level.  The more energy
coming in, the more it attempts to use; the less coming in, the
less it uses.  In short, it strives to achieve an equilibrium.
To lose weight, one must achieve a steady disequilibrium.  But
it's a tricky thing.  If you eat less, your body will try to burn
less.  But there is a point below which your body simply must
begin to use its stored fat.  Likewise, if you eat more your body
will try to burn more, but there is a ceiling to this, beyond
which it will store fat, no matter what you are eating.

The threshold points in both directions appear to vary from
person to person.

I believe that a paleo diet optimizes the body's ability to
utilize food, so that one can "get away with" eating more of this
kind of food without gaining weight.  This, at least, has been my
experience.  Weight *loss*, however, is another matter.  First of
all, substantial weight loss is an unnatural phenomenon.  The
body is wired to retain its weight, against future scarcity of
food.  I have not gained any weight in a year on Neanderthin, to
which I adhere pretty strictly (except for a one-month experiment
during the winter).  I also have not lost any weight in a year,
although I am still about 15 pounds overweight.  My diet consists
almost entirely of meat, nuts, and fruit, in varying proportions.
I think the simple explanation for this plateau is that I have
reached an equilibrium point, where my body can readily adjust
its energy use to my intake.  To lose weight, I will have to
create a *slight* caloric deficit.

Chaotic systems are still thermodynamic.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]