On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Alyne wrote:

> Todd, thanks for your guidance.  Assuming that a paleo
> diet is followed, do you think calorie deficit is more
> important than ketosis for losing weight?

Yes, because I don't think ketosis is particularly important at
all.  That is, I agree with the Eades that ketosis is neither a
necessary nor a sufficient condition for weight loss.  I
sometimes experiment with ketosis, partly out of curiosity and
partly out of a lingering wish that in ketosis there is some
magic to weight loss.  There isn't.  Although some people report
reduced appetite in ketosis, research has failed to confirm this,
according to Lyle McDonald (who probably knows as much about
ketosis as anyone in the world).

That we are able to be in ketosis is important because it means
we are able to live off our stored body fat, but ketosis doesn't
mean that we are doing so.

> If so, it
> would seem a good idea to eat enough low-fat protein
> to maintain muscle mass and fill up with lower carb
> veggies and an occasional fruit.  If I were to lower
> fat (too keep a calorie deficit) without loading up on
> low cal veggies, I think I would be very hungry.  Are
> you familiar with the Zone (or 40-30-30) diet?  Would
> a paleo version of that be good for losing weight in
> that it is low calorie but allows enough non-starchy
> carbs not to be hungry.

Yes, I lost about 33 lbs. (out of 55 needed to lose) on the Zone
(non-paleo version).  Then I switched to Neanderthin, lost
another 7 lbs., plateaued for a while (about a year), and then
*slowly* began to regain body fat.  I think my appetite was
returning to pre-Zone levels.  Looking at food journals that I
have sporadically kept, my intake has increased.  It's no great
surprise that my weight has too. As you point out, the trick is
to find the combination of macronutrients that minimizes hunger,
while creating a mild caloric deficit.  This takes
experimentation.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]