Well, this article seems to fly in the face of it, and I mulled it over, and I've decided that semantically, the argument presented here doesn't hold.

Here's the problem: a calorie is a calorie. Thermodynamically, it's always going to be the same. A system will always work according to the simple equation that you claim is incorrect.

1) Weight loss will occur if energy in is less than energy out. There is no way around this. If metabolism drops as a result of reduced calorie intake, the equation is still correct, but the value of Eout HAS CHANGED. Ein must be modified to account for this. ΔE being negative means that the system isn't being sustained. You mention as much in the following paragraph, but it actually doesn't change the veracity of the initial equation; the assumptions are actually besides the point. Don't imply that the equation is wrong. I think that most people understand that the less big they are, the less food they need. I've certainly never met someone that's lost a lot of weight that thought that they should be eating the same amount as before.

2) Endocrinology is a factor only insomuch as it affects availability of calories. Again, a calorie is ALWAYS a calorie, by definition. The issue here is that all FOODS aren't created equal. The old saw about celery costing more calories to eat than it returns is particularly apt.

If you put celery in a bomb calorimeter and measure the amount of energy output, you'll get a value, and that value will be positive. There's a certain amount of energy stored in that mass. This is indisputable. The real question is the amount of work that it takes to get to the energy. A bomb calorimeter doesn't have to worry about fibre, digestion, hormones and all that messy biological garbage.

So what ends up being the issue here is not so much that the value of a calorie is incorrect, but the measure of FOOD VALUE is wrong. Calories(net) = Calories(measured) – Calories(unavailable), where Calories(unavailable) is the stuff that our body rejects as indigestible, like fibre.

The point is subtle, but I think it's important. It would be more useful for the food industry and nutritionists to come up with a net value measurement so people could more accurately assess how much they're eating.

So with regards to the paleo diet in particular, people are actually just EATING LESS. It doesn't matter that the MEASURED caloric value of the foods is x (or claimed to be isocaloric), the net value is y, and if y < Eout, you get weight loss; our equation still works.

If a carbohydrate rich diet provides calories in such a way that the measured value is very close to the available value, that's easy to account for.

In the end, my issue with all of this is more about physics and thermodynamics than biology. You can't get around energy in vs. energy out. The problem is with measuring Ein.

If the goal is to increase insulin sensitivity then high glycemic load foods should be avoided. I personally eat low glycemic veggies all day and only have high glycemic foods during a carb-up.

I typically buy bags of ‘Fancy Raw Mixed Nuts’ from Trader Joe’s. I think the mix is cashews, almonds, filberts, pecans, and brazil nuts. Really excellent. Just eat a variety of nuts and there will be no need to avoid any of them.

AAAAhhh….I eat mostly walnuts as my nut source due to the closest 6:3….I will begin to lay off now-I have been keeping almonds in check because of the high O-6, pecans get in there occasionally. Do you recommend any over the other? Also- I am going back to base zone for a week, (12B, 3-3-3) then will begin to drop carbs, add fat, regularly to tinker, still keeping fat at 1x for a while. When you suggest cyclic low carb, what does that look like for a 12B female? Have I given enuff info?

I have absolutely nothing against nuts. In fact, I eat plenty myself. In the previous post, I simply pointed out that the primary omega 3 fatty acid in walnuts and macadamia nuts is ALA. As such, walnuts and macadamia nuts should not be considered superior to other nuts because they contain omega 3 fatty acids. The enzyme that transforms ALA into EPA and DHA (via carbon chain elongation) also uses LA (an omega 6 fatty acid) as a substrate. If someone consumes a lot of ALA and LA, the excess ALA will be shuttle to another pathway where it will be transformed to hormones with undesirable properties. So eat walnuts and macadamia nuts, just don’t over do it. And watch out for the Canola oil (which is also high in ALA).
With regards to saturated fat, it is a question of how much and not whether or not you should consume it. Read these posts on Robb Wolf’s blog to get a sense of the controversy surrounding the issue.

http://robbwolf.com/?p=87

http://robbwolf.com/?p=423