kbags:

Losing that last increment of fat is a tough topic, because it seems to vary for different people.  The approaches I see that seem to help with that last stubborn fat are:

-Carb cycling, including carbless PWO protocols.  You might actually do better with more total carbs (80-120 is pretty low for someone active), but by cycling them instead of just upping your general intake.

-Intermittent fasting.  A combination of 16/8 IF and carb cycling really leans me out.

Part of my protocol is to never snack, which includes "recovery carbs".  Always eat them with a complete meal. 

And as Paul said, I'd strongly recommend getting most of your carbs from glucose, not fructose, because fructose can only refill liver glycogen.  To refill the muscle glycogen you deplete from lifting heavy weights, you need glucose.  Sweet potatoes have a lot of fructose, relatively speaking, and so does fruit...and since your total carbs are very low (80-120g/day is not much for someone active) you might be shorter on glucose than you should be. 

If you want to maintain that low a carb intake you should probably ditch the fruit and sweet potatoes, and go solely with pure starches like white potatoes and white rice...but given your intense workouts, I'd consider leaving them in but bumping up total intake with some pure starch (subject to the timings and strategies above.)

If you've got further or more in-depth questions, please post them in the Talk forum so this comment thread doesn't get derailed too far.  And if you find my advice helpful, please consider buying a copy of The Gnoll Credo.

Thanks and welcome!

JS

kbags:

That depends on the intensity and frequency of your workouts.  The problem with carbs is when you eat them in excess of your body's needs, e.g. your muscles and liver are already full of glycogen.  That's when carbs start to become fattening.

Someone with lots of muscle mass who lifts a lot depletes more glycogen, and can store more glycogen, than your average couch potato: 150g/day is just a rule of thumb for your average person of average weight and physical activity.  Basically, you have to experiment: eat more if carbs improve your performance, eat less if you're starting to gain fat.  (Note: weight is not the best thing to track, because glycogen comes with a bunch of water weight.  Watch your waist circumference and your jiggle factor.)

And as I said, some combination of carb cycling and IF is likely to help too.

JS

WerD:

Facts aren't changed by the source.  I link my references, and you can read them and make your own decisions.

"Have you EVER in your whole entire lives EVER heard of someone switching to an all meat diet and have reversed chronic diseases and illnesses? Lowered cholesterol? Lost weight? Lowered blood pressure?"

Absolutely yes! 

First, this isn't an all-meat diet.  Second, thousands of us have improved our health in all respects!  Here's Part 1 of the Primal Blueprint success stories, and here's the first page of Free The Animal "Real Results".  I have two personal friends who no longer take statins, several more who have each lost 30+ pounds...and that doesn't even count my readers!

Eating an evolutionarily and biochemically appropriate diet is the first step to better health -- and that includes plenty of delicious, nutrient-dense animal products. 

T Sayce:

Soaked and sprouted seeds and beans contain less antinutrients than raw seeds and beans, but they're still inferior food.  Sprouting doesn't magically add lysine to grain protein, deactivate gluten exorphins, or turn linoleic acid into an omega-3 fat.

The only reason I see to eat them is that you're too poor to afford real food.  This is a legitimate concern, but "Ezekiel bread isn't as bad for you as white bread" is not a sufficient argument to get me to eat it.  Even the humble white potato is a superior nutritional source, containing complete protein and a solid complement of bioavailable vitamins and minerals.

JS

JohnL:

Paleo is a 2.6 million year old "fad".  I've previously responded to criticisms like yours at length, in the following article: "What Is The Paleo Diet, Anyway?" 

"what about the connection b/t cancer rates and meat consumption?"

There is none -- you've been lied to by decades of vegetarian propaganda.  See the following references, among many others:

Patty W Siri-Tarino, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, and Ronald M Krauss. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr Jan 2010

“A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.”

Circulation. 2010 Jun 1;121(21):2271-83. Epub 2010 May 17.
Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D.
Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.

"Red meat intake was not associated with CHD (n=4 studies; relative risk per 100-g serving per day=1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.23; P for heterogeneity=0.36) or diabetes mellitus (n=5; relative risk=1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.46; P=0.25)."

And if you were convinced by "The China Study", note that Campbell's book is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the actual China Study, which shows that meat intake is associated with longer life, and wheat intake is associated with shorter life.  See: "The China Study, A Formal Analysis And Response."

I was vegetarian once, because I once believed the same propaganda you do.  Upon doing my own in-depth research, I realized that the science is unequivocal: humans are omnivores who are not only well-adapted to a diet with animal products -- we require them, and we are healthier, happier, and stronger when we eat them.

JS