New to LCHF - are all carbs bad?
Options
Replies
-
KnitOrMiss wrote: »That gives me 42%!
Yeah, none of them are going to be perfect, unless you do a BodPod or DEXA scan (and even those aren't perfect, though they're most accurate). That gives you the same as the bioimpedence one, though, so I'd say they're the more reasonable than that other one.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »That gives me 42%!
Is your bf% making much difference in the calculator? None of them are accurate for me because of the fluid retention, but I tried it with the 58 I get from the waist/hip ratio and the 47 that the calculator suggests based on height/weight. I saw a difference of about 6 calories/day if I switched from sedentary to light activity, but nothing profound.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »That gives me 42%!
Is your bf% making much difference in the calculator? None of them are accurate for me because of the fluid retention, but I tried it with the 58 I get from the waist/hip ratio and the 47 that the calculator suggests based on height/weight. I saw a difference of about 6 calories/day if I switched from sedentary to light activity, but nothing profound.
The protein calculation is usually based on lean body mass.0 -
And yes, the body fat% and therefore lean body mass in grams/percentage was MASSIVELY different as far as what protein levels I needed. With the higher body fat, I need 56-92 grams of protein. With the lower body fat, I need 81-135 grams of protein. So there is only an 11 gram overlap there that is a massive difference... Almost 30 pounds off on the minimum...over 30 pounds off on the maximum... So yeah, it makes huge differences there. I'm not counting/tracking right now, so I don't know where I'm falling currently, but I'm definitely enjoying my meat.0
-
KnitOrMiss wrote: »sljohnson1207 wrote: »Try this calculator for a good estimate. Depending on your stats and how aggressively you are trying to lose, 1200 is pretty low, esp. if exercising, too.
http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/
So based on my hip/waist/neck/height ratio, the calculator estimates 62.65% body fat. My scale at home as well as my the handheld body fat thingie both say 45% or so... I'm between the pictures usually for 45-55%... That is such a huge variation of body fat possibilities... What do y'all think?
I think online calculators for bf% are notoriously wrong. The keto-calculator link above says according to my height and weight, that I may have 32% bodyfat. Via hydrostatic weighing and bio-impedence it was 21% and 20.5% respectively on March 30th. The calculators that use girth may be a little more accurate, but only use the ones that have many points of measure, because we are not all shaped the same. Overall, I wouldn't go by any of those online "guesses" because that is exactly what they are. And really, I don't think comparing pictures is that great either, particularly, when some of us have been/are plagued with a bit of body dysmorphia (sp?).
0 -
sljohnson1207 wrote: »KnitOrMiss wrote: »sljohnson1207 wrote: »Try this calculator for a good estimate. Depending on your stats and how aggressively you are trying to lose, 1200 is pretty low, esp. if exercising, too.
http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/
So based on my hip/waist/neck/height ratio, the calculator estimates 62.65% body fat. My scale at home as well as my the handheld body fat thingie both say 45% or so... I'm between the pictures usually for 45-55%... That is such a huge variation of body fat possibilities... What do y'all think?
I think online calculators for bf% are notoriously wrong. The keto-calculator link above says according to my height and weight, that I may have 32% bodyfat. Via hydrostatic weighing and bio-impedence it was 21% and 20.5% respectively on March 30th. The calculators that use girth may be a little more accurate, but only use the ones that have many points of measure, because we are not all shaped the same. Overall, I wouldn't go by any of those online "guesses" because that is exactly what they are. And really, I don't think comparing pictures is that great either, particularly, when some of us have been/are plagued with a bit of body dysmorphia (sp?).
Yeah, twisted body image issues. I actually thought I was about three settings lower than my body image matched up too, mostly because I don't carry my weight traditionally. I always blame my Polish heritage, but I dunno why it really is. LOL Maybe because I know how bad it used to be! I just kind of go for an average. I just shocked the heck out of me that the one said I was 63% fat!
I mean here that if I match the core of my body, the arms, chest, legs, etc. don't match up. If I look for the best balance between the two, I'm still off. I still don't know how to see myself completely clearly...
I really liked this one ... Covert Bailey calculation ... because it took into account wrist, forearm, calf and neck measurements... My weight is mostly central - chest, butt, and gut, so balancing out with my lower measurements, it gave me a lower number, which matches up with the chart my doctor's office uses. I wasn't really concerned for any reason other than calculating protein needs. So an average range works for me!0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »And yes, the body fat% and therefore lean body mass in grams/percentage was MASSIVELY different as far as what protein levels I needed. With the higher body fat, I need 56-92 grams of protein. With the lower body fat, I need 81-135 grams of protein. So there is only an 11 gram overlap there that is a massive difference... Almost 30 pounds off on the minimum...over 30 pounds off on the maximum... So yeah, it makes huge differences there. I'm not counting/tracking right now, so I don't know where I'm falling currently, but I'm definitely enjoying my meat.
Ah. My protein stayed in range at either number, so I didn't really consider that as a change.0
