I never should have ventured off this forum...
anewlifeat40
Posts: 179 Member
Sooo... I watched a YT video recently about keto and IF... and they recommended a FB group, so I joined it... I introduced myself, and after just one day I'm SO confused, so I deleted my thread there and left the group, and I'm coming back here to your wise and kind folks to sort me out... Keep in mind, this is my first time doing LCHF/keto, and it's been a STEEP learning curve... There's SO much conflicting info that I don't know if I'm coming or going anymore!! If you have research links to refer me to, please feel free to include them in your answers to the following questions:
1. Does eating too much protein throw you out of ketosis and convert to fat, or is that a myth?
2. If I eat high fat will my body merely burn the fat I'm eating for fuel instead of my body fat and stall weight loss?
3. How much fat is too much fat?
4. If I eat very little fat, and I eat very little carbs, how do I get enough calories in to feel satisfied/satiated, without eating huge amounts of protein?! I thought FAT was how that was accomplished? No?
5. The most common macros I see related to eating Keto/LCHF is 5% carbs, 20% protein, 75% fat. I was referred to a chart today called Optimal Ketogenic Living... One set of macros on the chart is based on height, another set is based on your lean body mass, but of course I was told I can't use the LBM macros because body fat monitors are inaccurate (I have an omron BF% monitor). If I set my macros to the ones based on my height my macros come out to 6% carbs, 40% protein, and 54% fat. Will those macros really "optimize" weight loss?
6. I was under the impression that macros are a ceiling, not a goal, but now I've been told that protein should be a goal and fat and carbs are a ceiling?
Thanks, oh wise ones.
1. Does eating too much protein throw you out of ketosis and convert to fat, or is that a myth?
2. If I eat high fat will my body merely burn the fat I'm eating for fuel instead of my body fat and stall weight loss?
3. How much fat is too much fat?
4. If I eat very little fat, and I eat very little carbs, how do I get enough calories in to feel satisfied/satiated, without eating huge amounts of protein?! I thought FAT was how that was accomplished? No?
5. The most common macros I see related to eating Keto/LCHF is 5% carbs, 20% protein, 75% fat. I was referred to a chart today called Optimal Ketogenic Living... One set of macros on the chart is based on height, another set is based on your lean body mass, but of course I was told I can't use the LBM macros because body fat monitors are inaccurate (I have an omron BF% monitor). If I set my macros to the ones based on my height my macros come out to 6% carbs, 40% protein, and 54% fat. Will those macros really "optimize" weight loss?
6. I was under the impression that macros are a ceiling, not a goal, but now I've been told that protein should be a goal and fat and carbs are a ceiling?
Thanks, oh wise ones.
3
Replies
-
That group is quite notorious. And they promote some weird things, as far as keto goes. Also the tone is really nasty there.2
-
That group is quite notorious. And they promote some weird things, as far as keto goes. Also the tone is really nasty there.
That was totally my impression too! Yikes!
After posting this I went back on YT and good ol butter bob had posted a super timely video that basically set my mind at ease...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO5S2J2-3ek&feature=share I just need to trust my instinct!
6 -
I believe the learning curve is just HUGE because there is no one size fits all diet. People tend to be very adamant re their way of eating once they find what works for them. I have found most of the FB pages are geared accordingly, kind of like most of the main forum here on MFP who say that only CICO matter.
That's why so many find their way here to this group. People all have their own opinions and share them freely here to HELP you on your way...not so much to persuade you that their way is the only way.
I follow many FB pages but only as a learning tool. I love the differing points of view. It can be confusing though6 -
Personally I consider carbs a ceiling, protein a goal and fats as filler as needed to meet my calorie goal/satiety.18
-
Bearing in mind that 95% of us here, well, do not exactly suffer from attention-surplus disorder, and not intending to preach to the keto-choir, I would urge all new arrivals to:
1. Spend several hours each week going through the collected lessons in the sticky LCD Launch Pad, a phenomenal resource our mods, especially @baconslave, have spent hundreds of hours compiling to help newcomers get their feet under them. (It screams "START Here!" for good reason!)
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10103966/start-here-the-lcd-launch-pad
2. Invest in one of the basic LC guidebooks written by genuine LC experts, read it (obviously), and keep it close by for reference.
My short list, FYI:
*Phinney & Volek, Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living
* Phinney, Volek, and Westman, A New Atkins for a New You (simplified version of the one above)
* Richard K. Bernstein, Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution8 -
Since your body cannot produce its own protein, you should make sure to eat enough on a daily basis. What you actually need depends on the demand of your individual body. If you're exercising in such a way that is stressing your muscles, then you will require more protein than when you don't do that.
Protein cannot be stored by the body without first being converted to glucose (not fat), so this is what gets everyone all wired up about protein. You'd have to eat quite a lot of it in one sitting for that to happen. I don't know the exact numbers but you'd probably be too full to actually eat the amount you'd need for that to be a big problem. It would be easier to overeat protein if you're eating lean meats, so that's why the advice is to always eat fatty meats. Or add fat to lean meats... Then you won't be able to overeat protein.
This kind of talk is where people get "add fat" to everything all confused in my opinion. Your body has fat. If you don't eat enough to supply your energy needs, then it will just use what it has stored. That's why it's there. Now, you don't want to be super low calorie every day for months and months because you may then damage your metabolism. But way under eating some days, is fine. If you're NOT hungry. As long as you also respect your body and eat over on the days that you are hungrier. It balances out. Learning to follow hunger queues is very important for long term maintenance. So you DO NOT have to force feed yourself extra calories or fat just because some calculator says to.
As far as carbs go, just decide if ketosis is your goal or not and if so, stick to 20-30g Max a day. I'd personally skip this net carb business because it gets sticky sometimes and could interfere with your goal of ketosis, if that's your goal.
If you eat fatty meats and non starchy veggies, you don't even need to worry about macros, it will balance out because those are the right foods like Bob was talking about. If you're making Keto "faux foods" and desserts, then I'd watch macros more closely because those can have different ratios and throw things off in one direction or another. I think they complicate a very simple way of eating.10 -
Personally I consider carbs a ceiling, protein a goal and fats as filler as needed to meet my calorie goal/satiety.
Me too. I think the confusion usually comes into play when starting any lchf plan because most all rely heavily on fat in the beginning/induction phase. Once you are a fat burner as opposed to a sugar burner, although fat is still the primary source of calories, your macros will switch up a bit. For me, it worked best changing my % every few weeks to give my body time to adjust and see how I feel.1 -
I thought the macros all have to add up to 100% now I'm confused I set Carbs at 10% Fat at 75% and 15% . I hope that is Ok because that is what I am getting used to shooting for.0
-
Bearing in mind that 95% of us here, well, do not exactly suffer from attention-surplus disorder, and not intending to preach to the keto-choir, I would urge all new arrivals to:
1. Spend several hours each week going through the collected lessons in the sticky LCD Launch Pad, a phenomenal resource our mods, especially @baconslave, have spent hundreds of hours compiling to help newcomers get their feet under them. (It screams "Start Here" for good reason!)
[/i]
So true! We seriously have the best Mods ever! Our launchpad is full of amazing resources with supporting science.6 -
1. Does eating too much protein throw you out of ketosis and convert to fat, or is that a myth?
- Eating too much protein can cause your body to convert it to glucose (a type of carbs) but not to fat. It takes alot of protein to do this though and your body has to work harder to covert it so if you're eating enough fat (and few enough carbs) your body will use the fat over the protein. You can often notice you're eating too much protein if your breath becomes putrid/you begin to develop cystic acne around your face and jaw line. Using a good keto calculator will help you to keep your protein levels in check. I recommend this one: http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/
2. If I eat high fat will my body merely burn the fat I'm eating for fuel instead of my body fat and stall weight loss?
- Weight loss is all about calories in versus calories out. Your body will burn the fat you are eating for fuel but if you are tracking your calories and eating below the amount you burn then you will lose weight. The above calculator will help you work out how many calories you burn and how many you need eat to lose weight.
3. How much fat is too much fat?
- Again, the calculator will tell you.
4. If I eat very little fat, and I eat very little carbs, how do I get enough calories in to feel satisfied/satiated, without eating huge amounts of protein?! I thought FAT was how that was accomplished? No?
- Carbs, fat and protein are the three groups of foods. If you lower one you must raise another. As before the body finds it difficult to convert protein to fuel, if you are following a low carb or keto diet you need to raise your fat intake to meet your calories and fuel your body. Both fat and protein should help you feel full.
5. The most common macros I see related to eating Keto/LCHF is 5% carbs, 20% protein, 75% fat. I was referred to a chart today called Optimal Ketogenic Living... One set of macros on the chart is based on height, another set is based on your lean body mass, but of course I was told I can't use the LBM macros because body fat monitors are inaccurate (I have an omron BF% monitor). If I set my macros to the ones based on my height my macros come out to 6% carbs, 40% protein, and 54% fat. Will those macros really "optimize" weight loss?
- Again weight loss is based on calories in versus calories out. No matter what your percentage split its all based on how many calories that 100% adds up to. Generally speaking most people chose less than 50g or less a day to get into and stay keto. You can use the calculator to make up the amount of protein and fat around this. It will tell you when something is too high and how many calories to lose weight.
6. I was under the impression that macros are a ceiling, not a goal, but now I've been told that protein should be a goal and fat and carbs are a ceiling?
- I haven't heard these terms before but the general rules are that if you want to stay in keto you need to stay under your carb amount (ceiling) and consume enough fat for fuel (goal) and protein to prevent muscle loss (goal) without going over these which will raise your total calorie count and incur weight gain.
I hope this helps x8 -
What is YT?
1 -
dmariet116 wrote: »kind of like most of the main forum here on MFP who say that only CICO matter.
A genuine question asked in a friendly way: what other mechanism can cause weight loss? I see people who don't believe in CICO quite often but to me its logic. I can't think of any other system of anatomy that would cause weight loss??
1 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Bearing in mind that 95% of us here, well, do not exactly suffer from attention-surplus disorder, and not intending to preach to the keto-choir, I would urge all new arrivals to:
1. Spend several hours each week going through the collected lessons in the sticky LCD Launch Pad, a phenomenal resource our mods, especially @baconslave, have spent hundreds of hours compiling to help newcomers get their feet under them. (It screams "Start Here" for good reason!)
[/i]
So true! We seriously have the best Mods ever! Our launchpad is full of amazing resources with supporting science.
We probably need a Mod Appreciation Day!
Yea, Mods! 7 -
-
I just grabbed this from the launchpad.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10107242/the-skinny-on-fat-silencing-your-fear-of-dietary-fats?new=1
FROM THE LINK ABOVE
"How Much Fat Should I Eat?
Specific plans may have specific numbers or percentages for you to target, however, in general, this is the rule you should follow:
* Eat under your carbs.
* Eat your protein target based on your height/weight and activity level.
* Fill the rest of your intake with fat to satiety."
IT GOES ON TO DISCUSS HOW TO INCORPORATE FAT INTO YOUR DIET, BUT THATS NOT INTENDED TO MEAN CONTINUE EATING FAT EVEN WHEN NOT HUNGRY JUST TO HIT THAT "GOAL" NUMBER THE CALCULATOR GAVE YOU. THAT SENTENCE, "Fat to satiety". That's the key. Make your meals low carb, high fat. Then stop eating when your satisfied.
Here's a discussion about too much protein...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10438750/too-much-protein/
There's lots of stuff in the open threads link in launch pad.1 -
This was very informative to me. Glad the op got this going. I've been reading so many conflicting this it was beginning to jumble in my head. I have read the launch pad but still having to read it again and again I guess to get it thru my thick scull1
-
anewlifeat40 wrote: »After posting this I went back on YT and good ol butter bob had posted a super timely video that basically set my mind at ease...
Thanks for sharing the butter bob video! Helpful
0 -
But that part you have in caps ^^ up there @Sunny_Bunny_ is meant for those who desire weight loss. Correct? I believe there are people here who chose a ketogenic diet for reasons other than weight loss so if their desire is to maintain their weight AND remain in ketosis wouldn't it then be necessary to not just eat fats to satiety but rather to eat enough calories to maintain their weight - in the ratios or percentages (of fats, proteins, carbs) that keep them in the metabolic state of ketosis?
I realize there are multiple ways to achieve a ketogenic state whether it be through macro manipulation with or without exercise or via the accelerating properties of MCT oils.0 -
NonnaTurtle wrote: »anewlifeat40 wrote: »After posting this I went back on YT and good ol butter bob had posted a super timely video that basically set my mind at ease...
Thanks for sharing the butter bob video! Helpful
Butter Bob is great. He's a very good populist of stuff he distills from the books, vids, and articles of real experts.
But there's no substitute for the real McCoys, and a lot of their stuff is quite approachable.2 -
But that part you have in caps ^^ up there @Sunny_Bunny_ is meant for those who desire weight loss. Correct? I believe there are people here who chose a ketogenic diet for reasons other than weight loss so if their desire is to maintain their weight AND remain in ketosis wouldn't it then be necessary to not just eat fats to satiety but rather to eat enough calories to maintain their weight - in the ratios or percentages (of fats, proteins, carbs) that keep them in the metabolic state of ketosis?
I realize there are multiple ways to achieve a ketogenic state whether it be through macro manipulation with or without exercise or via the accelerating properties of MCT oils.
Well, I still wouldn't recommend someone to continue eating even if they're not hungry... So, while I agree with what you're saying about it depending on your goal, I never think forcing yourself to eat is a good thing. Regardless of estimated TDEE and calorie calculations, I figure our body (given the right foods) knows how much it needs and will self regulate our intake.
So, ultimately, I think it still applies to everyone.3 -
dancing_daisy wrote: »dmariet116 wrote: »kind of like most of the main forum here on MFP who say that only CICO matter.
A genuine question asked in a friendly way: what other mechanism can cause weight loss? I see people who don't believe in CICO quite often but to me its logic. I can't think of any other system of anatomy that would cause weight loss??
I think CICO definitely works but sometimes people make it sound like that is the only thing that matters, not other factors. For some of us, our macro ratios really affect our rate of weight loss (or gain). E.g. when I started keto, I kept calories the same, just shifted macros, and started losing weight where I'd been struggling to lose before.
OP, FWIW I do 10% carbs, 65% fat and 25% protein. I've aimed to stay under 20-30gm net carbs. Many people can eat up to 50gm carbs/day and stay in ketosis; you can experiment a bit with it. I initially tried to stay under 20 net but found it didn't seem to make a difference if I went up to 30 and sometimes 40 net in a day. If I start going over 50-60 (even once I hit maitenance), it seems I start losing the benefits LCHF has had for me. You can experiment to see what works for you.4 -
dancing_daisy wrote: »dmariet116 wrote: »kind of like most of the main forum here on MFP who say that only CICO matter.
A genuine question asked in a friendly way: what other mechanism can cause weight loss? I see people who don't believe in CICO quite often but to me its logic. I can't think of any other system of anatomy that would cause weight loss??
I think generally those that say CICO doesn't or didn't work for them in previous weight loss attempts, just mean that eating everything in moderation and at a calorie deficit didn't work for them.
Lots of reasons why... But usually, it's because they feel hungry too often or even constantly and have to use will power to not eat over their calories. This is just not sustainable.
I don't think they are saying that you can eat a surplus of calories and expect to lose weight. The idea is that when you eat the right foods or the right way for you, you will be able to eat fewer calories and achieve fat loss WITHOUT being hungry.
So eating everything in moderation at a calorie deficit, is typically what they are saying doesn't work. Not that you don't need to eat less overall.6 -
Whew!! I knew I could depend on you all to sort me out! So basically I should carry on with what I'm doing and fuhgettabout the micro-detail macro nazis.12
-
Thank you both Sunny Bunny and macchiatto for clarifying my CICO confusion. I know exactly where you care coming from now!
0 -
dancing_daisy wrote: »dmariet116 wrote: »kind of like most of the main forum here on MFP who say that only CICO matter.
A genuine question asked in a friendly way: what other mechanism can cause weight loss? I see people who don't believe in CICO quite often but to me its logic. I can't think of any other system of anatomy that would cause weight loss??
It's not that the idea that "eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight" isn't technically true, it's that it's a gross oversimplification of reality.
The first problem is that calorie counts of foods are determined using a bomb calorimeter, which essentially combusts the item and measures how much the water temperature raises. Since a calorie is a measure of how much heat it takes to raise a certain amount of water 1 degree Celsius, this is a consistent way to measure the amount of (combustible) energy in a food item.
But here's the problem -- we don't combust our food. We dismantle it. We convert it around to different substrates. We use those substrates for various purposes. We convert the raw energy pieces to bioelectricity. We store other pieces as various forms of stored energy. We use yet other pieces to create hormones or build cells.
The difference between what a bomb calorimeter does and what our bodies do is roughly akin to the difference between what a fireplace does and what a nuclear reactor does. And the problem is that we're trying to determine the energy output of the nuclear reactor by measuring that of the fireplace.
In other words, without even getting into the fact that the calorimeter only measures heat, and energy from a combustion reaction takes on more forms than just heat (ie - light, particles, etc), we've already demonstrated how the fundamental differences have rendered the known caloric amounts of food not particularly accurate. To make matters worse, the labels can be off by something like 20%.
Then, we have the matter of the accuracy of the "calories out" half of the equation. Calculators can't even begin to account for all the variables that go into that part of the equation. What's your average body temperature? If you're a woman, where are you in your monthly cycle? What is your cortisol level? How much do you fidget? All these things factor into your "calories out" half of the equation, and can account for several hundred calories.
Then we have the matter of hormones and hormonal balance to deal with. Hyperinsulinemia, thyroid issues, elevated cortisol. These things can send the wrong signals around, resulting in weight gain where there shouldn't be. The really fun part is that it's not that the body isn't using the energy (the metabolism hasn't necessarily slowed down), but rather, the body is sending the wrong signals around, telling itself to store the energy even while other parts are screaming that they're starving.
On top of that, different foods are processed differently and send different hormonal signals. 100 calories of protein is going to be handled differently than 100 calories of glucose or 100 calories of lard. Of that 100 calories of protein, the most that can be stored as energy in some form is about 75, and if it's to be stored as fat, you're looking at about 60 calories of that original 100 (it has to be converted to sugar, then to fat, both of which have a roughly 75% efficiency rate). Odds are good, though, that the bulk of that 100 calories of protein will be stored or used as amino acids for maintenance and building of lean mass. Likewise, 100 calories of glucose is going to skyrocket insulin output, while 100 calories of lard will not.
So, why do we use the methods we do for measuring calories? Because it was "good enough" to put into widespread use. The difference isn't quite as much as the fireplace and nuclear reactor, so "close" is "close enough," generally speaking. But notice the abysmal rates of weight management in general, even among the highly motivated. Notice what it takes for many people to lose and maintain their weight. Notice how dependent people are on weighing and measuring and tracking when fighting against their body, just to maintain their weight.
Now, consider this -- the idea of calories is a very new concept. Even the measurement of a calorie as a unit of heat did not exist until around 1800. The 1850s saw the first usage of calories as a way of measuring human metabolism (interestingly, the original usage qualifies the metabolism of the subject with "depending on prior diet"). The 1870s was when we first started seeing calories as they relate to food and weight management. (http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/12/2957.full)
What did we do before that? When food was readily available, we generally watched what we ate. You can see this in older shows, where a character wanting to drop a couple of pounds would skip the bread, potatoes, or sugary dessert, and would opt for just the meat and non-starchy vegetables. The focus was on the quality of the food, instead of just the quantity, because quantity generally took care of itself (stop eating when you get full).
Look at our focus now -- calories, calories, calories. Nutrition be damned, pretty much. You can eat whatever you want, as long as you don't go over your calories. Never mind that your hunger cues are jacked from all the insulin you're pumping around your body, and that the food you're eating is nutritionally bankrupt. You just need more willpower to keep yourself from eating more. If you fail, it's a personal failing on your part, not a biological issue. Not losing weight? Eat less and move more. You say you're only eating 1000 calories and you bike 10 miles a day? You're not losing weight, so you must be lying.31 -
@baconslave - this is hands down one of the best explanations of the insanity that is calorie restriction in general, without figuring out one's own body and such... I'd love to see this and any future discussion somewhere readily found in the sticky!4
-
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: ».
I don't think they are saying that you can eat a surplus of calories and expect to lose weight. The idea is that when you eat the right foods or the right way for you, you will be able to eat fewer calories and achieve fat loss WITHOUT being hungry.
So eating everything in moderation at a calorie deficit, is typically what they are saying doesn't work. Not that you don't need to eat less overall.
That seems like a pretty accurate and astute paraphrase. Good observation.
In reality, I think counting CI and CO might be a little like drawing pictures in the dark. Bad labeling, inaccurate portion and exercise estimates, etc, can make your results miss by a mile through no fault of your own. Doesn't mean CICO is invalid but rather that' its of limited use in our crude hands....
1 -
This video was very interesting and informative, thank you for sharing! It helped clear up some things for me, too, and it makes me think that maybe I am too obsessed with trying to attain macro goals each day when I should just keep eating these foods until my body says to stop. Perhaps I don't need to spend time each morning planning out the whole day and calculating everything carefully, perhaps I just need to listen to my body.5
-
This video was very interesting and informative, thank you for sharing! It helped clear up some things for me, too, and it makes me think that maybe I am too obsessed with trying to attain macro goals each day when I should just keep eating these foods until my body says to stop. Perhaps I don't need to spend time each morning planning out the whole day and calculating everything carefully, perhaps I just need to listen to my body.
YES!! One of the techniques that cured my binge eating disorder 10 years ago was implementing intuitive eating - eat only when hungry, stop when satiated (not "full"). (The hormone leptin controls hunger and satiety cues, btw... Lots of cool recent research on that.) Problem was, with my jacked up PCOS insulin resistant hormonal mess of a system, I was eating all the wrong types of food (carb heavy diet) so my body just kept storing fat and asking for more... If I implement those skills now with LCHF though, theoretically my body should melt the stored fat and balance out my hormones...3 -
dmariet116 wrote: »I believe the learning curve is just HUGE because there is no one size fits all diet. People tend to be very adamant re their way of eating once they find what works for them.
This is so good. And it applies to ALL THINGS not just diet! Haha! But it really is a process of trial and error to find what works best or "optimal" for your body. I'm finding my groove after 2 1/2 months The direction and counsel on this forum is so good. Use it as your start and tweak things along the way.
4
This discussion has been closed.