114 P 34 C 93 F - is this some form of Keto ?

viren19890
viren19890 Posts: 778 Member
edited November 16 in Social Groups
Hello,

So 114 P
34 Carbs
93 fats

Is that some sort of Keto ? or no where even close to keto ?

Replies

  • kpk54
    kpk54 Posts: 4,474 Member
    If how/what you eat causes your body to be in ketosis and maintain a ketogenic state then my "keep it simple" mind says it is a ketogenic diet.

    It could be ketogenic for you. Or not. It would not induce/maintain ketosis for me. Generally speaking fats need to be higher than protein but many will debate that. Ketogenic Diets are pretty bastardized in the "weight loss" arena.
  • cstehansen
    cstehansen Posts: 1,984 Member
    Are those grams? If so, depending on your ideal weight, and if you are trying to lose weight, and your level of insulin resistance and if those are total carbs and not net, then possibly.

    Many people need to be under 20 net carbs to reach ketosis. Some need to be even lower. More active people who are healthy can sometimes get away with more. That protein level could be good for someone with an ideal body weight over about 150 lb (doing quick math in my head), but many in the keto community would say that is too much.

    As for far, that would represent about 837 calories out of a total 1429, which would be a lowish percentage at under 60%. However, if you were looking to lose weight and thus utilizing fat from your body, this might work.
  • Sunny_Bunny_
    Sunny_Bunny_ Posts: 7,140 Member
    You would definitely be in ketosis at least some of the time eating only 34g carbs. Once you get below about 100g your body will have to make some of its own glucose, which puts you in ketosis. The lower the carbs go, the more of your body's required glucose must be made internally. To maintain full time ketosis you'd have to be at least under 50g and possibly even under 20g. That varies from person to person.
  • viren19890
    viren19890 Posts: 778 Member
    Sorry,

    Yes they are in grams and Net carbs are 18 grams. That 34 grams number is with fibers included.

    I am trying Lyle Mcdonald Rapid fat loss diet.

    He suggests keep Protein to LBM level and other things -too much detail to post here.
  • viren19890
    viren19890 Posts: 778 Member
    cstehansen wrote: »
    Are those grams? If so, depending on your ideal weight, and if you are trying to lose weight, and your level of insulin resistance and if those are total carbs and not net, then possibly.

    Many people need to be under 20 net carbs to reach ketosis. Some need to be even lower. More active people who are healthy can sometimes get away with more. That protein level could be good for someone with an ideal body weight over about 150 lb (doing quick math in my head), but many in the keto community would say that is too much.

    As for far, that would represent about 837 calories out of a total 1429, which would be a lowish percentage at under 60%. However, if you were looking to lose weight and thus utilizing fat from your body, this might work.

    18 grams is my net carbs. 34 grams is with fiber. Sorry forgot to mention in detail.
  • shadus
    shadus Posts: 424 Member
    Regularly being at 18g of net carbs will very likely put most people into and keep them in ketosis.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    edited March 2017
    viren19890 wrote: »
    Sorry,

    Yes they are in grams and Net carbs are 18 grams. That 34 grams number is with fibers included.

    I am trying Lyle Mcdonald Rapid fat loss diet.

    He suggests keep Protein to LBM level and other things -too much detail to post here.

    Is this your first RFL run? 93g of fat is not even close to RFL numbers. Your fat intake should literally be about ten fish oil caps, and trace amounts from lean meat.

    My current macro range on a daily basis as a C1:
    250-275g protein
    10-18g total carbs
    5-8g total fat

    There are daily variances of course, but that's because I am anal as hell about weighing and logging. Most people wouldn't even notice the differences that I do.

    ETA: if you are interested, I am an admin for a small community based around Lyle's various works, including RFL, ERFL, UD2.0, etc. If you'd like an invite, just let me know.
  • RalfLott
    RalfLott Posts: 5,036 Member
    You would definitely be in ketosis at least some of the time eating only 34g carbs. Once you get below about 100g your body will have to make some of its own glucose, which puts you in ketosis. The lower the carbs go, the more of your body's required glucose must be made internally. To maintain full time ketosis you'd have to be at least under 50g and possibly even under 20g. That varies from person to person.

    What about gluconeogenesis? It would seem that if your engine burns glucose, your liver would be more inclined to produce glucose from available sources than to switch fuel type. ?? .
  • Sunny_Bunny_
    Sunny_Bunny_ Posts: 7,140 Member
    RalfLott wrote: »
    You would definitely be in ketosis at least some of the time eating only 34g carbs. Once you get below about 100g your body will have to make some of its own glucose, which puts you in ketosis. The lower the carbs go, the more of your body's required glucose must be made internally. To maintain full time ketosis you'd have to be at least under 50g and possibly even under 20g. That varies from person to person.

    What about gluconeogenesis? It would seem that if your engine burns glucose, your liver would be more inclined to produce glucose from available sources than to switch fuel type. ?? .

    Haven't we already kicked that horse?
This discussion has been closed.