Has anyone used Ideal Protein prior to doing keto?
kristafb
Posts: 770 Member
Hi everyone,
I did keto for about 2 years and after an initial loss of 20 lbs stalled. I felt great but maintained my weight and at 230 that wasn't what I was hoping for. I decided to try Ideal Protein last October and have lost 40lbs but I really miss keto. I don't like eating all the processed, packaged foods, and want a more natural diet. I think the main reason I was successful with IP was that it is low carb (which I need) and low fat. Is it possible to do keto with a lower fat level and be successful? I don't work out and I think perhaps I was eating too much fat last time for my body to burn its own fat off.
I did keto for about 2 years and after an initial loss of 20 lbs stalled. I felt great but maintained my weight and at 230 that wasn't what I was hoping for. I decided to try Ideal Protein last October and have lost 40lbs but I really miss keto. I don't like eating all the processed, packaged foods, and want a more natural diet. I think the main reason I was successful with IP was that it is low carb (which I need) and low fat. Is it possible to do keto with a lower fat level and be successful? I don't work out and I think perhaps I was eating too much fat last time for my body to burn its own fat off.
1
Replies
-
Yes. For weight loss purposes you are supposed to reduce fat despite what the masses on Facebook may say.
It's not the eating of obscene amounts of fat that make it keto. It's the low carb.
And to quote Ted Naiman,
Now, that's not to say that you don't still have a high fat keto diet because you do! But part of that fat should be bodyfat...
2 -
People see those 5/20/75 percent macro recommendations and think that's what you eat
It's not!
It's your total TDEE. If you want to lose bodyfat you need to reduce the 75% part (fat) to allow some of it to be bodyfat.
That also means that 20% protein number is NOT 20% of your calories eaten. It's 20% of your TDEE. Which is a higher number. But honestly, all of this should be calculated to being measured in grams anyway.
Use the Ketogains macro calculator if you want a well formulated keto diet for body fat loss.2 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »People see those 5/20/75 percent macro recommendations and think that's what you eat
It's not!
It's your total TDEE. If you want to lose bodyfat you need to reduce the 75% part (fat) to allow some of it to be bodyfat.
That also means that 20% protein number is NOT 20% of your calories eaten. It's 20% of your TDEE. Which is a higher number. But honestly, all of this should be calculated to being measured in grams anyway.
Use the Ketogains macro calculator if you want a well formulated keto diet for body fat loss.
I disagree with this UNLESS someone has set MFP to maintenance. I am in maintenance and have MFP set to "maintain" so the number of calories mfp gives me to eat each day is (sedentary) TDEE (kind of. See last paragraph).
Anyone who has mfp set to lose X per week is given calories lower than their TDEE (a deficit). This is one reason I personally frown upon the frequent advise of don't eat eat if you are not hungry. To do so is eating at deficit on top of the already given deficit.
Actually MFP doesn't even use TDEE. MFP is based on N.E.A.T. (non-exercise activity thermogenesis).0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »People see those 5/20/75 percent macro recommendations and think that's what you eat
It's not!
It's your total TDEE. If you want to lose bodyfat you need to reduce the 75% part (fat) to allow some of it to be bodyfat.
That also means that 20% protein number is NOT 20% of your calories eaten. It's 20% of your TDEE. Which is a higher number. But honestly, all of this should be calculated to being measured in grams anyway.
Use the Ketogains macro calculator if you want a well formulated keto diet for body fat loss.
I disagree with this UNLESS someone has set MFP to maintenance. I am in maintenance and have MFP set to "maintain" so the number of calories mfp gives me to eat each day is (sedentary) TDEE (kind of. See last paragraph).
Anyone who has mfp set to lose X per week is given calories lower than their TDEE (a deficit). This is one reason I personally frown upon the frequent advise of don't eat eat if you are not hungry. To do so is eating at deficit on top of the already given deficit.
Actually MFP doesn't even use TDEE. MFP is based on N.E.A.T. (non-exercise activity thermogenesis).
I don't understand where the disagreement is.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »People see those 5/20/75 percent macro recommendations and think that's what you eat
It's not!
It's your total TDEE. If you want to lose bodyfat you need to reduce the 75% part (fat) to allow some of it to be bodyfat.
That also means that 20% protein number is NOT 20% of your calories eaten. It's 20% of your TDEE. Which is a higher number. But honestly, all of this should be calculated to being measured in grams anyway.
Use the Ketogains macro calculator if you want a well formulated keto diet for body fat loss.
I disagree with this UNLESS someone has set MFP to maintenance. I am in maintenance and have MFP set to "maintain" so the number of calories mfp gives me to eat each day is (sedentary) TDEE (kind of. See last paragraph).
Anyone who has mfp set to lose X per week is given calories lower than their TDEE (a deficit). This is one reason I personally frown upon the frequent advise of don't eat eat if you are not hungry. To do so is eating at deficit on top of the already given deficit.
Actually MFP doesn't even use TDEE. MFP is based on N.E.A.T. (non-exercise activity thermogenesis).
I don't understand where the disagreement is.
Disagreement is when applied to how mfp works and how the vast majority use mfp as designed for weight loss.
If someone goes to another calculator and gets their TDEE and uses that number in MFP, overriding mfp data, then enters goal as maintenance versus weight loss... the number the person entered willdeficit.as their calories per day. In that case it is reasonable to not eat all of the calories (thus creating a desired deficit).
To use mfp as designed for weight loss, a deficit is built into daily calories if someone set it up to lose x pounds per week. So to eat even less is adding more deficit to an already existing deficit. Not a deficit to TDEE.
The pie chart and explanation is AOK as applied to TDEE. I like it. I agree with it. I understand it but if applied to MFP users (which is where we are right now) it is encouraging further deficit to a built in deficit.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »People see those 5/20/75 percent macro recommendations and think that's what you eat
It's not!
It's your total TDEE. If you want to lose bodyfat you need to reduce the 75% part (fat) to allow some of it to be bodyfat.
That also means that 20% protein number is NOT 20% of your calories eaten. It's 20% of your TDEE. Which is a higher number. But honestly, all of this should be calculated to being measured in grams anyway.
Use the Ketogains macro calculator if you want a well formulated keto diet for body fat loss.
I disagree with this UNLESS someone has set MFP to maintenance. I am in maintenance and have MFP set to "maintain" so the number of calories mfp gives me to eat each day is (sedentary) TDEE (kind of. See last paragraph).
Anyone who has mfp set to lose X per week is given calories lower than their TDEE (a deficit). This is one reason I personally frown upon the frequent advise of don't eat eat if you are not hungry. To do so is eating at deficit on top of the already given deficit.
Actually MFP doesn't even use TDEE. MFP is based on N.E.A.T. (non-exercise activity thermogenesis).
I don't understand where the disagreement is.
Disagreement is when applied to how mfp works and how the vast majority use mfp as designed for weight loss.
If someone goes to another calculator and gets their TDEE and uses that number in MFP, overriding mfp data, then enters goal as maintenance versus weight loss... the number the person entered willdeficit.as their calories per day. In that case it is reasonable to not eat all of the calories (thus creating a desired deficit).
To use mfp as designed for weight loss, a deficit is built into daily calories if someone set it up to lose x pounds per week. So to eat even less is adding more deficit to an already existing deficit. Not a deficit to TDEE.
The pie chart and explanation is AOK as applied to TDEE. I like it. I agree with it. I understand it but if applied to MFP users (which is where we are right now) it is encouraging further deficit to a built in deficit.
I think k you're misunderstanding the chart.
It doesn't matter what MFP says.
Whatever method a person chooses to guess at their TDEE, it still applies.
Here's how it works.
Say TDEE is 2000 calories .
If someone wants to use the generic percentages to calculate their macros then 20% of calories come from protein... 5% from carbs and 75% from fat.
Again, of TDEE... that is 400 calories (100 grams) from protein, 100 calories (20g) from carbs and 1500 calories (167g) from fat.
Now, you decide you want to eat at a 500 calorie a day deficit... so you reduce the fat by 500 calories.
You definitely don't add more deficit on top of deficit. That's not at all what this is saying.2 -
If you calculate those macros at 1500 calories which is the assumed deficit instead of
100g P
20g C
and the reduced 111g F... you end up with
75g P
7 or 8g C (but most people just stick with 20g and reduce protein even further.
And 125g F
So you're under eating protein and overeating fat.
You're still getting more of your calories from dietary fat and less from bodyfat...
In the first scenario you're only getting 50% of calories from fat, so the rest is all bodyfat. That comes out to almost a 10% difference every day in where the fat you're using for energy is coming from while eating the same total calories with the assumed 500 calorie deficit.1 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »People see those 5/20/75 percent macro recommendations and think that's what you eat It's not! It's your total TDEE.
The above in bold is the only part I am disagreeing with, WHEN one is using MFP, as designed, for weight loss. MFP is my frame of reference since that is where we all are. You are thinking outside the MFP frame of reference. We're in different houses. LOL.
So...when people are using MFP and see those macro recommendations then apply them in MFP it IS what (the amount) they should eat if they are "goal setting" via MFP's program.
Forget the fact MFP uses N.E.A.T versus TDEE (mute) and consider this example (as related to MFP usage:
I know you know his @Sunny_Bunny_ but will explain for a newbie: A user weights X and wants to lose 2 pounds per week. To use round numbers let's say User's current weight results calories of 2000 needed for maintenance at that weight. The user wants to lose 2 pounds a week so enters "lose 2 pounds per week in MFP as a goal. MFP (if it would go below the magical 1200 calorie number) would spit out: eat 1000 calories/per day to lose 2 pounds per week. We know the standard calculation: 2 pounds x 3500 calories in a pound = 7000 calories per week/7 days in a week = 1000 calories a day. So to lose 2 pounds a week: 2000 minus the 1000 calorie deficit (to come from body fat) = 1000 calories per day to eat per day. The users sighs and say "only 1000 calories to eat per day? Oh well". In this scenario there is a built in deficit of 1000 calories.
User then sets their macros in the goal section. The macros, regardless of how they are proportioned by percentages, are BASED ON 1000 calories to be eaten per day. Not 2000. Not TDEE, in MFP
In setting the macros if they chose 5/20/75, mfp would calculate 1000 x.05, 1000 x .20, 1000 x .75 for calories of 50+200+750 converted to grams of about 12c, 50p and 83 fat. So the user isn't hungry and decides not to eat some of the fat grams and let those "calories/grams" come from body fat just like the other 1000 deficit. And therein lies my point of deficit on top of deficit. A deficit set by MFP plus an additional deficit by not eating all the calories allotted.
I'm in total agreement with the pie chart and Phinney's thinking and the overall concept.
What I am not agreeing with is what I bolded above "It's TDEE". It is only TDEE (as explained earlier) if the user on MFP decided to manually enter their TDEE (as a calorie goal), overriding the system, and entering they want to MAINTAIN (versus lose X per week). Given the TDEE scenario, yes they could freely choose to not eat however many calories/grams they chose not to eat from any macro they choose (usually fat) and there is no deficit on top of deficit because the beginning point was 2000 (TDEE).
That is not how MFP is set up. It is TDEE only if someone manually sets it @ 2000 (or whatever their number happens to be.
Ramble over. Bed time.
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »If you calculate those macros at 1500 calories which is the assumed deficit instead of
100g P
20g C
and the reduced 111g F... you end up with
75g P
7 or 8g C (but most people just stick with 20g and reduce protein even further.
And 125g F
So you're under eating protein and overeating fat.
You're still getting more of your calories from dietary fat and less from bodyfat...
In the first scenario you're only getting 50% of calories from fat, so the rest is all bodyfat. That comes out to almost a 10% difference every day in where the fat you're using for energy is coming from while eating the same total calories with the assumed 500 calorie deficit.
Wow, @Sunny_Bunny_ I had missed all this before. Thanks for the explanation! It makes total sense to me!
And of course, there are ways to make this work within MFP, to get the percentages based on TDEE, then use the numbers to set the MFP percentages, rather than do all the calculation work! Definitely food for thought next time I dig in!
So simplified version, in my head. Carbs are a limit, protein is a range, fat to satiety...your deficit should come solely out of your fat, because you still need the protein, no matter what deficit you're at...you can still eat your limit of carbs for ketosis...but fat is the "flexible macro," so the deficit part is in the "flexible part." I felt like Homer Simpson going, "Doh!" Definitely lightbulb moment!2 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »People see those 5/20/75 percent macro recommendations and think that's what you eat It's not! It's your total TDEE.
The above in bold is the only part I am disagreeing with, WHEN one is using MFP, as designed, for weight loss. MFP is my frame of reference since that is where we all are. You are thinking outside the MFP frame of reference. We're in different houses. LOL.
So...when people are using MFP and see those macro recommendations then apply them in MFP it IS what (the amount) they should eat if they are "goal setting" via MFP's program.
Forget the fact MFP uses N.E.A.T versus TDEE (mute) and consider this example (as related to MFP usage:
I know you know his @Sunny_Bunny_ but will explain for a newbie: A user weights X and wants to lose 2 pounds per week. To use round numbers let's say User's current weight results calories of 2000 needed for maintenance at that weight. The user wants to lose 2 pounds a week so enters "lose 2 pounds per week in MFP as a goal. MFP (if it would go below the magical 1200 calorie number) would spit out: eat 1000 calories/per day to lose 2 pounds per week. We know the standard calculation: 2 pounds x 3500 calories in a pound = 7000 calories per week/7 days in a week = 1000 calories a day. So to lose 2 pounds a week: 2000 minus the 1000 calorie deficit (to come from body fat) = 1000 calories per day to eat per day. The users sighs and say "only 1000 calories to eat per day? Oh well". In this scenario there is a built in deficit of 1000 calories.
User then sets their macros in the goal section. The macros, regardless of how they are proportioned by percentages, are BASED ON 1000 calories to be eaten per day. Not 2000. Not TDEE, in MFP
In setting the macros if they chose 5/20/75, mfp would calculate 1000 x.05, 1000 x .20, 1000 x .75 for calories of 50+200+750 converted to grams of about 12c, 50p and 83 fat. So the user isn't hungry and decides not to eat some of the fat grams and let those "calories/grams" come from body fat just like the other 1000 deficit. And therein lies my point of deficit on top of deficit. A deficit set by MFP plus an additional deficit by not eating all the calories allotted.
I'm in total agreement with the pie chart and Phinney's thinking and the overall concept.
What I am not agreeing with is what I bolded above "It's TDEE". It is only TDEE (as explained earlier) if the user on MFP decided to manually enter their TDEE (as a calorie goal), overriding the system, and entering they want to MAINTAIN (versus lose X per week). Given the TDEE scenario, yes they could freely choose to not eat however many calories/grams they chose not to eat from any macro they choose (usually fat) and there is no deficit on top of deficit because the beginning point was 2000 (TDEE).
That is not how MFP is set up. It is TDEE only if someone manually sets it @ 2000 (or whatever their number happens to be.
Ramble over. Bed time.
I agree that MFP isn't set up to support the correct calculations without manipulation, but for those of us who've been at this a while can see, that 10% could make or break some of those with more damaged metabolisms. I imagine that MFP's opinion is that the FDA and calorie calculations assume up to 20% error allowed anyway, so 10% difference in protein is negligible for most folks...
And I always tell people, you create a calorie deficit though calculation OR through activity, not through both, or you're overtaxing your system - and that's the same relating back to you are NOT doing yourself favors by eating under your deficit calculation unless you genuinely aren't hungry. Your body will figure out if you're intentionally going hungry, and it will lower your metabolism to compensate!0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »People see those 5/20/75 percent macro recommendations and think that's what you eat It's not! It's your total TDEE.
The above in bold is the only part I am disagreeing with, WHEN one is using MFP, as designed, for weight loss. MFP is my frame of reference since that is where we all are. You are thinking outside the MFP frame of reference. We're in different houses. LOL.
So...when people are using MFP and see those macro recommendations then apply them in MFP it IS what (the amount) they should eat if they are "goal setting" via MFP's program.
Forget the fact MFP uses N.E.A.T versus TDEE (mute) and consider this example (as related to MFP usage:
I know you know his @Sunny_Bunny_ but will explain for a newbie: A user weights X and wants to lose 2 pounds per week. To use round numbers let's say User's current weight results calories of 2000 needed for maintenance at that weight. The user wants to lose 2 pounds a week so enters "lose 2 pounds per week in MFP as a goal. MFP (if it would go below the magical 1200 calorie number) would spit out: eat 1000 calories/per day to lose 2 pounds per week. We know the standard calculation: 2 pounds x 3500 calories in a pound = 7000 calories per week/7 days in a week = 1000 calories a day. So to lose 2 pounds a week: 2000 minus the 1000 calorie deficit (to come from body fat) = 1000 calories per day to eat per day. The users sighs and say "only 1000 calories to eat per day? Oh well". In this scenario there is a built in deficit of 1000 calories.
User then sets their macros in the goal section. The macros, regardless of how they are proportioned by percentages, are BASED ON 1000 calories to be eaten per day. Not 2000. Not TDEE, in MFP
In setting the macros if they chose 5/20/75, mfp would calculate 1000 x.05, 1000 x .20, 1000 x .75 for calories of 50+200+750 converted to grams of about 12c, 50p and 83 fat. So the user isn't hungry and decides not to eat some of the fat grams and let those "calories/grams" come from body fat just like the other 1000 deficit. And therein lies my point of deficit on top of deficit. A deficit set by MFP plus an additional deficit by not eating all the calories allotted.
I'm in total agreement with the pie chart and Phinney's thinking and the overall concept.
What I am not agreeing with is what I bolded above "It's TDEE". It is only TDEE (as explained earlier) if the user on MFP decided to manually enter their TDEE (as a calorie goal), overriding the system, and entering they want to MAINTAIN (versus lose X per week). Given the TDEE scenario, yes they could freely choose to not eat however many calories/grams they chose not to eat from any macro they choose (usually fat) and there is no deficit on top of deficit because the beginning point was 2000 (TDEE).
That is not how MFP is set up. It is TDEE only if someone manually sets it @ 2000 (or whatever their number happens to be.
Ramble over. Bed time.
I honestly still think you're misunderstanding me. I don't disagree with anything you're saying. I just feel like what you're saying isn't even the same thing as what this chart or what I was talking about.
I guess I'm lacking the right words to explain it better. @KnitOrMiss seemed to understand me.
Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying. But I think what you are disagreeing with is because of misunderstanding because what you're saying isn't making sense as a counter argument.
In my explanation there would never be a deficit on top of deficit but I don't know how to say it better.0 -
Let's see if a visual helps.
I first set MFP to maintain weight so I could see what my 5/20/75 macros at TDEE would be.
Ok. Now that's how much calories protein and fat I need to maintain.
Let's see the difference when I apply 5/20/75 to MFP set to lose 2lbs a week
Hmmm? Now all of things reduced with the calories but my body's need for protein DOES NOT reduce. Eating at a deficit makes protein even more important but MFP takes the calories from everything across the board.
And if 134g of fat is my maintenance fat, I'm really not eating much less in this weight loss scenario... since protein isn't efficiently used for energy, I can and should go ahead and eat at least my maintenance amount of protein and take all of the calorie reduction from fat since that what my body uses for energy right? I want to lose body fat after all.
So all I need to do is leave the recommended 1200 calories and put my protein back or as close to but not less than my maintenance amount of protein. I can adjust the carbs if I want too but here I just let them drop further and only took the calories from fat.
So at no time am I saying to calculate macros at a deficit then also eat less fat than that allows. Which is what I feel like you think I'm saying.
I'm saying figure out what your TDEE macros are because that 5/20/75 macro percentages are not your plate macros. Their your TDEE macros, part of the 75 being bodyfat.1 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »So at no time am I saying to calculate macros at a deficit then also eat less fat than that allows. Which is what I feel like you think I'm saying.
I'm saying figure out what your TDEE macros are because that 5/20/75 macro percentages are not your plate macros. Their your TDEE macros, part of the 75 being bodyfat.
LOL. As I said several posts ago you and I are in different houses. You are in the House of TDEE and I am in the House of MFP.
We both get it. Just from a different angle. Nuff said.
0 -
I have no idea what that means. I just used MFP for the example. MFP is just an app. I have no idea what you're saying. I'm really trying to figure it out since I must be missing something.
But whatever I guess.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Let's see if a visual helps.
I first set MFP to maintain weight so I could see what my 5/20/75 macros at TDEE would be.
Ok. Now that's how much calories protein and fat I need to maintain.
Let's see the difference when I apply 5/20/75 to MFP set to lose 2lbs a week
Hmmm? Now all of things reduced with the calories but my body's need for protein DOES NOT reduce. Eating at a deficit makes protein even more important but MFP takes the calories from everything across the board.
And if 134g of fat is my maintenance fat, I'm really not eating much less in this weight loss scenario... since protein isn't efficiently used for energy, I can and should go ahead and eat at least my maintenance amount of protein and take all of the calorie reduction from fat since that what my body uses for energy right? I want to lose body fat after all.
So all I need to do is leave the recommended 1200 calories and put my protein back or as close to but not less than my maintenance amount of protein. I can adjust the carbs if I want too but here I just let them drop further and only took the calories from fat.
So at no time am I saying to calculate macros at a deficit then also eat less fat than that allows. Which is what I feel like you think I'm saying.
I'm saying figure out what your TDEE macros are because that 5/20/75 macro percentages are not your plate macros. Their your TDEE macros, part of the 75 being bodyfat.
This makes so much sense to me! THank you!!! Every time I've adjusted my calories or fat in the past I let it adjust the other things across the board. I finally understand what you're saying about keeping the protein firm and adjust the fat!
2 -
When you say you were stalled at 230 lbs....how long were you stalled?
Did you take B vitamins?
Years ago, when I did a keto style diet with a clinic, they gave B6 shots.
Also if you are stalled with a keto, low-calorie diet, then is it fat or is it water weight?
I have lymphedema. I am going to try cupping to move the lymph, water weight.
Also, many people will swell temporarily just before they lose.
I am only on week three with 15 pounds lost.
As I understand setting the protein, fat, carb amount, it already considers what your body will be burning for energy.
For myself, I looked at how many calories I would need to maintain my goal weight, which is higher than where I ideally want to be. If and when I lose the goal weight, then I can consider the balance.
So I have set that maintenance calorie level as my max on my food entries.
I have set my keto amounts by that calorie level as well.
At any rate, I am very interested in how long you were plateaued and what you did try to break it.
Also since you have broken your plateau, could you return to a regular keto diet?
0 -
I used this app calculator program to check the amounts:
http://www.mydreamshape.com/keto-calculator/
the goal is the sweet spot of 1.5.
Even on keto, if you over-eat, you will not lose weight.0 -
Just to let you know, the maintenance calories that the above calculator gave me are WAY OFF from what my numbers have tested to be... It almost DOUBLED what I know my RMR to be...so keep in mind that these calculations are HIGH and don't seem to account for any metabolic issues that got you to a high weight in the first place. Even the LOSE 2 POUNDS A WEEK NUMBER is higher than my RMR - RESTING METABOLIC RATE. If I followed this calorie calculation, I would RAPIDLY gain weight...0
-
It gives me about the same numbers I get everywhere else. ~1200 bmr and ~1500 to maintain at sedentary.0
-
Hi Knit...
where did you get your numbers?
I am so interested.
If you are doing keto then you should not gain;
at most you would not lose.
Have you done mitochondria improvement?
PQQ can generate new mitochondria.
Appears to be in green foods like parsley, green peppers, kiwi fruit, and green tea.
(I got this from "that heals that" dot com....no spaces)
Hi kpk54...
thanks for letting me know it is accurate for you.
I am practicing eating what my normal weight would need to maintain.
I may have broken my plateau today.
I need to do the 20 min power walk but I never do it.
Nice talking to you.
0
