Opinions on HIGH fat, MODERATE protein, LOW carb diet!

I've been trying really hard to shoot for this, but being vegetarian I'm finding it pretty difficult.

On my list are: eggs, avocado, nuts, butter, coconut and MCT oils, and greens, and full fat yogurt and cottage cheese.

I know it's a long shot, but can anybody think of anything else to add to the list?

Eggs can make or break your keto diet depending on your diet. If not Tofu will be your main center.

-Tofu seems to average about 100 calories, 10 grams of protein, 5 grams of fat, and 2~3 Carbs with about 1 being fiber depending on brand. Needs to visit store to determine this...

- Natural peanut butter. PB2 if possible.

- whey protein shakes (lowest carb count you can find)

- higj fiberous veggies ( broccoli, spinach, lettuce, cauliflower, avocado). For salads you can add high fat dressing such as ranch, or blue cheese (preferably home made to avoid added preservatives)

- almonds, walnuts, pecans, macadamia nuts

- evoo, fish oil, flax oils, soy sauce.in moderation, mayo, mustard, Dijon mustard

- flax meal

- Full fat cheeses &cottage cheese in moderation

- heavy cream/redi-whip in moderation

Found this meal idea from bodybuilding.com:

-tofu fried in olive oil with asparagus
-cheese cubes and almonds (snack)
-egg salad (whole eggs mixed with mustard and mayo)
- salad with lettuce, asparagus, brocolli, ranch dressing and eggs, but you can add walnuts or raw tofu.
-cottage cheese with a handful of walnuts.
-stir fry with tofu or eggs
-veggie burgers with 1 ounce full fat cheese and 1 tbsp mayo (look for lowest possible carb veggie burger)

Thanks for this list, its\'s really helpful. Why do you recommend pb2 over natural PB?

Thing is...people with insulin problems...carbs just exacerbate hunger. If I eat carbs that are not vegetables or berries I am STARVING at 2000 cals. When I eat low carb I am very satisfied between 1200 and 1800 with no urge at all to eat. THIS is how the low carb diet is superior to ME, it allows me a deficit without starving to death and being tormented by insulin driven hunger pangs.

This.

I know perfectly well that I can lose weight just counting calories. I've done that.

I also know from personal experience that when I'm eating a lot of carbs, I actually am hungrier. I just am. I WANT food more often and am hungry more quickly when I'm eating a high number of refined carbs. That apparently is just the way that my body works.

I actually became somewhat concerned when I had my blood sugar tested. Plus, I was exhibiting some of the early markers of insulin resistance. For me, the decision to limit my carb intake was as much about reducing my blood sugar numbers as it was about losing weight.

Cutting way back on refined carbs (sugar and flours) but eating plenty of vegetables along with reasonable servings of fruit and dairy has worked quite well for me. I feel satiated longer. My blood sugar numbers have come down to good levels. My blood pressure came down to optimal levels (It was never particularly bad, but now it's down to something that's quite good). AND my weight has come down.

People need to find what works for them.

Limiting sugar spikes works for me. I lose weight. I'm satisfied while meeting my calorie requirements. I feel better. I have more energy.

It may not work for everyone, but that's okay. I have to find what I can maintain for the long term and so far this seems to be working.

To lose weight, my macros ratios have never mattered at all (unless we are talking about water weight, which I hope we are just talking fat loss). Macros *only* make a difference in health, not weight loss, unless you are sensitive or allergic to something. I think people put too much thought into the minutia when they really just need to concern themselves with a calorie deficit, IMHO. That being said, if you can sustain this diet and it keeps you healthy, go ahead...

I disagree. Yes, you lose weight when you eat less calories than you burn. Everyone knows this. But, when your body doesn't get enough carbs, it is forced to burn fat for energy. Therefore, adhering to a low carb diet and eat more protein, you will burn more fat and maintain more muscle mass. If you were to eat purely carbs yet eat at a deficit, you will lose weight, but it will be mostly muscle mass. And who wants that?

They said to lose weight, not fat. If you don't make the distinction in what type of weight you want to lose, then they are correct. But I think even in a ketogenic diet you would still lose some LBM along with the fat? If not, do you have a source for that?

To lose weight, my macros ratios have never mattered at all (unless we are talking about water weight, which I hope we are just talking fat loss). Macros *only* make a difference in health, not weight loss, unless you are sensitive or allergic to something. I think people put too much thought into the minutia when they really just need to concern themselves with a calorie deficit, IMHO. That being said, if you can sustain this diet and it keeps you healthy, go ahead...

I disagree. Yes, you lose weight when you eat less calories than you burn. Everyone knows this. But, when your body doesn't get enough carbs, it is forced to burn fat for energy. Therefore, adhering to a low carb diet and eat more protein, you will burn more fat and maintain more muscle mass. If you were to eat purely carbs yet eat at a deficit, you will lose weight, but it will be mostly muscle mass. And who wants that?

That is low carb fantasy speak, as already stated, holding cals and protein constant fat loss is not significantly different between low carb diets and higher carb diets. Also carbs are muscle sparing and low carb has been shown to be inferior for lbm retention compared to higher carb diets, again holding protein and cals constant

I am curious to know exactly how carbs are muscle sparing.

To lose weight, my macros ratios have never mattered at all (unless we are talking about water weight, which I hope we are just talking fat loss). Macros *only* make a difference in health, not weight loss, unless you are sensitive or allergic to something. I think people put too much thought into the minutia when they really just need to concern themselves with a calorie deficit, IMHO. That being said, if you can sustain this diet and it keeps you healthy, go ahead...

I disagree. Yes, you lose weight when you eat less calories than you burn. Everyone knows this. But, when your body doesn't get enough carbs, it is forced to burn fat for energy. Therefore, adhering to a low carb diet and eat more protein, you will burn more fat and maintain more muscle mass. If you were to eat purely carbs yet eat at a deficit, you will lose weight, but it will be mostly muscle mass. And who wants that?

That is low carb fantasy speak, as already stated, holding cals and protein constant fat loss is not significantly different between low carb diets and higher carb diets. Also carbs are muscle sparing and low carb has been shown to be inferior for lbm retention compared to higher carb diets, again holding protein and cals constant

Well I found this analysis of literature that indicates that low carb diets preserve more muscle mass than higher carb. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373635/

Young et al. compared three diets containing the same amounts of calories (1,800 kcal/day) and protein (115 g/day) but differing in carbohydrate content [3]. After nine weeks on the 30-g, 60-g and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8 and 11.9 kg and fat accounted for 95, 84, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively. Importantly, underwater weighing was used to determine body composition. Although these results should be interpreted cautiously given the low number of subjects, this study strongly suggests that a VLCARB promotes fat loss while preserving muscle mass, supporting the notion that "a calorie is not a calorie..."

If you have counter sources it would be great to see them.

To lose weight, my macros ratios have never mattered at all (unless we are talking about water weight, which I hope we are just talking fat loss). Macros *only* make a difference in health, not weight loss, unless you are sensitive or allergic to something. I think people put too much thought into the minutia when they really just need to concern themselves with a calorie deficit, IMHO. That being said, if you can sustain this diet and it keeps you healthy, go ahead...

I disagree. Yes, you lose weight when you eat less calories than you burn. Everyone knows this. But, when your body doesn't get enough carbs, it is forced to burn fat for energy. Therefore, adhering to a low carb diet and eat more protein, you will burn more fat and maintain more muscle mass. If you were to eat purely carbs yet eat at a deficit, you will lose weight, but it will be mostly muscle mass. And who wants that?

That is low carb fantasy speak, as already stated, holding cals and protein constant fat loss is not significantly different between low carb diets and higher carb diets. Also carbs are muscle sparing and low carb has been shown to be inferior for lbm retention compared to higher carb diets, again holding protein and cals constant

I am curious to know exactly how carbs are muscle sparing.

Gluconeogenesis...

Yes, we can use other sources of fuel for glucose than carbs - that is kind of the point of low carb diets. How does that make carbs muscle sparing?

Gluconeogenesis (abbreviated GNG) is a metabolic pathway that results in the generation of glucose from non-carbohydrate carbon substrates such as pyruvate, lactate, glycerol, glucogenic amino acids, and odd-chain fatty acid.

A lot of us get our carbs from our leafy green veggies, so we get a good amount of fiber I can honestly say I eat more, and a greater variety, of veggies since I went keto in Sept 2012. Before then, you would never catch me eating zucchini, eggplant, brussell sprouts, or avocado. Now, they are kind of staples.

For those who talk about "depriving yourself" of carbs: eating home made jalepeno stuffed chicken breasts, wrapped in bacon, grilled, the topped with cheddar and some sour cream and guac sure doesn't feel like deprivation to me!

Did you skip over this?

"However, similar to body weight, fat mass and lean body mass decreased significantly more in the very low carbohydrate group compared with the low fat group at both 3 and 6 months"

From your first study

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.long

Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/figure/F1/

Which diet looks better for lbm retention?

Edit because I misread.
The first article is 10 years old, and lower fat than this post is talking about. Even so (from the abstract, haven't read the whole article yet

Based on these data, a very low carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for short-term weight loss and, over 6 months

For your second reference: Maybe for men LF is better than low carb, but based on that figure, low carb is better for women than low fat in terms of LBM retention and the best for reducing trunk fat.

Wanted to read this article but can't get to it. Takes me to FB Health Coach Penny, but where's the article?

Thanks

I've had succes doing

15-20% carbs
30% Fat
55% Protein

No matter what you do make sure they are Healthy Fats. I've heard of these higher fat diets and I don't buy.

I am assuming that this guy doesn't know what kind of fat is healthy. Stay away from trans fat, but learn that saturated fat is OK.

Actually I really do... I've kept my borderline cholesterol levels in check for years by just avoiding unhealthy fats and adding healthy fats to my diet. I do eat lean meat and fish but also keep in mind vegetables have protein too. 100 calories of broccoli has more protein than 100 calories of beef.

Bottom line your going to have to tweak it, what works for one person may not work for another but as long as your in a calorie deficit you will lose.

Good Luck...

Question: Do you feel like you miss fiber at all? I mean.. do you have a hard time... you know, pooping?????

With adequate fat and fluid intake there is no problems with pooping...............fiber is highly overrated.

Heh I missed that question! For the first two weeks on LCHF I had the runs! And now things go just fine (codeine use aside). I use most of my carbs for leafy green veg and salad and get more fibre than some carb loving peeps.

Worked for me!!!!