shortnsassy1981 wrote: »

Oh and I've lost 71 lbs in 6 months with no stalls at all.

SNS;

You are correct about the "chart".

I had not seen it before and quite frankly was surprised that S&P would have published in their names something quite that cryptic or overly general (wide ranges). At least it appeared to me to be that way from the screenshot I saw at the link.

The key though (as you said) is that "....provides a little more data....and provides LBM...".

I "assumed" (yup, I know), based on the original post that the chart was saying that for "anyone" at 5'6", anyplace within the range would be "fine" (since no mention of LBM was made), but, as you say - that is not the case.

Last night I listened to the entire Steve Phinney interview (link on the other thread). There he goes in to much greater detail on the "chart" itself, AND the whole "protein levels" issue - if you haven't heard it, it's well worth listening to (although it IS loooong).

In defense of my ignorance (regarding the chart) I would say that posting the chart WITHOUT a full explanation of the "details" behind it on how to arrive at a range for a given individual, might appear to be a bit of "cherry-picking" (and misleading), to some.

When Phinney's explanation of how to use it is taken into consideration though, and the calculations are made (for you or any individual with their specifics) - the results comport with those generally recommended here in this group as well.

His "multiplier" is a little higher than the one I use but as they say "close enough for gov't work".

I'll have to go back and listen to it again (lots of detail and it was late) but I "think" he is saying to use "ideal" LBM - which I take to mean LBM at one's "ideal" (final, target) weight for their height (based on BMI charts?), NOT their "current" weight (beginning of weight loss regimen or current).

It's an important distinction though and obviously will change the calculated values recommended. It's also a common area of confusion when folks are counseled to "multiply LBM by x.xx% (which LBM?)

When I can set aside the time to listen again (and pay closer attention to the detail) I will. He (Phinney) refers to the specific topic in a number of different responses throughout the interview so one must listen to the whole thing to put it in context.

Anyway, thank you for your post which really helps to clarify the issue and expand the knowledge base. None of us (this group or any other) "know it all" - there is ALWAYS more to learn and we can (and do) learn from each other - to me, THAT is the real benefit of groups like this - sharing knowledge.

As to your personal macros - I remain convinced that higher fat %'s are the "right" way to go for "most" (for a host of reasons not just "protein" related) and I'd argue that for "most" >50 "total" carbs + 95g protein is probably pretty close to the "edge" when it comes to maintaining B-OHB at fat adapted levels.

BUT, in YOUR particular case (and that of Miz) it IS working (as evidenced by your successful weight loss and B-OHB numbers) and one cannot argue with "success".

We are in total agreement that "one size does not fit all" and "what works for one person may or may not work for someone else" - but that works both ways.

Your "numbers" work for you (and others) BUT we're only considering ONE aspect of LCHF (weight loss) which many believe is not the "primary" reason to adopt the lifestyle. Yes, you have experienced some of the other benefits (hair, skin, etc) but I believe that is as a result of being KA and they would be there regardless of "how" you got adapted. It's the "long term" health considerations that I believe are affected more by the fat %'s (in a negative way by being too "low" on the "good" (saturated) fats.

It's going to take more long-term "clinical" studies/trials for either of us to know "for sure" but until that time (not likely in my lifetime) we can only base our "opinions" on what is out there currently and while I believe the "preponderance" of current evidence supports the "high fat" position, there is certainly room for disagreement.

Often times, such discussions are spurred on by differences of opinion and that's a GOOD thing - thanks again for your participation!

Anyway, congrats on your success (well earned) and keep on, keepin' on!

shortnsassy1981 wrote: »

Thanks!! If you're on FB, you can always join the group for research purposes. The primary admin posts tons and tons of research that you may be interested in just for curiousity's sake. I would love to do higher fat successfully for cheese purposes, but I just don't do well. Honestly I think I may have a dairy allergy. So, finding an alternate option for me is awesome!

SNS;

Don't "do" FB (or tweeter, or....) - too old and not enough time,
Can't figure out why anyone would (or should) be interested in the last time I went to the can or brushed my teeth, and I "certainly" can't say anything in 140 characters (big surprise there, huh?).

I have a bumper sticker on my car that my bride gave me for my birthday:

(Nothing personal - it's the "generic" you <g>)

My participation on this group is about all I can handle (time-wise), but I very much appreciate when folks present views that are outside the "norm" for those typically "accepted" by the majority (whether here or elsewhere) - it's how we learn and as long as the discussion can remain civil, it's for the "greater good" (probably the biggest reason I enjoy this group as much as I do).

So, you're "welcome" and "thanks" again for your contributions - looking forward to your continued participation.

faw1001 wrote: »

Is there an OKL group on MFP? Maybe keeping OKL and LCHF separate might prevent friction on the subject in future

Without friction, no one would get anywhere. (Bad nerdy science joke is bad....)

But seriously, though, I think most of the "friction" came more from poor word choice and the misunderstandings from it.

Additionally, from what I can tell, the differences between "OKL" and what you call here as "LCHF" are actually only rather subtle, at best. The question here is about how much protein, but the ranges presented in the chart in that link are consistent with the .5-1g/lb LBM calculation, which is a common recommendation for most diets (including most people in keto circles, barring a few outliers who recommend about half that).

From there, the goal is still ketosis, not? While not everyone in this group is LCHF with a goal of ketosis, this particular thread is, though the details of how each person gets there varies a little. But the goal here is still ketosis.

There is only one way to achieve ketosis -- keep your carbs to a reasonable minimum, intake enough protein to support lean mass without hindering ketosis, fill the rest in with fat. There is only one way, because ketosis is a very specific metabolic state -- that of burning fat for energy and creating ketones.

Now, there's a lot of room for variability within that. Whether you do that by eating as much protein as possible without knocking yourself out of ketosis (in which case, you'll likely end up in the higher end of the protein amounts), or you do it by eating only the bare minimum protein is a matter of personal preference and approach to addressing individual needs. And that's okay.

It seems to me that that is what Deansdad was trying to convey, but may have gotten lost in the confusion.

That said, assertions like "to lose weight, you have to increase your protein and decrease fats" do need to be substantiated by reasonably scientific evidence (in no small part, because such a mindset can be taken to the same extreme calorie restriction is, and low carb, low fat, high protein is objectively dangerous and detrimental to health -- to the point that hunter/gatherer groups that were familiar with it consider not eating anything a safer option to eating only protein).

Debate is a good thing, though, because that's how we all learn, and make our stance stronger against those that push conventional wisdom (and to those trying to straighten it all out -- take what makes sense and works for you, and ideally is backed with the most sound science, and file the rest away for future consideration or ignoring completely). I'd personally rather have threads like this than have a circle jerk where everyone agrees on everything.

shortnsassy1981 wrote: »

Oh and I've lost 71 lbs in 6 months with no stalls at all.

That sounds good. Mizatitude has had great results too so I will have to read more. Is this the correct FB page?
https://facebook.com/ketogenic

LoraKay131 wrote: »

*claps hands vigorously (to ensure a calorie burn)* im glad i read all of this. really good stuff. thank you all.

LK;

Yes, there was some "really good stuff" - on both "sides" of the debate/discussion.

I've struggled with adding this post because I'm sure some will view it as "piling on" and for those that do, I'll apologize in advance but ask that they accept that it really is not my intent.

The comments made, to the effect that "our macros are based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek...." struck a chord with me and while when used in the specific context of the "chart" they CAN be interpreted literally to be "true" (although I'm still not comfortable with why such a chart even exists when any individual numbers must be calculated). That, when calculated, (using "ideal" LBM), the results will generally fall within the ranges depicted probably IS true (for most) but I really don't see the point of the chart and still believe it will be misleading for most.

Anyway, my real "concern" is not with the chart, but rather that the impression was left that not just the chart, but also the fat v macro ratios were (by implication) "based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek".

I'm not concerned one way or the other if the implication was intentional or not (and not accusing anyone of anything).

I'm only concerned that if some are left with the impression that a higher protein/lower fat ratio is "based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek" they understand that such is NOT the case - they "absolutely" DO NOT advocate that position.

But please, DO NOT take my "word" for it - go to the source.

This video is Jeff Volek giving a recent presentation and is (IMO) one of the best ways you can invest your time to understand the science of LCHF. It is somewhat lengthy though (little over an hour total).

But if you can't spare the full hour, go to the 46 minute mark where he details the actual "Phinney & Volek" recommended LCHF macro composition in a segment entitled,
"Fundamentals of a Well Formulated Ketogenic Diet"

tinyurl.com/pp8agnr

The "nuts and bolts" will only take a couple minutes to view but I can't encourage you strongly enough to invest the time in the full hour for possibly the best explanation available of the "whys" that proper fat levels MATTER. (and why they matter not just for those committed to Keto Adaptation but "Low Carbers" in general).

LoraKay131 wrote: »

well, mr. dean, i believe strongly in a person can never educate themselves enough. and this pertains to what im engaged in physically. ill go give it a see.

LK;

Hope you enjoy it.

It can get a little "wonky" at points but don't let that discourage you, soon enough it will return to "basics" and understandable vocabulary.

It's a great reference to keep in your "bag o' tricks" and you'll likely want to return to it when you get one of those "hey, I remember seeing that......somewhere" - moments.

The real "meat" is in the books though - when (if) you are ready, remind me and I'll give you a list if you like.

deansdad101 wrote: »

LoraKay131 wrote: »

*claps hands vigorously (to ensure a calorie burn)* im glad i read all of this. really good stuff. thank you all.

LK;

Yes, there was some "really good stuff" - on both "sides" of the debate/discussion.

I've struggled with adding this post because I'm sure some will view it as "piling on" and for those that do, I'll apologize in advance but ask that they accept that it really is not my intent.

The comments made, to the effect that "our macros are based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek...." struck a chord with me and while when used in the specific context of the "chart" they CAN be interpreted literally to be "true" (although I'm still not comfortable with why such a chart even exists when any individual numbers must be calculated). That, when calculated, (using "ideal" LBM), the results will generally fall within the ranges depicted probably IS true (for most) but I really don't see the point of the chart and still believe it will be misleading for most.

Anyway, my real "concern" is not with the chart, but rather that the impression was left that not just the chart, but also the fat v macro ratios were (by implication) "based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek".

I'm not concerned one way or the other if the implication was intentional or not (and not accusing anyone of anything).

I'm only concerned that if some are left with the impression that a higher protein/lower fat ratio is "based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek" they understand that such is NOT the case - they "absolutely" DO NOT advocate that position.

But please, DO NOT take my "word" for it - go to the source.

This video is Jeff Volek giving a recent presentation and is (IMO) one of the best ways you can invest your time to understand the science of LCHF. It is somewhat lengthy though (little over an hour total).

But if you can't spare the full hour, go to the 46 minute mark where he details the actual "Phinney & Volek" recommended LCHF macro composition in a segment entitled,
"Fundamentals of a Well Formulated Ketogenic Diet"

tinyurl.com/pp8agnr

The "nuts and bolts" will only take a couple minutes to view but I can't encourage you strongly enough to invest the time in the full hour for possibly the best explanation available of the "whys" that proper fat levels MATTER. (and why they matter not just for those committed to Keto Adaptation but "Low Carbers" in general).

It is recommended by Phinney and Volek. There is a video presented by them where they discuss high fat being a combination of dietary fat and body fat and the amount of fat calories burned from the body for energy that one can count towards their daily caloric goals safely. I did not save the video to my phone, but I will see if I can get the link from the group when I'm home.

Dragonwolf wrote: »

shortnsassy1981 wrote: »

deansdad101 wrote: »

LoraKay131 wrote: »

*claps hands vigorously (to ensure a calorie burn)* im glad i read all of this. really good stuff. thank you all.

LK;

Yes, there was some "really good stuff" - on both "sides" of the debate/discussion.

I've struggled with adding this post because I'm sure some will view it as "piling on" and for those that do, I'll apologize in advance but ask that they accept that it really is not my intent.

The comments made, to the effect that "our macros are based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek...." struck a chord with me and while when used in the specific context of the "chart" they CAN be interpreted literally to be "true" (although I'm still not comfortable with why such a chart even exists when any individual numbers must be calculated). That, when calculated, (using "ideal" LBM), the results will generally fall within the ranges depicted probably IS true (for most) but I really don't see the point of the chart and still believe it will be misleading for most.

Anyway, my real "concern" is not with the chart, but rather that the impression was left that not just the chart, but also the fat v macro ratios were (by implication) "based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek".

I'm not concerned one way or the other if the implication was intentional or not (and not accusing anyone of anything).

I'm only concerned that if some are left with the impression that a higher protein/lower fat ratio is "based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek" they understand that such is NOT the case - they "absolutely" DO NOT advocate that position.

But please, DO NOT take my "word" for it - go to the source.

This video is Jeff Volek giving a recent presentation and is (IMO) one of the best ways you can invest your time to understand the science of LCHF. It is somewhat lengthy though (little over an hour total).

But if you can't spare the full hour, go to the 46 minute mark where he details the actual "Phinney & Volek" recommended LCHF macro composition in a segment entitled,
"Fundamentals of a Well Formulated Ketogenic Diet"

tinyurl.com/pp8agnr

The "nuts and bolts" will only take a couple minutes to view but I can't encourage you strongly enough to invest the time in the full hour for possibly the best explanation available of the "whys" that proper fat levels MATTER. (and why they matter not just for those committed to Keto Adaptation but "Low Carbers" in general).

It is recommended by Phinney and Volek. There is a video presented by them where they discuss high fat being a combination of dietary fat and body fat and the amount of fat calories burned from the body for energy that one can count towards their daily caloric goals safely. I did not save the video to my phone, but I will see if I can get the link from the group when I'm home.

That just sounds like standard CICO theory....

how is that exactly?? if you're counting macros you're essentially counting calories. I average about 1000 calories a day in a blood tested ketogenic state. If I did CICO and used my TDEE my 20% I would be around 1800 calories a day.

shortnsassy1981 wrote: »

Dragonwolf wrote: »

shortnsassy1981 wrote: »

deansdad101 wrote: »

LoraKay131 wrote: »

*claps hands vigorously (to ensure a calorie burn)* im glad i read all of this. really good stuff. thank you all.

LK;

Yes, there was some "really good stuff" - on both "sides" of the debate/discussion.

I've struggled with adding this post because I'm sure some will view it as "piling on" and for those that do, I'll apologize in advance but ask that they accept that it really is not my intent.

The comments made, to the effect that "our macros are based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek...." struck a chord with me and while when used in the specific context of the "chart" they CAN be interpreted literally to be "true" (although I'm still not comfortable with why such a chart even exists when any individual numbers must be calculated). That, when calculated, (using "ideal" LBM), the results will generally fall within the ranges depicted probably IS true (for most) but I really don't see the point of the chart and still believe it will be misleading for most.

Anyway, my real "concern" is not with the chart, but rather that the impression was left that not just the chart, but also the fat v macro ratios were (by implication) "based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek".

I'm not concerned one way or the other if the implication was intentional or not (and not accusing anyone of anything).

I'm only concerned that if some are left with the impression that a higher protein/lower fat ratio is "based on the recommendations of Phinney and Volek" they understand that such is NOT the case - they "absolutely" DO NOT advocate that position.

But please, DO NOT take my "word" for it - go to the source.

This video is Jeff Volek giving a recent presentation and is (IMO) one of the best ways you can invest your time to understand the science of LCHF. It is somewhat lengthy though (little over an hour total).

But if you can't spare the full hour, go to the 46 minute mark where he details the actual "Phinney & Volek" recommended LCHF macro composition in a segment entitled,
"Fundamentals of a Well Formulated Ketogenic Diet"

tinyurl.com/pp8agnr

The "nuts and bolts" will only take a couple minutes to view but I can't encourage you strongly enough to invest the time in the full hour for possibly the best explanation available of the "whys" that proper fat levels MATTER. (and why they matter not just for those committed to Keto Adaptation but "Low Carbers" in general).

It is recommended by Phinney and Volek. There is a video presented by them where they discuss high fat being a combination of dietary fat and body fat and the amount of fat calories burned from the body for energy that one can count towards their daily caloric goals safely. I did not save the video to my phone, but I will see if I can get the link from the group when I'm home.

That just sounds like standard CICO theory....

how is that exactly?? if you're counting macros you're essentially counting calories. I average about 1000 calories a day in a blood tested ketogenic state. If I did CICO and used my TDEE my 20% I would be around 1800 calories a day.

In short, any amount of calories that you take in less than you burn has to be made up from somewhere. Ideally, that "somewhere" is the body burning body fat (though it can also be made up through burning protein or down-regulating various body functions, it all depends on the extremity of the deficit and the sources of calories coming in).

In other words, regardless of whether you take in 100 calories or 10,000, in a day, your body burns a certain range amount (generally 1800-2200 or so). If you're taking in less than that amount, the difference is made up for by body fat. That's where TDEE-20% comes from -- you figure out what your body burns in a day and subtract 20% from it in order to lose weight (in theory).

So, "the amount of fat calories burn from body fat for energy that one can count toward their daily caloric goals safely," sounds like CICO theory, since the body is going to burn fat at any amount below what it needs (CICO theory is only that when calories out exceed calories in, you'll lose weight, and when reversed, you'll gain).

deansdad101 wrote: »

Using the numbers you posted previously,
(" I average 95 grams of protein a day, 50 grams of fat (sometimes more but I never exceed my protein) and up to 50 net carbs a day and per my blood testing I stay in deep ketosis."),

if my calculations are close (and backed out from your "....~1000 cals/day", and, "1800 TDEE/20%",
I get:
Protein 95g = 380 cals = 38%
Fats 50g = 450 cals = 45%
Carbs (Total) 42g = 170 cals = 17%
Total Cals In/day = 1000

1800 TDEE - 1000 Cals In = 800 cal/day deficit = 44% deficit

I don't believe it's "unreasonable" for anyone to argue that ANY one, on ANY diet, eating at a 44% deficit/day, wouldn't lose weight (assuming of course the calculated TDEE is "close" to being correct), whether one "believes" in CICO or not.

So, is it OKL, your particular "flavor" of macros (protein v fat ratio), OR the very large cal in deficit that's "actually" at the root of your loss?

Yeah, there's this, too. Saying that you're losing because of the macro ratio you're using, when you're eating 1000 calories a day (and your TDEE is more than twice that), is a bit specious.

I don't think most people here claim that calories don't matter at all (some do, but those tend to be the exception). The consensus is that calories are not the be-all, end-all of weight and health, but that they still do play a part -- ie - you have to eat enough to fuel yourself and have proper hormone function, but you can't expect to lose weight eating 3x what your body needs to maintain, either.

DD, btw -- your numbers are a little off. She mentioned her TDDE-20% was 1800, which puts her TDEE at a little under 2200. That puts her deficit at 1200 calories, or 54%.