GaleHawkins wrote: »

iloseityes low carb does not invalidate any factual laws of science I agree.

As to the low-carb flu I thought I was dying until I googled "death from coconut oil" and learned about the Herxheimer effect of kill off of the bad stuff in the gut.

Some people do low carb for things not weight related like trying to prevent vision loss from macular degeneration by way of the chaperone mediated autophagy that can get triggered when one enters a state of ketosis. It may help prevent cataract formation as well.

Yes, think we're in complete agreement really, although not sure if more than the first line was a response to my post, lol

Never heard of the Herxheimer effect.. off too google, and maybe learn something new, lol

Dragonwolf wrote: »

mizaditude wrote: »

Im glad you found it useful. In this group the consensus is that your fat shouldn't be higher than your protein in grams when your in weightloss mode because your eating fat but you also want your body to use the fat it already has to burn. If your eating a ton of fat theres no reason for your body to burn the fat from your *kitten* lol. They don't do the "eat more fat" thing because during weight loss fat is coming from your body and from the plate, not just the plate.

Um...no....that's not the consensus

<snipped>
I've found LCHF to be easier than the more conventional ways of eating, especially when trying to lose weight. It gets easier with time, as you lose the carb/sugar cravings, and as you start falling into routines and building habits. It takes a while, but reaching for the full fat stuff will start to become second nature.

What she said <G>

deansdad101 wrote: »

Dragonwolf wrote: »

mizaditude wrote: »

Im glad you found it useful. In this group the consensus is that your fat shouldn't be higher than your protein in grams when your in weightloss mode because your eating fat but you also want your body to use the fat it already has to burn. If your eating a ton of fat theres no reason for your body to burn the fat from your *kitten* lol. They don't do the "eat more fat" thing because during weight loss fat is coming from your body and from the plate, not just the plate.

Um...no....that's not the consensus

<snipped>
I've found LCHF to be easier than the more conventional ways of eating, especially when trying to lose weight. It gets easier with time, as you lose the carb/sugar cravings, and as you start falling into routines and building habits. It takes a while, but reaching for the full fat stuff will start to become second nature.

What she said <G>

I was referring to the optimal ketogenic living fb group!!! not this group obviously!

As with anything, the opinion of optimal macros are like *kitten*.....

mizaditude wrote: »

deansdad101 wrote: »

Dragonwolf wrote: »

mizaditude wrote: »

Im glad you found it useful. In this group the consensus is that your fat shouldn't be higher than your protein in grams when your in weightloss mode because your eating fat but you also want your body to use the fat it already has to burn. If your eating a ton of fat theres no reason for your body to burn the fat from your *kitten* lol. They don't do the "eat more fat" thing because during weight loss fat is coming from your body and from the plate, not just the plate.

Um...no....that's not the consensus

<snipped>
I've found LCHF to be easier than the more conventional ways of eating, especially when trying to lose weight. It gets easier with time, as you lose the carb/sugar cravings, and as you start falling into routines and building habits. It takes a while, but reaching for the full fat stuff will start to become second nature.

What she said <G>

I was referring to the optimal ketogenic living fb group!!! not this group obviously!

As with anything, the opinion of optimal macros are like *kitten*.....

Miz;

No offense was intended by any of my comments and if you took any, I apologize.

I went back and read the comments made in this thread and note multiple references to the fact that much of LCHF is "individual", what "works" for one may or may not for another, and that no one "challenged" your specific "results" - only that, "in general", the suggestions you were providing do not comport with the "science" as others understand it.

As to my "what she said" remark....it was intended to be "light hearted" - agreement with the entirety of her post, not a "slam" or double entendre.

On your "...not this group OBVIOUSLY!" comment,
I think if you go back and reread your original wording objectively (as much as anyone can read their own words "objectively") - it's a major leap to "obviously"

"In this group the consensus is..."
following,
"I'm glad you found it useful" (referring to the info in the "other" group)

I'm sure in your mind, it was your intention to say "in THAT group...." and that was what you meant to imply.

I'm sorry for the "nitpicking" (this/that) but it's unfair to suggest that what is "obvious" to you (in your mind at the moment you typed it), should be to others when the written word CLEARLY could be (and probably was, by most) taken to mean what it literally said. ("this group")

I can't speak for others but I doubt the response to your comment was meant in any other way than to clear up what appeared to be a misstatement on your part.

I "know" that was the basis of my comment.

Finally, I will take issue with your "opinions" comment.

I agree completely that "opinions are like....."
They (opinions) ARE.
And certainly everyone is entitled to whatever "opinion" they elect to hold.

However, "opinions" are not "facts" (they "might" be based in fact, in whole or in part, or they might not)
Putting one's "opinion" on public display invites challenge by those holding divergent opinion and requires that one offer "proof" that their's can be substantiated if it is to be respected.

"I saw it on facebook..." is NOT "proof" (as I'm sure you know and I'm NOT saying that's what you are doing), and,
it's not only entirely possible, but frequently happens in the world of science that two diametrically opposed points of view (opinions) can each be substantiated with "proof" (trial studies).

Both "opinions", if the "proofs" are equally valid, can be "right" (at least until further research defines and replicates which is "more right" or why one or the other was "wrong).

Some are never resolved and it's up to each of us to decide for ourselves and for others to agree or disagree based on their reading of the "facts".

With regard to the fat v protein discussion, I believe that the preponderance of the scientific "evidence" comes down firmly on the side of "more protein is NOT better" (in most cases) - you disagree and that's fine.

We can either agree to disagree and leave it at that or one (or both) of us can attempt to "convince" the other that their's is the "opinion" more soundly grounded in the available research.

Many of those in "this" group believe that discussion has already been had and the conclusion is based on solid science.

I have little doubt that those in "that" (the other) group feel likewise with what they believe to be true.

It actually IS "possible" that in "one-off" cases (your personal example) both CAN be "true".
BUT, when the discussion is "in general" or what is recommended for "most" - it's rare that "both" can be "best"

While I disagree with your "opinion" re protein - I admire you for your willingness to present and defend a position which runs counter to the one which predominates (here or anywhere else).

I can honestly say (been there, done that) and I have a pretty good understanding of what it takes to challenge "conventional wisdom".

Taking a position in a venue not predisposed to agree takes guts, is admirable, and gains you respect (in my eyes).

It does NOT, however, grant you a "free pass" and requires that you "prove" the basis from which your opinion is derived if that respect is to be maintained.

In the end, it's "facts" that matter - not "opinions",
(because, as you said, "opinions are like....")

deansdad101 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

mizaditude wrote: »

faw1001 wrote: »

mizaditude wrote: »

Im glad you found it useful. In this group the consensus is that your fat shouldn't be higher than your protein in grams when your in weightloss mode because your eating fat but you also want your body to use the fat it already has to burn. If your eating a ton of fat theres no reason for your body to burn the fat from your *kitten* lol. They don't do the "eat more fat" thing because during weight loss fat is coming from your body and from the plate, not just the plate.

So you recommend eating equal protein and fat %'s with low carb?

I go by the chart thats posted in the group, so i try to stay at the low end of that range since im in weight loss mode. But at this point, generally my protein is 100-120g and fat between 60-80g. Prior to decreasing the fat and increasing my protein, i wasn't gaining but i wasn't losing either. I increased my protein and gained 2 pounds initially but within the month i have lost a total of 5lbs, not including those inital 2 i gained. So it has helped me, personally

Thanks for sharing that. It makes sense that the body fat burned (net loss of fat) would make up part of the % of fat. I started LC using mainly coconut oil for pain management and I am from 7-8 down to 2-3 on a 1-10 scale. Now I want to start on losing weight aspect of LC. Ditched sugar and grains but it took to months to pull that off completely. Personal I think ditching the sugar cut pain levels the most. Being at 63 and years of yo yoing on traditional diets this time around is not as easy as before for sure.

Gale;

While it might "make sense..." at first glance, and appear "official" because it's posted on some facebook page, you and I are old enough to know that "things aren't always as they appear to be" <g>.

I have no doubt that the individual experiences described above are true and don't question those who report individual results that run counter to the "general recommendations".

So much of ANY dieting regimen is individual specific and determined to a large degree by any particular person's overall metabolic interactions that there simply is NO "one size fits all" and "general" recommendations must be viewed as "starting points" to be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the individual.

That said, however, one (or a relatively small group %-wise) of "outliers" does not change the "science" or the results of trials that define the consensus of opinion - nor does it change what is considered "best advice" for the majority.

Very few of the common wisdom recommendations are "hard and fast".
Some will be able to reach (and/or maintain) fat adaptation at 35g/day, others require <10g. Some can remain in ketosis with protein intake above 125g - others will be "kicked out" at 60.

Fat adaptation will be established for some in a couple weeks, for others it will take 6 or more. And, if proper macro ratios are not arrived at (excessive protein for example) might never be achieved.

It all "depends".

Carb and protein levels, most would agree are based on firm numbers (specific number of grams - 20g carbs, 65g protein e.g.) the number remains fixed and only becomes a % for ease of comparison.

I'd not seen the chart referenced above but neither have I ever heard anyone quote protein recommendations based on "height" - it's ALWAYS a percentage of a weight which makes a whole lot more "sense". Opinions vary on the base measurement to use (LBM, "ideal/goal" body weight, current bw, etc) as do they on the multipliers but the "range" any of them provide is always much narrower than those depicted on the chart above.

Indeed, a change of as little as 5g's of protein has been shown to effectively halt ketone production when the increase exceeded the test subject's protein "resistance" level.

Rule of thumb (generalization) 55-100 grams is the range that "most" will fall in and when the proper level is determined - more is NOT better. (those engaged in "extreme" exercise levels excluded, at least intermittently).

There actually IS "hard science" behind the idea that INCREASING FAT (and thereby decreasing protein) DOES result in increased weight loss.

It's all about how the body "converts" food sources to energy and promotes (or inhibits) the production of ketones, glucose, fatty acids, and a whole host of others.

This article is a pretty good "mix" between the hard science and still being understandable by those of us not comfortable with all the "science lingo".

tinyurl.com/nwsktv3

Hope it helps.

I actually follow the Optimal Ketogenic Lifestyle like Mizatitude.

The science is based off of research from Phinney and Volek and not just the opinion of a group. The chart from Phinney and Volek that we use in our group provides a little more data though than the link provided above. The chart we use provides ranges for both males and females based on height and includes an average LBM with strict instructions to adjust based on your actual LBM since it varies slightly by person.

Not all people respond the same to the same diet. 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. I have had no hair loss issues that some have on this lifestyle. In fact, my hair, nails, skin all look amazing. I also average 3-4 lbs of weight loss a week with no hunger problems. I lift heavy 3-4 times a week and I run at least 3 days with no issues.

I should add for me, and again it varies per person, that dairy/sugar alcohols/protein shakes or bars do not work well for me. I do best getting all my macros from whole foods. I also try to get my protein in at around 30g per meal instead of all at once.

I don't like fat for fat's sake, so this version of Keto works best for me.

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).