What am I doing wrong? Help needed please.
Replies
-
LK;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.
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.
0 -
deansdad101 wrote: »
SNS;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!
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.
haha .. I am on FB more than here. But I admin several hobby type boards on facebook. I do wonder about those who post every single event of their day.
0 -
deansdad101 wrote: »
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »*claps hands vigorously (to ensure a calorie burn)*
im glad i read all of this. really good stuff. thank you all.
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.0 -
shortnsassy1981 wrote: »deansdad101 wrote: »
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »*claps hands vigorously (to ensure a calorie burn)* im glad i read all of this. really good stuff. thank you all.
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....0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »shortnsassy1981 wrote: »deansdad101 wrote: »
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »*claps hands vigorously (to ensure a calorie burn)* im glad i read all of this. really good stuff. thank you all.
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.0 -
SNS;shortnsassy1981 wrote: »Dragonwolf wrote: »shortnsassy1981 wrote: »deansdad101 wrote: »
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »*claps hands vigorously (to ensure a calorie burn)* im glad i read all of this. really good stuff. thank you all.
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.
Can't (and won't) speak for DW but I "think" you might be misunderstanding the point. (and maybe that of P&V in the video you referenced).
Absolutely agree with you that "...if you are counting macros you're essentially counting calories."
By default, and especially if you're using MFP as a tracker, it's a given - "counting" one automatically "counts" the other. But once again, that's really not the point.
I don't know about OKL but in LCHF (at least as "I" understand it), "counting" cals and "tracking" them are two different things.
One "counts" carbs (to stay under "x"/day),
"counts" proteins (to stay under "x"/day), and,
"counts" fats so that the sum total cals of C+P+F stays "close" to whatever "total cals in" number they have determined is "best" for them.
You do it, I do it, and even those who "don't need to count cals at all....." do, in effect (by limiting carbs, keeping an eye of protein, and just being "not hungry") - even if they don't actually "track" every morsel.
We count or track both (macros & cals in), in order to be able to keep an eye on macro %'s, precisely because those ratios DO matter AND when compared against the "norm" for each, might explain an individual person's lack of success and what they might do to change it. (i.e. protein >~30% and gluconeogenesis).
How, exactly, does one "....count body fat burned as a part of total fat...."?
Most folks are already either overwhelmed, or at least not too interested in adding more "calculations" to the mix and short of some algorithm based on I don't have a clue what, that number (body fat burned/day) is, at best, a WAG.
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?
0 -
shortnsassy1981 wrote: »Dragonwolf wrote: »shortnsassy1981 wrote: »deansdad101 wrote: »
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »*claps hands vigorously (to ensure a calorie burn)* im glad i read all of this. really good stuff. thank you all.
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%.0
