what should my numbers look like
Options
happylifex10
Posts: 56 Member
Hi folks, I'm new to the group and have searched but haven't found or understood what my goal numbers should be regarding my carbs, fat and protein. My aim is to go very low carb as carbs are a huge trigger for me. My BMI is at 32 whereas it should be 25. I am looking to lose 27 pounds initially and then perhaps another 10-15. Any help you can give me would be very appreciated. Thanks, Mary
0
Replies
-
I asked this same question and there is no real answer because every one is different. I changed my goals on MFP to 60% fat 35% Protein 5% Carbs. And my calories is set to 1400. I try to stay under 1200 but if I dare go over by 3 calories I feel like I am in deep trouble for all the red lines.
I try to stay under 20 carbs. You can view my foods. I am pretty sure it is open. NOT that my way of doing it is the right way or only way. I am in ketosis. I am loosing weight slowly and I am no longer miserable with the new to low carb flue. If I had ti to do over again I would take a week or so reducing carbs daily so I did not have such a reaction as I had. Some do not have any reaction.0 -
Hi, happylifex10:
I recently began experimentally using
the Skaldeman very low carb, high fat,
moderate protein plan: 3 grams of carbs
per meal, 9 grams of carbs per day or
less.
I do around 100 grams of protein per
day, and the rest is fat to satisfy appetite.
Fat is so important: for me, it has to be
in the range of equal in weight, to twice
or so the weight of protein plus carbs.
I can feel the slimming in my hands
and feet in the few days of this experiment.
I don't care much about the calories, but
gauge appetite and body heat as the measure
of a successful meal.
Thankfully, I'm staying satisfied, warm
and happy!
0 -
thanks for your response shadesofidaho, I have looked at a few folks diaries so that I could get an idea and man o man there is many different ways of doing this, lol. I have seen folks with their fat and protein alot higher - like 100 each - why would you do that? does that help you lose faster?
I started a week ago on this weight loss journey but just joined this group and the LC/HF a couple days ago so I guess I kinda weened myself of the carbs and have had no real huge issues with the side effects of carb loss except for the odd headache, thank goodness
0 -
I am also working on the Skaldeman WOE and funny I just noticed today how much thinner my hands are. Humm
I do not know why they would go so high with protein because if too high the body can turn it to sugar. Glycogenisis. I know I did not spell that right but it is a crazy deal and it happens. So I tried to lower my protein and raise up my fat. BUT some times for many it is just easier to eat all mean and eggs and call it good. Maybe they are not trying t balance things out.0 -
funny you and tq mention your hands being thinner - today I got my engagement ring back on, woohoo. Thanks for your input tq as well. I have it written down to look into the Skaldeman book to get more info.0
-
Look, it is a common misconception that protein in excessive amounts will be turned into sugar/glucose. The research supports the idea that this process is demand driven, not supply driven. That means, your body will turn protein into glucose based on need and not just because you have a ton of excess protein about. If you're not eating enough protein, but the demand for glucose is high, your body will turn protein into glucose--using your muscle tissue if necessary. If you're eating tons of protein, but the demand for glucose is low, very little protein is going to be turned into glucose.
This is why Lyle McDonald recommends eating 150g while you are adapting. During this time, your body is not properly adjusted to using ketones for energy and will still be burning through a lot of glucose. The demand will remain high. If you're not eating enough protein, that demand will still be met. It will just turn to your lean body mass. You don't want that happening. Until you are fully adapted, aim high on the protein.
When you are fully adapted, you may want to lower the protein you eat. There is some evidence that excess protein reduces the level of ketosis people are in, probably through insulin response (which happens with any amount of protein) and not because your extra large steak was the same as a candy bar.
Also, 100g is not high. That's maybe a little on the high end for some people, but it's certainly not excessive.
My macros for weight loss are: 167g of fat and 125g of protein a day. My macros for maintenance are 222g of fat and 125g of protein a day. Now, there's a lot of swing there. Anything from 100g to 150g is will within my standard day. Sometimes I even go outside those bounds. The fat is adjusted to maintain the amount of loss I want. Someone having 100g fat and 100g protein are only making a mistake in the fact that their calories are probably very low (1300-1400 /day). They could probably raise the fat and still lose some weight.0 -
Speaking of keto flu...
I first started LCHF this past summer.
One day while at the grocery I got
light-headed and nauseous.
I bought a box of salt and some
pork skins thinking electrolytes
->hypovolemia ->shocky
->systemic collapse...the feeling
you get just before fainting.
I got to my car, ate a little dip of salt
and a piece of pork skin. Instantly...
really, instantly my shocky, nauseous,
light-headed feeling disappeared.
My lesson of when starting LCHF and
dumping sodium happens.
It's why I make meat/fish/veggie broth
everyday.
Besides it just tastes so gooooood..!
On your fav search engine:
LCHF Dumping sodium 0 -
frob this is good to know the excess protein does not turn to glucose. I was duped again. sorry for spreading the rumor. I better up my protein some.
I wonder if the thinner hands had to do with the water loss this diet bring on? I do now many places on me are much smaller all over which is a good thing.
frob do you think a woman would be eating less of macros over all because we are smaller and not needing the amounts a man would to lose or maintain?0 -
Note: there is some evidence that keeping protein low can increase the level of ketosis. So, if that's your focus, then you'll want to keep it low.
There is also other research that says having 30+ g of protein 3x each day (which means a minimum of 90g a day) increases the muscle rebuilding rates (not necessarily new muscle growth, but old substrate torn down and replaced) and can result in a significant caloric boost (around 300-600 calories a day in metabolic benefit). I'll try and find the link to the study on that one. That benefit might be worth the slightly reduced level of ketosis for some people.
It all comes down to what works best for you. Just don't fear protein. It's not all bad. And relatively moderate amounts (100 grams would be moderate in my eyes) shouldn't be discouraged, especially for newbies where protein requirements are likely to be higher until they adapt.
Edit: I ran across the fact in "The Calorie Myth" which references a University of Illinois study where eating that level of protein could trigger up to 250 grams of new tissue a day, costing from 540 to 720 calories in the process. I'll continue to seek the actual study.0 -
I will try to add a little more protein. I want to stay healthy.0
-
thank you very much for sharing your knowledge frob23...I will not fear the protein or the fat...thanks again, Mary0
-
I am using the following macros. Fat 125g, protein 75. Based on what you say, the protein is too low. Do you agee?0
-
I am using the following macros. Fat 125g, protein 75. Based on what you say, the protein is too low. Do you agee?
Are you keto-adapted? That is, how long have you been doing low carb?
If you are keto adapted, 75g may be enough. If you're not, then you may be more likely to lose some lean body mass until you fully adapt. Keep in mind, this isn't a problem unique to low carb diets. Many diets, especially those with very low calorie goals, result in lean body mass losses especially at first. During adaptation, the needs for glucose are higher because your body isn't efficiently using the ketones produced yet.
My question is, how are you not starving? You have to be eating like 1,200-1,300 calories a day. What is your estimated BMR and TDEE? What do you estimate your lean body mass is? This is how we really figure out where protein minimums should be.0 -
Maybe this KetoCalculator will be
useful to you...?
keto-calculator.ankerl.com/ 0 -
Always the antagonist, I'll take exception to Frob's "...it is a common misconception that protein in excessive amounts will be turned into sugar/glucose." initial statement (subsequently modified).
That there IS considerable disagreement (even among the scientists and researchers who know and understand a whole lot more than either of us do on the subject), is a statement that most (not just Frob and I) would probably agree on.
And while we do disagree on the relative effect that various levels of any of the specific macros (or the %'s) may have "in general", neither of us would suggest that "x" or "y" level will be the "right" level for any one particular individual.
Further, that we can (and do) disagree on the specifics, is due in large part to the fact that each of us base our "opinions" on what we consider to be equally reliable sources that we choose to believe, and they those sources are "the" most reliable and have based "their" conclusions on scientifically valid test results.
The problem is that, as smart and well informed as THEY are - THEY DON'T AGREE.
I do, however take exception to the "...it's a common misconception that...." comment though.
It is NOT a "common misconception" but rather a difference of opinion between the "experts" (and therefore between us).
No one has been "duped", "misinformed", or should consider making significant changes in a dietary profile that has been "working" for them based on ANY one individual post - not one of MINE, one of Frob's, or one of ANY OTHER individual.
Rather, when encountering points of view which seem contradictory I would suggest that it should be a siren call to yourself to dig a little deeper into the actual scientific research and that it's "imperative" that you determine for yourself which "expert" is the more believable, which clinical study the more relevant to your particular situation, or which point of view "might" be "true" as far as it goes but NOT in your individual case.
This is not the place to argue the relative merits of the "experts" who suggest higher levels of protein intake vs those who advocate (based on their research) for the impact that results from gluconeogenesis (which IS a documented, well understood, and "settled science" metabolic process).
That the majority of bloggers and self proclaimed "fitness experts" who dominate the ranks of those focused on the "lean body mass vs muscle" and "increased protein levels are a mandatory thing" come from the world of "personal trainers" and "body builders", while those advocating for more "moderate protein levels" are predominately scientists and researchers basing their recommendations on the results of clinical (or other) trials, should (IMO) be a significant consideration and taken into account when one decides what might be most relevant for THEM.
Not too many years ago, those same "fitness gurus" would argue to the death that "carb loading" was not only "required", but produced "undeniable" performance increases in elite athletes - right up until the day that "science" proved that what they just "knew" was true, WASN'T (and in fact was a "common misconception").
Today, a growing number of world class athletes have not only "dumped" the "carb up" ideas of yesterday (today still, with many "expert personal trainers") - but are setting new world records on LCHF and moderate protein levels.
While we do disagree on some of the "specifics" (and that's a GOOD thing for group members because it exposes you to both points of view and encourages you to "see for myself"), we AGREE on much more than we disagree on.
Not just with the protein "numbers" themselves - for example, I completely agree with the idea that 150g/day might be a perfectly reasonable "starting point" for someone new to LC for any number of reasons. We can agree on much of it and "agree to disagree" on other specifics.
It would be wonderful if all of this was "black or white", but the fact is, it's not and likely NEVER will be - there are simply too many variables and no two individual circumstances exactly the same.
For those involved in "extreme" exercise (or sporting event) regimens (body builders, marathoners, or "elite" athletics) there probably is a justification for protein levels that exceed the commonly recommended levels (although the "evidence" regarding any specific levels is conflicting at best).
But, is that YOU?
Do you spend your life in a gym or run a marathon 4 times a year and stay in training the rest of the year? If not (and driving to the "club" to run a 1/2 hr on a treadmill hardly "counts"), I'd suggest that "most" of us would be better off listening to the "experts" who aren't primarily concerned with selling their "protein shakes" rather than those that are.
Are all of those promoting higher protein levels gym rats, fitness gurus, or snake oil salesmen?
Of course not - there are equally credible sources on each "side" of the debate.
I would suggest though, that when a reference is made to any particular "expert", one does a quick google search on that "experts" bio and the credentials they bring to the table before accepting the reference as "a pioneer" or one who "wrote the book...".
We all want the "short and sweet" version, "just tell me what to do (in as few words as possible) and I'll do it" - sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it just doesn't work that way.
Don't believe me?
How well has the "a cal is a cal, a carb a carb, and ALL you have to do is keep cals in lower that cals out and you'll reach dietary nirvana" - worked out for the CICO crowd?
Hint: - 95% fail within a year.0 -
It think it's important to note that I also don't disagree with DD. As he pointed out, I did subsequently modify my statements to include the fact that few argue that excess protein can lower the level of ketosis one is in (the argument is mainly about what metabolic process causes that, not that it happens). While I stand by the fact that higher than normal protein is important for those starting out, and also that many people could do fine on higher protein than they believe, I also do not think everyone should be eating 125g of protein. It is important to find what works for each person. Based on someone's specific lean body mass and goals, 60-75g might be an appropriate amount. Other people may see better results with higher amounts.
When I say that it is a common misconception that excess protein is turned to glucose, it should also be noted that I am specifically talking about glucose response in people who are not insulin dependent diabetics. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9416027 is a study which directly states that diabetics can and do see gluconeogenesis when consuming protein, while this does not happen when there is adequate insulin.Protein has a minimal effect on blood glucose levels with adequate insulin. However, with insulin deficiency, gluconeogenesis proceeds rapidly and contributes to an elevated blood glucose level. With adequate insulin, the blood glucose response in persons with diabetes would be expected to be similar to the blood glucose response in persons without diabetes. The reason why protein does not increase blood glucose levels is unclear.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/4/734.fullIn single-meal studies, dietary protein does not result in an increase in glucose concentrations in persons with or without type 2 diabetes, even though the resulting amino acids can be used for gluconeogenesis.
This link is fairly interesting when it comes to talking about protein's effect on insulin (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2013/04/glucagon-dietary-protein-and-low.html) and not blood glucose. Because that is something that protein does stimulate.
I've yet to see any compelling research with non-diabetic subjects where excess protein led to a significant spike in blood glucose to any degree close to the spike even a small amount of carbs can cause. The article here, http://journal.diabetes.org/diabetesspectrum/00v13n3/pg132.htm , explains how the expected amount of glucose just doesn't appear from the excess protein when looked for.
Of course, http://www.ketotic.org/2013/01/protein-gluconeogenesis-and-blood-sugar.html this article explains one major flaw with all of these, the subjects aren't ketogenic. When done with ketogenic subjects, blood sugar does rise from protein, but not very much. And, they would have liked more study.
In short, there's a lot of debate on it. We do know excess can impact level of ketosis, but I highly doubt it's to a degree that most people would need to be concerned about (especially at sub 150g/day levels). Everyone should experiment with their own levels, but if you're happy at 110g of protein, you're losing weight at that level, and you don't have any negative effects at that level... you should not rush off to drop it down to 50g just because someone else said that it would make you "extra-keto" and you'll start losing 14 pounds each week.
0
