Need advice!
wabbitgurl65
Posts: 5 Member
I'm day 3 into my low-carb lifestyle, and while I'm doing well by remaining under 160g of carbs per day, I find my fat intake is 50% or more. Any words of wisdom, or should I not focus on the fat yet?
0
Replies
-
I don't believe that under 160 is anywhere close to low carb. Typically I've seen people who are eating low carb mentioning that they aim for 50 g of carbs, or a low number in that range. 160 is a pretty average number of carbs.
When people are actually eating a low carb diet, they do typically eat higher fat. You'll see it abbreviated at LCHF - 'low carb high fat'. Fats are satiating and make you feel more full for longer, and give you the energy you aren't getting from the carbs. If you want to keep the fat lower, increase your protein.0 -
Yea, 160 carb limit is not anywhere near what can be considered "low carb". A ketogenic diet is less than 25g of carbs per day I believe, and most "low carb" diets have carbs limited to 50g per day, or 75g at the very highest.0
-
Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.0 -
Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.
It's not - no one is a 'special snowflake'. The same physiologic rules apply to everyone. IF she really wants to eat low carb, she needs to aim for less than 50 g per day.
As far as losing weight - that happens in a caloric deficit, regardless of fat intake, carb intake, etc.0 -
Says who?Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.
It's not - no one is a 'special snowflake'. The same physiologic rules apply to everyone. IF she really wants to eat low carb, she needs to aim for less than 50 g per day.
If she feels that 150 is low for her, it is.
I have been told on many occasions that I am a special snowflake. I've seen many others told that they were, too. This would be according to people who use the term, obviously. So, we exist. It's kind of fun being a special snowflake.
0 -
Says who?Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.
It's not - no one is a 'special snowflake'. The same physiologic rules apply to everyone. IF she really wants to eat low carb, she needs to aim for less than 50 g per day.
If she feels that 150 is low for her, it is.
I have been told on many occasions that I am a special snowflake. I've seen many others told that they were, too. This would be according to people who use the term, obviously. So, we exist. It's kind of fun being a special snowflake.
I don't find it helpful to tell people that the laws of science don't apply to them. I prefer to empower them with knowledge.
OP, you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. If you find that low carb helps you achieve a deficit, then go for it, but at 160g carbs, that is just a normal amount for a normal person. If it's the route you want to try, then I am sure some low carber's will be around to help you figure out what number you should be aiming for. For help achieving a deficit without going low carb, ask away!0 -
Says who?Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.
It's not - no one is a 'special snowflake'. The same physiologic rules apply to everyone. IF she really wants to eat low carb, she needs to aim for less than 50 g per day.
If she feels that 150 is low for her, it is.
I have been told on many occasions that I am a special snowflake. I've seen many others told that they were, too. This would be according to people who use the term, obviously. So, we exist. It's kind of fun being a special snowflake.
I am talking about the actual numbers for a low carb diet, not what someone feels is low for them.
When I say that no one is a special snowflake, I mean that the rules of the physical world apply to everyone.0 -
I love special snowflakes! The fact that their bodies ignore basic principles of physiology gives me hope that one day my dream of sprouting wings and flying like a bird might come true!
0 -
wabbitgurl65 wrote: »I'm day 3 into my low-carb lifestyle, and while I'm doing well by remaining under 160g of carbs per day, I find my fat intake is 50% or more. Any words of wisdom, or should I not focus on the fat yet?
What percent of your calories is from protein?0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »I love special snowflakes! The fact that their bodies ignore basic principles of physiology gives me hope that one day my dream of sprouting wings and flying like a bird might come true!
Darn like button is still missing.0 -
OP, sorry your thread is being derailed with silliness but I think it's pretty common to replace carbs with fat. As for whether this is low carb I've seen that described as < 150, < 100, < 50 and <20. There is no official definition. It's subjective, and would partly depend on what percent of your total calories are carbs.
If you are getting adequate protein then you probably don't need to worry about the fat. But different people have different needs. I'd suggest asking your doctor if you are concerned whether your diet is right for you.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OP, sorry your thread is being derailed with silliness but I think it's pretty common to replace carbs with fat. As for whether this is low carb I've seen that described as < 150, < 100, < 50 and <20. There is no official definition. It's subjective, and would partly depend on what percent of your total calories are carbs.
If you are getting adequate protein then you probably don't need to worry about the fat. But different people have different needs. I'd suggest asking your doctor if you are concerned whether your diet is right for you.
Amazing. One gif and you refer to the whole thread as derailed.
Okay, back on topic. According to doctors (those medical people, you know, experts), the carb limits for low carb diets are this: 10-20 for very low carb, 20-50 for low carb, and 50-130 for liberal low carb.
So, since OP is saying she's at or above 150 grams of carbs per day, she's still over the upper range for a liberal low carb diet. If she really wants to stick to a low carb type diet, she should drop her carbs below at least 130 to get into a liberal range.
0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »
Says who?Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.
It's not - no one is a 'special snowflake'. The same physiologic rules apply to everyone. IF she really wants to eat low carb, she needs to aim for less than 50 g per day.
If she feels that 150 is low for her, it is.
I have been told on many occasions that I am a special snowflake. I've seen many others told that they were, too. This would be according to people who use the term, obviously. So, we exist. It's kind of fun being a special snowflake.
I don't find it helpful to tell people that the laws of science don't apply to them. I prefer to empower them with knowledge.
OP, you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. If you find that low carb helps you achieve a deficit, then go for it, but at 160g carbs, that is just a normal amount for a normal person. If it's the route you want to try, then I am sure some low carber's will be around to help you figure out what number you should be aiming for. For help achieving a deficit without going low carb, ask away!
This "Science Law" that specifies that <50g means "low carb" and anyone wanting to eat a low carb diet must eat less than 50g...is that in some textbook somewhere?
What is the name of that Law?
Empower me with knowledge.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OP, sorry your thread is being derailed with silliness but I think it's pretty common to replace carbs with fat. As for whether this is low carb I've seen that described as < 150, < 100, < 50 and <20. There is no official definition. It's subjective, and would partly depend on what percent of your total calories are carbs.
If you are getting adequate protein then you probably don't need to worry about the fat. But different people have different needs. I'd suggest asking your doctor if you are concerned whether your diet is right for you.
Amazing. One gif and you refer to the whole thread as derailed.
Okay, back on topic. According to doctors (those medical people, you know, experts), the carb limits for low carb diets are this: 10-20 for very low carb, 20-50 for low carb, and 50-130 for liberal low carb.
So, since OP is saying she's at or above 150 grams of carbs per day, she's still over the upper range for a liberal low carb diet. If she really wants to stick to a low carb type diet, she should drop her carbs below at least 130 to get into a liberal range.
Interesting. Can you link to the doctors definition? But she didn't ask about low carb. She asked about fat.0 -
And I addressed that in my very first reply:Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OP, sorry your thread is being derailed with silliness but I think it's pretty common to replace carbs with fat. As for whether this is low carb I've seen that described as < 150, < 100, < 50 and <20. There is no official definition. It's subjective, and would partly depend on what percent of your total calories are carbs.
If you are getting adequate protein then you probably don't need to worry about the fat. But different people have different needs. I'd suggest asking your doctor if you are concerned whether your diet is right for you.
Amazing. One gif and you refer to the whole thread as derailed.
Okay, back on topic. According to doctors (those medical people, you know, experts), the carb limits for low carb diets are this: 10-20 for very low carb, 20-50 for low carb, and 50-130 for liberal low carb.
So, since OP is saying she's at or above 150 grams of carbs per day, she's still over the upper range for a liberal low carb diet. If she really wants to stick to a low carb type diet, she should drop her carbs below at least 130 to get into a liberal range.
Interesting. Can you link to the doctors definition? But she didn't ask about low carb. She asked about fat.
When people are actually eating a low carb diet, they do typically eat higher fat. You'll see it abbreviated at LCHF - 'low carb high fat'. Fats are satiating and make you feel more full for longer, and give you the energy you aren't getting from the carbs. If you want to keep the fat lower, increase your protein.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »
Says who?Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.
It's not - no one is a 'special snowflake'. The same physiologic rules apply to everyone. IF she really wants to eat low carb, she needs to aim for less than 50 g per day.
If she feels that 150 is low for her, it is.
I have been told on many occasions that I am a special snowflake. I've seen many others told that they were, too. This would be according to people who use the term, obviously. So, we exist. It's kind of fun being a special snowflake.
I don't find it helpful to tell people that the laws of science don't apply to them. I prefer to empower them with knowledge.
OP, you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. If you find that low carb helps you achieve a deficit, then go for it, but at 160g carbs, that is just a normal amount for a normal person. If it's the route you want to try, then I am sure some low carber's will be around to help you figure out what number you should be aiming for. For help achieving a deficit without going low carb, ask away!
This "Science Law" that specifies that <50g means "low carb" and anyone wanting to eat a low carb diet must eat less than 50g...is that in some textbook somewhere?
What is the name of that Law?
Empower me with knowledge.
Please show me anywhere where I said this. Literally, I have never once quoted a carb number, I have always said to ask a low carber. That doesn't mean that I don't know that 160 carbs is not usually considered low carb.
I have no clue how you came up with that comment as a response to what I wrote.0 -
I see. So, not so much disagreeing with me, then. No big Science Law to share.blankiefinder wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »
Says who?Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.
It's not - no one is a 'special snowflake'. The same physiologic rules apply to everyone. IF she really wants to eat low carb, she needs to aim for less than 50 g per day.
If she feels that 150 is low for her, it is.
I have been told on many occasions that I am a special snowflake. I've seen many others told that they were, too. This would be according to people who use the term, obviously. So, we exist. It's kind of fun being a special snowflake.
I don't find it helpful to tell people that the laws of science don't apply to them. I prefer to empower them with knowledge.
OP, you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. If you find that low carb helps you achieve a deficit, then go for it, but at 160g carbs, that is just a normal amount for a normal person. If it's the route you want to try, then I am sure some low carber's will be around to help you figure out what number you should be aiming for. For help achieving a deficit without going low carb, ask away!
This "Science Law" that specifies that <50g means "low carb" and anyone wanting to eat a low carb diet must eat less than 50g...is that in some textbook somewhere?
What is the name of that Law?
Empower me with knowledge.
Please show me anywhere where I said this. Literally, I have never once quoted a carb number, I have always said to ask a low carber. That doesn't mean that I don't know that 160 carbs is not usually considered low carb.
I have no clue how you came up with that comment as a response to what I wrote.
I am disappointed. I was so looking forward to being empowered with knowledge.
Darn.
0 -
Would you happen to know the name of that Law? Or Rule Of The Physical World?
Says who?Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.
It's not - no one is a 'special snowflake'. The same physiologic rules apply to everyone. IF she really wants to eat low carb, she needs to aim for less than 50 g per day.
If she feels that 150 is low for her, it is.
I have been told on many occasions that I am a special snowflake. I've seen many others told that they were, too. This would be according to people who use the term, obviously. So, we exist. It's kind of fun being a special snowflake.
I am talking about the actual numbers for a low carb diet, not what someone feels is low for them.
When I say that no one is a special snowflake, I mean that the rules of the physical world apply to everyone.
0 -
160g might be low carb relative to total caloric intake. Or at least lower carb. The numbers are relative.
It depends if your aim is to enter ketosis. Since you're a female, I'd say that 160, while lower than the usual standard American diet, is still too high to enter ketosis.
If you're eating 160 g of carbs and 50% fat, how much protein are you eating? Protein is pretty important for dieters in particular. You should be getting .65 - .85 g per pound of bodyweight a day.0 -
I see. So, not so much disagreeing with me, then. No big Science Law to share.blankiefinder wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »
Says who?Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.
It's not - no one is a 'special snowflake'. The same physiologic rules apply to everyone. IF she really wants to eat low carb, she needs to aim for less than 50 g per day.
If she feels that 150 is low for her, it is.
I have been told on many occasions that I am a special snowflake. I've seen many others told that they were, too. This would be according to people who use the term, obviously. So, we exist. It's kind of fun being a special snowflake.
I don't find it helpful to tell people that the laws of science don't apply to them. I prefer to empower them with knowledge.
OP, you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. If you find that low carb helps you achieve a deficit, then go for it, but at 160g carbs, that is just a normal amount for a normal person. If it's the route you want to try, then I am sure some low carber's will be around to help you figure out what number you should be aiming for. For help achieving a deficit without going low carb, ask away!
This "Science Law" that specifies that <50g means "low carb" and anyone wanting to eat a low carb diet must eat less than 50g...is that in some textbook somewhere?
What is the name of that Law?
Empower me with knowledge.
Please show me anywhere where I said this. Literally, I have never once quoted a carb number, I have always said to ask a low carber. That doesn't mean that I don't know that 160 carbs is not usually considered low carb.
I have no clue how you came up with that comment as a response to what I wrote.
I am disappointed. I was so looking forward to being empowered with knowledge.
Darn.
If you have an issue with me, be more direct.
If you don't like my advice to her to seek help from low carber's, whatever.0 -
You had quoted me and talked about Laws of Science and empowering people with knowledge, so I thought you might empower me with that knowledge.blankiefinder wrote: »
I see. So, not so much disagreeing with me, then. No big Science Law to share.blankiefinder wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »
Says who?Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.
It's not - no one is a 'special snowflake'. The same physiologic rules apply to everyone. IF she really wants to eat low carb, she needs to aim for less than 50 g per day.
If she feels that 150 is low for her, it is.
I have been told on many occasions that I am a special snowflake. I've seen many others told that they were, too. This would be according to people who use the term, obviously. So, we exist. It's kind of fun being a special snowflake.
I don't find it helpful to tell people that the laws of science don't apply to them. I prefer to empower them with knowledge.
OP, you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. If you find that low carb helps you achieve a deficit, then go for it, but at 160g carbs, that is just a normal amount for a normal person. If it's the route you want to try, then I am sure some low carber's will be around to help you figure out what number you should be aiming for. For help achieving a deficit without going low carb, ask away!
This "Science Law" that specifies that <50g means "low carb" and anyone wanting to eat a low carb diet must eat less than 50g...is that in some textbook somewhere?
What is the name of that Law?
Empower me with knowledge.
Please show me anywhere where I said this. Literally, I have never once quoted a carb number, I have always said to ask a low carber. That doesn't mean that I don't know that 160 carbs is not usually considered low carb.
I have no clue how you came up with that comment as a response to what I wrote.
I am disappointed. I was so looking forward to being empowered with knowledge.
Darn.
If you have an issue with me, be more direct.
If you don't like my advice to her to seek help from low carber's, whatever.
I don't have a problem with you (or anyone) giving whatever advice they might like to give. Different opinions are great!
Was just thinking that maybe I'd missed something. There was some itty bitty chance that it was possible! So, maybe I, too, could be empowered with that knowledge. Sadly, no. No empowering Laws of Science for me.
It's cool. I half-suspected that no such thing existed.
0 -
You had quoted me and talked about Laws of Science and empowering people with knowledge, so I thought you might empower me with that knowledge.blankiefinder wrote: »
I see. So, not so much disagreeing with me, then. No big Science Law to share.blankiefinder wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »
Says who?Confuzzled4ever wrote: »Maybe that is low carb for her? Sheesh. I know people who can easily eat double that without trying.
I tend to feel better with higher protein. Healthy fats are good for you. I wouldn't worry unless you aren't losing or you don't feel well.
It's not - no one is a 'special snowflake'. The same physiologic rules apply to everyone. IF she really wants to eat low carb, she needs to aim for less than 50 g per day.
If she feels that 150 is low for her, it is.
I have been told on many occasions that I am a special snowflake. I've seen many others told that they were, too. This would be according to people who use the term, obviously. So, we exist. It's kind of fun being a special snowflake.
I don't find it helpful to tell people that the laws of science don't apply to them. I prefer to empower them with knowledge.
OP, you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. If you find that low carb helps you achieve a deficit, then go for it, but at 160g carbs, that is just a normal amount for a normal person. If it's the route you want to try, then I am sure some low carber's will be around to help you figure out what number you should be aiming for. For help achieving a deficit without going low carb, ask away!
This "Science Law" that specifies that <50g means "low carb" and anyone wanting to eat a low carb diet must eat less than 50g...is that in some textbook somewhere?
What is the name of that Law?
Empower me with knowledge.
Please show me anywhere where I said this. Literally, I have never once quoted a carb number, I have always said to ask a low carber. That doesn't mean that I don't know that 160 carbs is not usually considered low carb.
I have no clue how you came up with that comment as a response to what I wrote.
I am disappointed. I was so looking forward to being empowered with knowledge.
Darn.
If you have an issue with me, be more direct.
If you don't like my advice to her to seek help from low carber's, whatever.
I don't have a problem with you (or anyone) giving whatever advice they might like to give. Different opinions are great!
Was just thinking that maybe I'd missed something. There was some itty bitty chance that it was possible! So, maybe I, too, could be empowered with that knowledge. Sadly, no. No empowering Laws of Science for me.
It's cool. I half-suspected that no such thing existed.
Gotcha. So there are no physiological rules. Glad I understand you now.0 -
FDA hasn't defined "low carb." Institute of Medicine recommends 130g/day for all humans over the age of 1, so wouldn't "low" be under that recommendation?0
-
Guys, kalikel is right. I've been eating 200-300g of carbs a day, but I feel like it's low carb, so it is.0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »Guys, kalikel is right. I've been eating 200-300g of carbs a day, but I feel like it's low carb, so it is.
And I eat 3500 calories a day but it feels like 1900, so I'm losing 2 lbs. a week. Science!0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Guys, kalikel is right. I've been eating 200-300g of carbs a day, but I feel like it's low carb, so it is.
And I eat 3500 calories a day but it feels like 1900, so I'm losing 2 lbs. a week. Science!
I like you.0 -
Low carb? Is eating a whole pizza low carb?0
-
Whatever split you have between your macros is up to you. If you choose low carb (say 20%) to illustrate, then you have 80% left and you might choose 30% from fat and 50% protein to make up your day, vice versa or even reverse that split so higher fat than protein..
Personally, I just get too full with so much protein I'd burst (or feels like it) that for me I find a natural consequence of low carb is higher fat.0 -
tayloralanj wrote: »Low carb? Is eating a whole pizza low carb?
I don't know, but I just think your beard is fantastic.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions