Protein/Fat question
DietPrada
Posts: 1,171 Member
I've been doing this a long time as many of you know but I keep reading "if your body is high fat all you need is low carb" so it got me thinking - maybe if I eat less dietary fat I'll lose more than the 1kg a month I seem to manage.
The problem is, I can't work out how to do that. If I drop my fat down to 90g (assuming I will get the rest from my body stores) and up my carbs to about 40g (I did this a couple of weeks ago with no detrimental effect) then I need to eat 130g protein to make up the rest. This seems really high to me (I've always tried to stick to about 90g).
If I lower my fat and keep my carbs low how the hell do I eat? Am I supposed to reduce my calories to about 1000? (I know I'm not).
The problem is, I can't work out how to do that. If I drop my fat down to 90g (assuming I will get the rest from my body stores) and up my carbs to about 40g (I did this a couple of weeks ago with no detrimental effect) then I need to eat 130g protein to make up the rest. This seems really high to me (I've always tried to stick to about 90g).
If I lower my fat and keep my carbs low how the hell do I eat? Am I supposed to reduce my calories to about 1000? (I know I'm not).
1
Replies
-
@EbonyDahlia, are you tallying fat-grams at 9 calories a piece and protein and carbs at 4?0
-
Maybe something more like this?
Or if that's too many calories. Maybe this example???
1 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »I've been doing this a long time as many of you know but I keep reading "if your body is high fat all you need is low carb" so it got me thinking - maybe if I eat less dietary fat I'll lose more than the 1kg a month I seem to manage.
The problem is, I can't work out how to do that. If I drop my fat down to 90g (assuming I will get the rest from my body stores) and up my carbs to about 40g (I did this a couple of weeks ago with no detrimental effect) then I need to eat 130g protein to make up the rest. This seems really high to me (I've always tried to stick to about 90g).
If I lower my fat and keep my carbs low how the hell do I eat? Am I supposed to reduce my calories to about 1000? (I know I'm not).
This fresh post by Marty Kendall might be helpful:
https://optimisingnutrition.com/2017/02/06/sardines-spinach-eggs-and-avocado/1 -
I will add that I've cut back on my fat intake for quite a while now and it's really made no difference on the scale for me. But you probably know my opinions of scale as compared to actual body changes. I did finally lose the couple pounds I had put on in the fall. But I'm back to maintaining at 140lbs which is where I've been for over a year. Which is still up 7 from my lowest ever since I've been keto.
I don't track macros though. So I've just cut out adding so much cheese or cream sauce to stuff. And I only add either butter or MCT to coffee and not both. I've cut added fats without actually knowing what my macro intake is, so take it for what it's worth.1 -
@EbonyDahlia, are you tallying fat-grams at 9 calories a piece and protein and carbs at 4?
I'm not tallying it I'm putting the grams into MFP goals and fiddling until I get roughly 1400 cals. If I set my fat grams at 70 to 80 my protein ends up being really high. So how high is too high? I'm 42yo female 5'10" 88kg.
0 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »@EbonyDahlia, are you tallying fat-grams at 9 calories a piece and protein and carbs at 4?
I'm not tallying it I'm putting the grams into MFP goals and fiddling until I get roughly 1400 cals. If I set my fat grams at 70 to 80 my protein ends up being really high. So how high is too high? I'm 42yo female 5'10" 88kg.
There's really no way to judge what's too much, without you experimenting with it yourself. Protein provides for a higher TEF, can be deaminated and oxidized for energy in the absence of the other two substrates, and is obviously the most protein sparing of the three macros.
I've run cuts with 70% fat and 30% protein, and I've run them with 90+% protein and only EFAs. The only difference is that the latter allowed me to go into a deeper caloric debt without LBM sacrifice. Your body may not react the same, depending upon insulin sensitivity, etc.
Also, if you are looking for something you can do indefinitely, the latter is definitely not for you, unless you really like tuna, chicken breast with all fat scraped off, and extremely low-carb MPI shakes.
0 -
@EbonyDahlia - I believe that saying was mostly aimed at people who think they have to have fat bombs to reach some magical fat percentage. Just keep your carbs low, get at least the protein you need to maintain LBM and then fat is the rest.
I know you have been involved with other posts about how much protein. It really is based on you. I know you BG is a big concern for you. My suggestion is to monitor your BG to see how it responds to varying amounts of protein. If you can tolerate more without BG spiking, great. If not, then keep the amounts lower and spaced out more.
Personally, I have not had issues with spikes from more protein, but I think @Gallowmere1984 and I are probably far more active physically than most people in this group which may play a factor in this. I have days over 300 g of protein, but that is on 3200-3500 calories at maintenance.
For those looking to lose weight, my suggestion is to focus less on protein/fat ratio and more on satiety. In general, fat and protein are much better than carbs in this aspect, however, not all fats and proteins are created equal. For instance, pork rinds are nothing but fat and protein, but they provide little in the way of satiety, IMO. On the other end, 2 cans of tuna (4 servings) is only 180 calories, but is way more filling than most foods with twice the calories.
I do think that different people find different foods more satisfying, so you may need to experiment to get the most filling feeling with the least calories.3 -
I guess I'm just trying to change things up a bit given my painfully slow weightloss. I'm down to 1400 cals now from 1700 and it hasn't made a lick of difference, my Happy Scale reminds me all the time that I'm a failure at 0.25 kg loss a month. I know a loss is still a loss but really? a quarter of a kg? I thought changing my macros around so I'm not eating 70% fat anymore might make a difference - based on the theory that if I'm eating that much fat then I'm not burning much of my own fat. But I am scared of having 130g protein a day. I guess I'll just have to try it and see how it goes.0
-
I aim for an absolute minimum of 120g of protein per day.1
-
You're a total enigma to me Ebony.. At your height and weight you should be losing roughly 0.4kgs a week eating around 1700 calories at a minimum, and that's if you're sedentary. You dont have any health conditions, right? Your diary is locked, so i can't even find any clues in there
1 -
My diary is locked because over the years people have dug in and criticized (uninvited) "oh you ate a quest bar 3 weeks ago ... that's why you're not losing weight".
I can tell you what I eat. Almost the same thing every day.
Breakfast is 15g butter and 30ml cream in a BPC
Mid morning is 20ml cream (instant coffee at work)
Lunch is chicken or salmon with cherry tomatoes, cucumber, olives
Dinner is meat (steak, sausage etc) with zucchini and mushroom or cauliflower
After dinner is a decaf coffee with 15g butter, some diet jelly with blueberries and whipped cream.
Everything is weighed and measured accurately.
According to blood tests etc my Doctor tells me I have no health conditions. Nor do I feel unwell.
I'm not sedentary. I work in an office and am not terribly active, but I would walk 30 minutes a day and I would burn an extra 1000 every Saturday.
Every Keto calculator etc says I should lose weight on 1700 cals, but at 1700 cals I pretty much stayed the same for 6 months. If I drop half a kg in a month I'm doing well. I dropped down to 87.8 this month, and I was so excited, but the next day I was 88.8 again. Happy scale tells me my current rate is 0.09kg a week.
I have dropped my calories to 1350 and reduced my fat intake in the hopes that it might have some effect. My concern with dropping them this low is that I'm stuck eating so little for ever. That my maintenance level will be lower.2 -
When the trend is slower than you want, you have three options.
1: suck it up and deal with the slow loss.
2: increase your physical activoty
3: cut kcals further
This is the unfortunate reality, and no amount of online calculators or wishful thinking will change it. In order for me to lose at the rate I want to when cutting, I have to hit the 1250/day range AND walk 5-6 miles per day as a 5'10" male.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »When the trend is slower than you want, you have three options.
1: suck it up and deal with the slow loss.
2: increase your physical activoty
3: cut kcals further
This is the unfortunate reality, and no amount of online calculators or wishful thinking will change it. In order for me to lose at the rate I want to when cutting, I have to hit the 1250/day range AND walk 5-6 miles per day as a 5'10" male.
Putting it very directly, here are your options. IMHO adding much more activity and staying at 1700 is the best option. You are right that you don't want to grind your metabolism to a halt by hitting minimal calories right away and staying there. More move, more often. If you have a smart phone, like who doesn't, set an alarm for every hour to get up and make a lap around the office. Then around the office building, then 2 laps. Next squeeze in 2 laps before breakfast, fasted. According to the calculator (keto gains dot com) I used, guessing avg bf% so there is error, 1700 would be about a 10% deficit WITHOUT exercise! Now there "fat loss" intake, 25% deficit, is 1400 WITHOUT exercise. If nothing else, try the 1400 and see if it agrees with you. If you feel deprived and feel more cravings then increase slowly back to 1700 to find a sweet spot in satiety.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »When the trend is slower than you want, you have three options.
1: suck it up and deal with the slow loss.
2: increase your physical activoty
3: cut kcals further
This is the unfortunate reality, and no amount of online calculators or wishful thinking will change it. In order for me to lose at the rate I want to when cutting, I have to hit the 1250/day range AND walk 5-6 miles per day as a 5'10" male.
Thank you. I do not indulge in "wishful thinking". I have been dealing with the slow loss for 4 years, so I'm well adapted to "sucking it up". I have cut my calories, by 300 per day. I do as much physical activity as I am comfortably able. I say this because the MOST important thing in regards to eating and exercise is that it is sustainable long term, not just for now. There is no point embarking on something that is going to end in deprivation and resentment and end up being just too hard. If I have to force myself it will not last long. The whole point of this thread was not to pray for online calculator magic, but rather to explore the theory that if I eat less fat (and use my body fat for the difference) how much protein is too much.
0 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »When the trend is slower than you want, you have three options.
1: suck it up and deal with the slow loss.
2: increase your physical activoty
3: cut kcals further
This is the unfortunate reality, and no amount of online calculators or wishful thinking will change it. In order for me to lose at the rate I want to when cutting, I have to hit the 1250/day range AND walk 5-6 miles per day as a 5'10" male.
Thank you. I do not indulge in "wishful thinking". I have been dealing with the slow loss for 4 years, so I'm well adapted to "sucking it up". I have cut my calories, by 300 per day. I do as much physical activity as I am comfortably able. I say this because the MOST important thing in regards to eating and exercise is that it is sustainable long term, not just for now. There is no point embarking on something that is going to end in deprivation and resentment and end up being just too hard. If I have to force myself it will not last long. The whole point of this thread was not to pray for online calculator magic, but rather to explore the theory that if I eat less fat (and use my body fat for the difference) how much protein is too much.
Don't get it twisted; my response was less directed at you, and more a retort to some of the other posts, which is why I didn't quote anything specific.
As someone who is an avid follower of the logs of RFLH users, I facepalm a bit when people's responses to slow loss are "you need to eat more". The fact is, unless one is already low in bodyfat, or has an actual metabolic disorder, strong deficits cause minimal hormonal issues. It usually ends up being more of a problem with compliance than anything physiological.2 -
strong deficits cause minimal hormonal issues
Do you have evidence of that for women on keto? Female bodies are notoriously fickle when it comes to environmentally-affected hormones. Keto alone is known to screw with women's hormones, and extreme caloric restriction is known to elevate cortisol. For an active 5'10" woman, 1450 calories may in fact be too low.The whole point of this thread was not to pray for online calculator magic, but rather to explore the theory that if I eat less fat (and use my body fat for the difference) how much protein is too much.
It's not really possible to have "too much" protein without putting in some serious effort. At 5'10", your protein could go as high as 160g or so and still fall into the typically accepted average range. In my experience, even eating carnivore, going much beyond 160-180g requires effort and more than double the amount you're consuming (to compare, I've got a day of nearly 4000 calories, nearly entirely of meat, and still didn't break 180g of protein).
Have you considered dropping the coffee and/or trying ("true") intermittent fasting? Either of those might help, without having to further restrict calories on a daily basis.3 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »strong deficits cause minimal hormonal issues
Do you have evidence of that for women on keto? Female bodies are notoriously fickle when it comes to environmentally-affected hormones. Keto alone is known to screw with women's hormones, and extreme caloric restriction is known to elevate cortisol. For an active 5'10" woman, 1450 calories may in fact be too low.The whole point of this thread was not to pray for online calculator magic, but rather to explore the theory that if I eat less fat (and use my body fat for the difference) how much protein is too much.
It's not really possible to have "too much" protein without putting in some serious effort. At 5'10", your protein could go as high as 160g or so and still fall into the typically accepted average range. In my experience, even eating carnivore, going much beyond 160-180g requires effort and more than double the amount you're consuming (to compare, I've got a day of nearly 4000 calories, nearly entirely of meat, and still didn't break 180g of protein).
Have you considered dropping the coffee and/or trying ("true") intermittent fasting? Either of those might help, without having to further restrict calories on a daily basis.
But ... but ... my coffee is the only reason I can deal with the day. No coffee in the morning? What kind of BS torture is that?2 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »Dragonwolf wrote: »strong deficits cause minimal hormonal issues
Do you have evidence of that for women on keto? Female bodies are notoriously fickle when it comes to environmentally-affected hormones. Keto alone is known to screw with women's hormones, and extreme caloric restriction is known to elevate cortisol. For an active 5'10" woman, 1450 calories may in fact be too low.The whole point of this thread was not to pray for online calculator magic, but rather to explore the theory that if I eat less fat (and use my body fat for the difference) how much protein is too much.
It's not really possible to have "too much" protein without putting in some serious effort. At 5'10", your protein could go as high as 160g or so and still fall into the typically accepted average range. In my experience, even eating carnivore, going much beyond 160-180g requires effort and more than double the amount you're consuming (to compare, I've got a day of nearly 4000 calories, nearly entirely of meat, and still didn't break 180g of protein).
Have you considered dropping the coffee and/or trying ("true") intermittent fasting? Either of those might help, without having to further restrict calories on a daily basis.
But ... but ... my coffee is the only reason I can deal with the day. No coffee in the morning? What kind of BS torture is that?
LOL. "BS Torture" made me laugh out loud
It might be the same kind of torture as getting additional exercise? 2 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »Dragonwolf wrote: »strong deficits cause minimal hormonal issues
Do you have evidence of that for women on keto? Female bodies are notoriously fickle when it comes to environmentally-affected hormones. Keto alone is known to screw with women's hormones, and extreme caloric restriction is known to elevate cortisol. For an active 5'10" woman, 1450 calories may in fact be too low.The whole point of this thread was not to pray for online calculator magic, but rather to explore the theory that if I eat less fat (and use my body fat for the difference) how much protein is too much.
It's not really possible to have "too much" protein without putting in some serious effort. At 5'10", your protein could go as high as 160g or so and still fall into the typically accepted average range. In my experience, even eating carnivore, going much beyond 160-180g requires effort and more than double the amount you're consuming (to compare, I've got a day of nearly 4000 calories, nearly entirely of meat, and still didn't break 180g of protein).
Have you considered dropping the coffee and/or trying ("true") intermittent fasting? Either of those might help, without having to further restrict calories on a daily basis.
But ... but ... my coffee is the only reason I can deal with the day. No coffee in the morning? What kind of BS torture is that?
LOL. "BS Torture" made me laugh out loud It might be the same kind of torture as getting additional exercise?
I get a fair amount of exercise already. I have no interest in being an "athlete" nor do I think we all need to work towards being that fit. We can be perfectly healthy with a half hour walk a day, and some physical activity on the weekends. I'm not going to go work out at the gym every day when I would much rather be doing things I LIKE in my downtime, just so I can eat 200 more calories. What is the point?
Edited to say my MisFit 2 activity tracker says I earn an extra 250ish calories a day and my TDEE is 2300 + : I don't eat back any of these calories, ever. Even on Saturdays when I burn in excess of 1000.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »strong deficits cause minimal hormonal issues
Do you have evidence of that for women on keto? Female bodies are notoriously fickle when it comes to environmentally-affected hormones. Keto alone is known to screw with women's hormones, and extreme caloric restriction is known to elevate cortisol. For an active 5'10" woman, 1450 calories may in fact be too low.The whole point of this thread was not to pray for online calculator magic, but rather to explore the theory that if I eat less fat (and use my body fat for the difference) how much protein is too much.
It's not really possible to have "too much" protein without putting in some serious effort. At 5'10", your protein could go as high as 160g or so and still fall into the typically accepted average range. In my experience, even eating carnivore, going much beyond 160-180g requires effort and more than double the amount you're consuming (to compare, I've got a day of nearly 4000 calories, nearly entirely of meat, and still didn't break 180g of protein).
Have you considered dropping the coffee and/or trying ("true") intermittent fasting? Either of those might help, without having to further restrict calories on a daily basis.
You left out the part about high bodyfat in your quote, which is important. When I say "hormones" within the context of fat loss, I am talking about leptin, ghrelin, shbg, thyroid, etc. Cortisol ALWAYS goes up in response to stress, and caloric deficits definitely qualify.
Also, for an active person, you are right, though "active" is pretty hard to quantify. I have seen several examples of people (women and men) who try to cut calories hard AND throw in a bunch of cardio, and yes, the results are often disastrous. However, 30 minutes per day hardly qualifies as excessive, unless it were HIIT, in which case I'd ask why the hell they were doing such on a heavy deficit anyway.
I'll spend some time today going through some of the articles I have on the subject and get you some sources.
In the meantime, give this a read: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/does-the-diet-determine-the-training-or-the-training-determine-the-diet.html/
It gives a rather concise explanation of what I was talking about with the previous paragraph.2 -
0
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Dragonwolf wrote: »strong deficits cause minimal hormonal issues
Do you have evidence of that for women on keto? Female bodies are notoriously fickle when it comes to environmentally-affected hormones. Keto alone is known to screw with women's hormones, and extreme caloric restriction is known to elevate cortisol. For an active 5'10" woman, 1450 calories may in fact be too low.The whole point of this thread was not to pray for online calculator magic, but rather to explore the theory that if I eat less fat (and use my body fat for the difference) how much protein is too much.
It's not really possible to have "too much" protein without putting in some serious effort. At 5'10", your protein could go as high as 160g or so and still fall into the typically accepted average range. In my experience, even eating carnivore, going much beyond 160-180g requires effort and more than double the amount you're consuming (to compare, I've got a day of nearly 4000 calories, nearly entirely of meat, and still didn't break 180g of protein).
Have you considered dropping the coffee and/or trying ("true") intermittent fasting? Either of those might help, without having to further restrict calories on a daily basis.
You left out the part about high bodyfat in your quote, which is important. When I say "hormones" within the context of fat loss, I am talking about leptin, ghrelin, shbg, thyroid, etc. Cortisol ALWAYS goes up in response to stress, and caloric deficits definitely qualify.
Also, for an active person, you are right, though "active" is pretty hard to quantify. I have seen several examples of people (women and men) who try to cut calories hard AND throw in a bunch of cardio, and yes, the results are often disastrous. However, 30 minutes per day hardly qualifies as excessive, unless it were HIIT, in which case I'd ask why the hell they were doing such on a heavy deficit anyway.
I'll spend some time today going through some of the articles I have on the subject and get you some sources.
In the meantime, give this a read: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/does-the-diet-determine-the-training-or-the-training-determine-the-diet.html/
It gives a rather concise explanation of what I was talking about with the previous paragraph.
You...don't mention anything about high bodyfat. The rest of that quote only mentions low bodyfat (and if you're cutting that many calories and have low bodyfat, why the hell are you cutting calories? but that's a different matter):The fact is, unless one is already low in bodyfat, or has an actual metabolic disorder, strong deficits cause minimal hormonal issues
This might be true for men (in fact, I've little doubt of its truth for men), but women, even those who are only a little over weight (so not "low in bodyfat," but not with so much that the fat itself causes hormonal imbalances) frequently have hormonal issues that are a response to their environment.0
This discussion has been closed.