Eating what you want within calories vs Keto within calories

CICO for me, I really enjoy my carbs, life is too short to feel "miserable"
Lost 50 lbs that way, every time I tried keto I lost 3 lbs only to gain them back...

k_e_l wrote: »

Ok thanks again everyone for your input! :-). I do understand its CICO to lose, so please don't think I was trying to tick you all off by making you explain that again, lol..:-). Just wondered how you all felt when you ate at different macro levels for the same caloric deficit..I know everyone is different, but its always nice to hear others experience & what helped all of you. I know its not healthy to eat a bunch of candy, doritos, etc to make up your calories for the day...when I was eating "whatever I wanted"..it was stuff like an english muffin with peanut butter & banana, tuna melt on white bread, a can of soup, a hot dog, a portioned size bag of chip at lunch with a sandwich, white instant rice with some protein & veggies for dinner, a couple dark hershey kisses when I could fit them,...etc. Geez as I type this I realize I was eating a lot of processed food! It was just easy to grab "fast" stuff like that as long as I tracked, but perhaps as some of you suggest, I can just eat some better, whole grain carbs, and healthier things in general to improve my satiety. Good advice!!!! Thanks again everyone! I appreciate everyones input, whether it be keto or CICO you choose, I'm glad its working for you! I am learning from all of you & taking it all in on all the different aspects of losing weight & how to make it work for me in a not so miserable way...:-)

Keep in mind one more thing... there is no reason you need to only adhere to one diet or another. Thats the beauty. If you aren't working to address a medical condition, you have free range in that you can eat however. So some days might be high carb, others might be low carb or keto. Heck, as much as a carboholic i am, i occasionally eat keto... because i love meat and cheese even more. In fact, i struggle to moderate good cheese, which is why i dont eat it often because i literally will eat the block. And yes, i have done it which is also why i know fat doesn't really satiate me.

So unless you want to stick to keto for whatever reason, you really have vast options out there... getting stuck on one just might not be beneficial for you.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

@lemurcat12 if you look at most studies, the point of low carb does occur around 140g and below. At least from all the research i have seen.

What supposedly happens there? Or do you just mean that's where it's set as the dividing line?

It seems obvious to me that unless it's claimed that something specific happens with less than 140 g, that percentage has to be relevant. 140 g is 46.7% of 1200 calories. That would be moderate, IMO, and is barely less than the MFP default. But if you eat 3000 calories, it would be only 18.7% -- I'd say that's on the low side.

My personal sense would be that low is under 30%, but I would agree that 30-40% could be considered low-ish given that the average in the US is more like 50% (although it varies a lot, obviously some eat much more, and it's hard to know for sure).

I DO think that suggesting there's a hard and fast distinction between low and not low carb, or even suggesting that the MFP default (50%) or 200 g or some such = HIGH carb, as I see people suggesting, but that 150 and below is LOW carb, is confusing. Someone eating 150 g at 1200 calories or even 1500 calories is more obviously similar in diet to someone eating 200 g at 2000 calories or 2400 calories than to someone eating under 20 g of carbs.

I'd probably say under 10% = keto (could be wrong about that, is it 5%?), under 30% is low to low-ish, 30-45% is moderate or moderate-to-low, 45-60% is average, over 60% is somewhat high to high, depending.

But it probably doesn't matter.

Someone eating 140 g of carbs at 1200 calories would likely (if using the same ideas about protein I do), be eating around 33.3% protein (100 g) or more, and that only leaves 20% for fat (or 26.7 g). That's obviously very far from a LCHF diet, and probably more properly characterized as low fat than low carb. (I didn't want to eat that low fat, so during the brief period of time I ate around 1200 I naturally dropped carbs down further, but it was still more like 33-33-33 (1% to spare!).

At 1500, it's 37% C, 26% P, 36% F (still an extra 1% out there!). Maybe lowish carbs, but still not high fat at all -- pretty average in fat percentage.

NOT saying any of this matters, but I think it's interesting where people draw the lines and why.

I think, and I am not sure of this, that the low carb line is drawn where most people's basic glucose needs are. About 130-140ish grams is the basic glucose needs for people who use carbs as their primary fuel. Below that people will be using more fat than glucose for fuel, and will need to rely on GNG to meets some of their basic glucose needs.

This does change over time once one is fat adapted. After eating low carb for a few months, the body's minimum glucose needs drops by a fair bit.

When looking at macros, low carb can be anywhere between zero and 40% for most people.

Ketosis has no set limit either. It is typically under 50g but one can go higher, or need to go lower, depending on their metabolic health, activity level, and timing of carb intake. Ketosis just means that one is relying on fat for their energy, and can be measured by blood or breath tests. For most, that is somewhere under 50g. Some of us go lower because the lower we go the better we feel.

I think the diet recommended by the government is about 55% carbs. I believe having more than half of your calories come from carbs is called high carb.

I guess I'd be considered low-moderate carb on average. I focus on protein primarily, then fat, then carbs. I find I do much better managing my appetite with starchy carbs included in my meals. Not necessarily a lot either.

Then there are some days where I basically just eat bread. And again that keeps me very full, it just lacks other nutrients and macros! So I can't do that all the time.

So I'm one of those people that just swings about with food choices depending on what I fancy that day. It's one of the reasons I don't food prep/food prep doesn't appeal, because I will always always change my mind. In that respect I like the freedom of calorie counting as the main focus.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

@lemurcat12 if you look at most studies, the point of low carb does occur around 140g and below. At least from all the research i have seen.

What supposedly happens there? Or do you just mean that's where it's set as the dividing line?

It seems obvious to me that unless it's claimed that something specific happens with less than 140 g, that percentage has to be relevant. 140 g is 46.7% of 1200 calories. That would be moderate, IMO, and is barely less than the MFP default. But if you eat 3000 calories, it would be only 18.7% -- I'd say that's on the low side.

My personal sense would be that low is under 30%, but I would agree that 30-40% could be considered low-ish given that the average in the US is more like 50% (although it varies a lot, obviously some eat much more, and it's hard to know for sure).

I DO think that suggesting there's a hard and fast distinction between low and not low carb, or even suggesting that the MFP default (50%) or 200 g or some such = HIGH carb, as I see people suggesting, but that 150 and below is LOW carb, is confusing. Someone eating 150 g at 1200 calories or even 1500 calories is more obviously similar in diet to someone eating 200 g at 2000 calories or 2400 calories than to someone eating under 20 g of carbs.

I'd probably say under 10% = keto (could be wrong about that, is it 5%?), under 30% is low to low-ish, 30-45% is moderate or moderate-to-low, 45-60% is average, over 60% is somewhat high to high, depending.

But it probably doesn't matter.

Someone eating 140 g of carbs at 1200 calories would likely (if using the same ideas about protein I do), be eating around 33.3% protein (100 g) or more, and that only leaves 20% for fat (or 26.7 g). That's obviously very far from a LCHF diet, and probably more properly characterized as low fat than low carb. (I didn't want to eat that low fat, so during the brief period of time I ate around 1200 I naturally dropped carbs down further, but it was still more like 33-33-33 (1% to spare!).

At 1500, it's 37% C, 26% P, 36% F (still an extra 1% out there!). Maybe lowish carbs, but still not high fat at all -- pretty average in fat percentage.

NOT saying any of this matters, but I think it's interesting where people draw the lines and why.

I think, and I am not sure of this, that the low carb line is drawn where most people's basic glucose needs are. About 130-140ish grams is the basic glucose needs for people who use carbs as their primary fuel. Below that people will be using more fat than glucose for fuel, and will need to rely on GNG to meets some of their basic glucose needs.

Ah, something like that may be right. Quick googling turns up glucose need of 100-120 g for the brain, with 130 g often stated as "just to be safe" version of this." (130 g is the RDA.) So I suspect you are right and it's about the glucose requirement, although I think everyone will be producing ketones at times of the day anyway.

For what it's worth, I've dropped down below 100 g plenty of times and never had any kind of "keto flu" effect, even when I was quite active, perhaps because you are still able to rely MOSTLY on glucose through the more preferred process (by your body, not making a value judgment) vs. mostly ketones.

Given that the RDA is 130, I think there's a pretty good argument for calling low carb anything under that, although of course I still think there's a big difference between 130 g at 1200 calories (which will still be pretty low fat, well below the SAD) and 130 g at 3000 calories (which will be LCHF, probably).

There is a contextual difference in how low a low carb diet is. I agree. Your diet may not be a classic LCHF diet.... What is high fat? Is that above 40%? I'll have to look that up.

Do you remember a poster called kittensmaster? He used to do really long, 5-8 hour bike rides and stay in ketosis but his carbs could go well over 200g in that day (according to ketostix). A very different carb level, not even technically low carb, but he still experienced the benefits of the diet (usually health related or a decreased appetite).

When looking at macros, low carb can be anywhere between zero and 40% for most people.

But what's the point of calling them all "low carb" as if they were essentially the same, and then calling 51% high carb? 40% vs. 51% can be almost the same, especially since most will flex carbs more than the other macros when cutting calories, and of course that the person with 51% may be much more active. It seems like a weird classification.

It may be an odd classification. Perhaps one day it will be changed but the medical community likes to draw lines in the sand. This test is normal but a couple percentage points difference is a flagged test result. They don't seem to tolerate gray areas well.

Do you have a specific definition for ketosis? I know there is one, and certainly something happens that leads to the adjustment period called keto flu (I know part of this is dumping water and electrolytes, but I think not all). However, it's not just burning fat, since we all do that (when sleeping or at low intensity activity) and I think I've read that we all will make ketones at times too -- maybe it's about average keto percentage or some such? Just curious -- I wish I had an easy source that discussed how keto/low carb works that didn't seem to be potentially quite biased.

I don't have a definition for ketosis. Volek describes it as under 50g of non-fibre carbs. He also describes it as using fat for your primary fuel as can be tested with a RQ of about 07 rather than 1 - less CO2 is produced.... Lower greehouse gases and go keto! LOL I think fat as the primary fuel is the key part of that definition.

Keto flu really is just an electrolyte imbalance. If you managed to avoid it is simply means that you took good care of your electrolyte needs.

There is a period of a few week to a few months where fat adaptation will occur. People will often notice a dip in enerhy while the body makes the switch to fat as it's primary fule source. It takes a while for it to become the preferred fuel source. During that time, energy may be slightly lower but it is transient and it does pass.

Not everyone gets through those first few months though. When my energy levels went up, it felt as though I had more energy than ever. This is partially due to the BG rollercoaster I was on before. The difference felt extraordinary and can make it easy to understand (to me) why keto'ers may sing its praises from the rooftops.

I think the diet recommended by the government is about 55% carbs. I believe having more than half of your calories come from carbs is called high carb.

No, it's broader: 45-65%. But like I said, the RDA is only 130 g. I think the percentage is based on the diet pattern and an estimate from that. I don't take it too seriously. But interestingly although the mid-point of that is 55%, the SAD is generally estimated to be higher fat and comes in around 50% -- 50%-35%-15% or so. (As you know, I don't think the SAD is problematic because of its macros, but because the make up of those macros tend to be highly refined carbs (including lots of added sugar), highly processed vegetable oils and sat fat, a lot of red meat, fast food, terrible ratio of omega 6 to omega 3, and very low in vegetables and other produce and fiber. Some of those things might be okay on their own, some not, but as a combination they are bad.)

I completely agree that SAD is mainly a problem due to high refined carb intake. Vegetable oils too. That is part of the reason so many new low carbers exclaim that they are eating more vegetables than ever. They excluded the starchy refined grains and sugars and ended up with very very low carbs that could be increased with more leafy green vegetables. When the potatoes and bread are off the plate there is more room or greens, I guess we could say.

I do disagree that the problem is due to high saturated fat and red meats though. I haven't seen the evidence to support that.

Ed. to add:

From a site I like, here are a couple of interesting posts:

http://caloriesproper.com/ketosis-in-an-evolutionary-context/

http://caloriesproper.com/carbs-low-vs-lower/

The latter is a study comparing interventions for obese (around 35+ BMI) adults, half were on keto (5% carbs, 60% fat) and the other half on non-keto LC (which was 40% carb, 30% fat). They were sedentary. Fat loss was the same, both improved IS (can't see if there were any differences there, but the blogger says no significant difference).

One argument WAS that the NK-LC wasn't low carb, but the blogger (Bill Lagakos) points out that for people that obese on 1500 calories (which they were) it meant abut 150 g, and for people burning as much as they likely were (about 3000 calories), that ends up being quite low. This both supports the argument that 40% can be low carb AND that percentage/context matters, IMO -- 150 g carbs for a sedentary 110 lb, 5'1 woman is way different than 150 g for an active 6'3, 200 lb man.

Anyway, I think this is interesting, and I hope you do too.

Good articles. Thanks. No real surprises. LCHF = good and keto = good, mainly with those with IR. Most who use a ketogenic diet long term know that ketones are not needed for weight loss. Most use a ketogenic diet long term for the health benefits. Many of us, myself included, slip into just low carb when it suits us, but I usually go back to ketogenic because I feel better doing it. If higher ketones don't make a difference to how a person feels or their overall health, there is no reason to continue it.

And those needs will change over time. Many who have started in keto switched to higher carb levels after they got what they needed from the diet. It's like stopping a medication once it has helped with a problem. If the problem is fixed the meds are no longer needed.

I'm curious - you don't seem to like the idea of labeling your diet as low carb. Is there a dietary label you would give or apply your woe?

I call myself very low carb or ketogenic because my carbs are unusually low compared to many (usually below 30g) but I could also call my diet primal - it seems to fit that. And IF....

lemurcat12 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I'm curious - you don't seem to like the idea of labeling your diet as low carb. Is there a dietary label you would give or apply your woe?

I'm neutral on the idea of calling how I eat low carb. One part of why I don't, however, is that I perceive the low carbers at MFP, on average, to be keto-oriented, and to count carbs, and to be extremely low and often the implied suggestion so often, as I read it anyway (and I don't mean from you, but more generally) is that carbs (even vegetables, fruit, other whole foods) are bad because carbs, less is always better, any carbs are bad for health, being close to 0 in sugar is good, even if the sugar is from fruits and veg, etc. That is definitely not how I think of things. I have a personal preference for a diet that happens to be lower than average in total carbs, but not because I think high carb or average carb diets are unhealthy or would be bad for me. Just because of food preferences.

Beyond that, I think of low carb as actively counting and monitoring carbs and I don't try to hit any particular number or really care if I eat more carbs one day, more fat the next. When I log and eat as I like (mainly because for me the meat (or other protein) and vegetables are the essential part of the meals, the starch the extra and for me satisfying even in smaller quantities and not essential to a meal), I happen to come in at 100-150 g, on average. So I'd say I'm not actively low carbing (although like I said I am kind of interested in trying it for a bit, just not so low that I'd be limiting vegetables).

As for what I call my diet, I don't really like the idea of named diets or ways of eating, but if I had to characterize mine I'd just say it was a nutrition-conscious, mostly whole foods based style of eating. I think that's healthy within a wide range of carbs, I just happen to have taste preferences that put me on the lower third (maybe) of that wide range.

My debating about 150 g being low carb (or 140 or whatever) ISN'T because it bothers me if it is, but because people slam the SAD or the MFP default as high carb and that seems inconsistent to me. The SAD is about 50% carb and at 1200 calories 150 g IS 50% carbs. Sure, I think it's better to eat a bit higher cal, for most people, but even at 1600, 50% carbs is only 200 g -- I don't quite get saying that anything from 0-150 are low carb and are basically the same way of eating, but 200=high carb. There is more of a difference in eating under 20 g of carbs (which would be really challenging for me) from 125 g, IMO, than between 150 g and 200 g (and I say that even though I found eating around 200 g to be not for me).

But of course I'm biased by personal experience, and that's that my carbs were probably about 40%-45% when I was gaining weight. I didn't really change the ratio of fats to carbs ever -- I cut both fat and carbs and increased protein some when I decided to lose. So for me it just didn't feel like low carbing; that wasn't the main change, being mindful about some other things was (and dealing with emotional eating, but my emotional eating was mostly fat+carb).

Thanks for the explanation.

You might consider joining the Low Carber Daily. It may help you with ideas or information. Two of the mods are slow carbers: one is slightly above the usual rough 150g carb limit for what is low carb, and the other has been as low as keto but has found it isn't meeting her needs anymore and has moved on to a higher low carb level. Another mod is using LCHF to keto to treat T2D, and another is basically a carnivore.

Like on the main boards, I think the keto'ers tend to be more active and vocal. Many low carbers don't even bother joining the LCD because they feel their carb macro is not unusually low - they need no extra support. Sort of like your experiences.

Anyways, something to consider. Following discussions could sway your opinion to try lower carb one way or the other.

I've done both and it seems like I'm in the minority when I say that I was constantly ravenous when I was keto. I did like the structure that came with keto, however, for me it just wasn't sustainable. "Eating whatever you want" really means some serious accountability in comparison with keto for many (myself included) but lately I definitely feel far more satisfied and generally better than when I was keto. However, there are plenty of people who have incredible success and love how they feel, and more power to them!

@lemurcat12 you're definitely welcome over there! It's a friendly group.