It takes a while to finesse it. The common wisdom is protein is a goal, carbs are a ceiling, and fat to satiety without having to eat all your fat calories if you don't want to.

I log all my likely foods a day ahead & tweak my meals to work with my numbers before I ever eat anything. But my foods are very predictable so that makes it doable. All I can say is keep at it, it gets easier the more you log.

Carbs and fat are maximums. Protein is a minimum.
You don't have to hit any perfect ratio to be keto. You just need very low carbs. That's all. It's the lack of carbs that makes your body use ketones. It has nothing to do with how much fat or protein you eat. If you supply too much fat from food you won't use body fat though. So keep that in mind because you'll read some crazy stuff out there that might suggest different...

You need more sodium.
If you're keeping your carbs that low, the body requires a MINIMUM of 3,000-5,000mg daily.
You'll start to feel like roadkill if you don't raise it.
Otherwise, I agree with advice given. Carbs a ceiling, protein a minimum, fill the rest with fat to satiety.
And definitely get in the habit of prelogging. That way you make sure you hit your macros, and you have a road map to follow for the day so you don't have to worry about decisions in the middle of being hungry (a time when we are easily swayed to make less than stellar food decisions.)

But just to keep the protein debate going, here is a piece of Dr. Fung's position on it. Basically, limit protein.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/how-much-protein-is-excessive/

kpk54 wrote: »

But just to keep the protein debate going, here is a piece of Dr. Fung's position on it. Basically, limit protein.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/how-much-protein-is-excessive/

I have a general respect for Dr. Fung, but I'm not a fan of that post. There's a lot more snark and appeal to authority than citeable research or at least case studies. I'd have expected better of him (and to at least be academic about his disagreements with P&V).

His post does illustrate what the bottom of protein intake should be and why, but I question his assertion that above that is "excess," especially as he doesn't really back it up with anything verifiable (possibly out of necessity). His assertion regarding animal protein and osteoporosis has been refuted quite a bit, too.

Additionally, his intake numbers aren't clear and appear to be conflating per kg of lean body mass and total body weight. The RDA appears to use total body weight, while Phinney and Volek base theirs off of lean body mass, as do folks like Ketogains, making that "1-1.5g/kg" amount work out to essentially the same amount as the RDA, as opposed to Dr. Fung's insinuation that they're promoting that as a total body weight measure, making his snark there to be founded on a straw man.

The consensus appears to be that roughly half of protein gets converted to glucose per GNG, but again, GNG is demand-driven, not supply-driven, and the data points more toward it not being converted.

Let's take a tangential hypothetical here for a moment -- the body can't really store protein directly. It can store some amino acids, but only a small amount and for a short time. That means that protein has to go somewhere. Let's assume it's converted to glucose and/or fat. The evidence suggests that protein is converted to glucose at a rate of about 50-60%. That is, for every 3g of protein going into the conversion, you get about 2g of glucose out of it. The glucose to fat conversion appears to be about 90% efficient (if that's not a testament to the body preferring fat for its fuel source, I'm not really sure what is...). Another note -- protein cannot be converted directly to fat, making it a two-step process. So! If you consume 100 calories of excess protein (that is, protein not used directly for its building blocks), it must first be converted to glucose, where you end up with about 60 calories, then that's converted to fat, yielding you 54 calories of fatty acids, which can then be used for ketones and direct fuel, itself. Nifty, huh?

Back to reality -- the way I look at it is that the body, itself, knows better than scientists as long as it's given the proper fuel to begin with. If you're beyond the initial adaptation phase, gauging protein intake via desire is pretty straightforward. Don't force yourself to eat a particular amount (either high or low) and you'll likely quickly find you stay pretty consistent with your intake and normalize somewhere in what most generally consider to be "moderate" intake. Some people find they do better with a little more, while others find they do better with a little less (and the exact amount may vary with activity level).

mtague7733 wrote: »

I changed it to public. If u could look it over that would be greatly appreciated!

First thing I notice are the Atkins bars and protein bars. Drop those. Eat real food. If you need a grab and go thing, try hard boiled eggs.

Other than that, I say you're doing fine (assuming your calorie goal isn't overly ambitious). You could tighten up the carbs a bit, but I think dropping the protein bars will do most of that, especially if you switch them out for things like eggs. Protein and fat, in my opinion, don't need to be exact. Like I said, the body knows what it needs, and some days it needs protein more and others it needs fat more, and some days it doesn't need much of either and that's okay, too. On the days I looked and that didn't have obvious non-compliant stuff, you were within 10g of protein and fat. Even the days you went over in calories, those proportions stayed pretty much the same.