Stopped Losing - very sad/frustrated
Options
Shron123
Posts: 221 Member
I posted the following under the LC site and only got one response (which I appreciated) so I thought I wld try here. It’s a combo ketone measuring / weight loss stall question. TIA for advice and support.
Original Post:
I find it weird that my glucose reads .2 or .3 before I eat my first meal - between noon and 2pm. Then about 3 to 4 hours later I show 1.1 to 1.6. I wld think my ketones wld be higher after a 12-14 hour fast.
Also my carbs are consistently around 20g per day yet my ketones usual register less than 1. I only discovered this week that I seem to have higher readings between my two meals. I believe optimum fat burning / weight loss is 1.5-3. Which I rarely hit. Not sure why that is.
Response:
Ketones don’t cause fat burning.
You mention glucose reading .2 or .3. I’m guessing you mean blood ketones?
You are probably reading higher after a high fat meal because some of the fat became ketones.
Ketones are energy in your blood. They aren’t the only energy, but after you eat, you have more energy in your blood. Therefore a higher reading.
After a long fast, you don’t have as much total energy in your blood.
This also demonstrates why trying to achieve higher ketones because of a belief that a certain level is better for fat burning isn’t true.
You can make more ketones by investing fat, but doing that means you’re not burning body fat. Not until the provided energy is used up or stored as the case may be if over supplied.
My Follow Up:
Well now I’m really confused.
“A ketone level somewhere between 1.5 – 3 is said to be an optimal level for maximizing weight loss.” — Diet Doctor . Com
Dr. Phinney and Volek recommend a range of .5 to 3.0 millimolars to be in ketosis - found this statement in a lot of literature.
I lost about 35 lbs from Aug until mid Dec — 255 to 219. Gained 13 lbs over Christmas. Had lost 11 of those lbs but now I go down to 222 then back to 225 or 227. Has been this way for two weeks. Getting really frustrated. I am going to stick to the program but help wld be much appreciated
Original Post:
I find it weird that my glucose reads .2 or .3 before I eat my first meal - between noon and 2pm. Then about 3 to 4 hours later I show 1.1 to 1.6. I wld think my ketones wld be higher after a 12-14 hour fast.
Also my carbs are consistently around 20g per day yet my ketones usual register less than 1. I only discovered this week that I seem to have higher readings between my two meals. I believe optimum fat burning / weight loss is 1.5-3. Which I rarely hit. Not sure why that is.
Response:
Ketones don’t cause fat burning.
You mention glucose reading .2 or .3. I’m guessing you mean blood ketones?
You are probably reading higher after a high fat meal because some of the fat became ketones.
Ketones are energy in your blood. They aren’t the only energy, but after you eat, you have more energy in your blood. Therefore a higher reading.
After a long fast, you don’t have as much total energy in your blood.
This also demonstrates why trying to achieve higher ketones because of a belief that a certain level is better for fat burning isn’t true.
You can make more ketones by investing fat, but doing that means you’re not burning body fat. Not until the provided energy is used up or stored as the case may be if over supplied.
My Follow Up:
Well now I’m really confused.
“A ketone level somewhere between 1.5 – 3 is said to be an optimal level for maximizing weight loss.” — Diet Doctor . Com
Dr. Phinney and Volek recommend a range of .5 to 3.0 millimolars to be in ketosis - found this statement in a lot of literature.
I lost about 35 lbs from Aug until mid Dec — 255 to 219. Gained 13 lbs over Christmas. Had lost 11 of those lbs but now I go down to 222 then back to 225 or 227. Has been this way for two weeks. Getting really frustrated. I am going to stick to the program but help wld be much appreciated
0
Replies
-
This copy and paste from Dietdoc:
"Below 0.5 mmol/l is not considered “ketosis”, although a value of, say, 0.2 demonstrates that you’re getting close. At this level, you’re still far away from maximum fat-burning.
Between 0.5 – 1.5 mmol/l is light nutritional ketosis. You’ll be getting a good effect on your weight, but perhaps not optimal.
Around 1.5 – 3 mmol/l is called optimal ketosis and is recommended for maximum mental and physical performance gains. It also maximizes fat burning, which can increase weight loss.
Over 3 mmol/l is higher than necessary. It will achieve neither better nor worse results than being at the 1.5–3 level. Higher numbers can also sometimes mean that you’re not getting enough food (“starvation ketosis”). For type 1 diabetics, it can be caused by a severe lack of insulin that requires urgent attention".
It appears to me Dietdoc and Phinney are saying something quite similar. Dietdoc breaks it down into "light nutritional" and "optimal ketosis" so a range of .5-3 mmol/l per Phinney and Volek.
0 -
There are several things here to talk about.
First off, are you taking blood ketone readings multiple times a day? How do you afford that? Or are these numbers coming from a different method?
Second, I really wish the dietdoc website would make it clear that this "optimal" ketone level is just a hypothesis. It is based on the idea that if a little is good, then more must be better. The level they picked is just the upper range of what can be managed. There is no strong support for the claim that you lose weight faster or burn more body fat when you have these levels. In fact, I am inclined to believe that trying to maintain these levels is suboptimal. As you are preventing your body from doing what is natural, that is creating as many ketones as it needs and not excess that will only get spilled/wasted. Levels above 0.5 are fine. I had some of my fastest weight loss with levels near 1.0 (+/- 0.3), not 2.0. And, yeah, I burned through several hundred dollars on blood strips. Trust me when I tell you, stop throwing your money away.
Third, how are you tracking your weight? Are you only looking at daily scale weights or a trend-line? You need to ignore daily weights and look at week-to-week averages or long-term trend-lines. Even then, two weeks is meaningless. I had a whole month where the scale barely moved. But, in the total graph of my weight loss, you can barely tell. Keep calm, keto on.
PS: Stop measuring ketones. Stop stressing. Just stay under your carbs and be consistent. The stress and micromanaging is only going to slow things down even more.8 -
It’s time to evaluate what and how much you’re eating. The ketones don’t make you lose weight and they aren’t an indicator of weight loss either.
What kind of calorie range, carb/fat/protein grams and such are you trying to achieve?2 -
@FIT_Goat
Yes I am obsessing right now with the strips and the scale. I dropped pretty consistently from 255 to 219 from July 3 to beginning of Nov. Then started fluctuating up and down - 220 to 224 - and didn’t brake 220 again, then “enjoyed” two weeks over Christmas. Went right up to 233 (13 lbs in 2 weeks) then back down to 223 in a couple of weeks - mostly water weight I am sure. Now for 2-3 weeks down a pound up 4. Went as high as 227. My macros are 5% carbs, 70-75% fat and 20-25% protein. Lowered my cals from 1600 to 1400 hoping to bump the weight loss but didn’t seem to help. This week lowered fat and upped protein so about 60:30 but too early for results. I know the literature says this woe has weight loss in the long run and I know I feel so much better off sugar - the Christmas splurge really proved that - but I really want/need to see the scale move soon. It is stressing me out.
Your comments really hit home though so am going to really try to just follow the program and enjoy less pain and more mobility. The support here helped. A kind ear and advice mean a lot especially when I am surrounded by disbelievers who I feel almost want me to fail.
Thanks again. I will just keep plugging. That said if anyone has any magical insight please feel free to share
. 0 -
@Shron123 Honestly it will suddenly go, people hit stalls and as long as you aren't eating too many calories (of the wrong sort especially) then just view it as a short plateau while your body adjusts to being around the weight you are. Lots of people, me included, stay about the same for a while, going up and down a couple of pounds and suddenly a 'whoosh' when you drop a couple of pounds and they stay off. Then that becomes your 'start' weight again and you go down from there. I do things really slowly as I am away a lot and sometimes I want a drink or two! Still I'm down almost 30lbs since end of September. The important thing is to stay on course and not get discouraged. Also do you measure yourself? I know I have lost inches although I'm heavier than I was if that makes sense? I put on a pair of trousers I bought a couple of years ago at the same weight as I am now and they were snug at the time. Now they are falling off me, go figure! Stick with it.
5 -
@chinatowninchina
Thanks for your inspiration. Yes I have lost inches but no weight or inches since Novemberish. Yes I continue to stress but have decided NOT to weigh myself or do the ketone strips til next Wednesday and then to make Weigh-in Wednesday to be the only morning I weigh myself. Again, the positive support and advice here is much appreciated.
1 -
I have never used the ketone strips. I keep carbs under 20 (not), so I am confident they would measure something - I just don't know how high or low.
The weight loss is fits and spurts for me. The glucose levels have been consistently good. I like the diet and would like to lose another 25 pounds. I have been working on the losing since January of 2016 and have been keto since October of 2016. I have lost 107 lbs so far. The most significant thing about the loss has been 10 inches on my waist and 2 inches on my neck. I am in the same size jeans I was wearing when I got out of college.
As I said, I like the diet, and intend to stick with it for the glucose control once I reach goal weight. I am currently off diabetes meds, so I am seeing progress there even if the scales seem "stuck."3 -
Cap daily calories (don’t have to fast) and watch protein intake.2
-
@FIT_Goat
Yes I am obsessing right now with the strips and the scale. I dropped pretty consistently from 255 to 219 from July 3 to beginning of Nov. Then started fluctuating up and down - 220 to 224 - and didn’t brake 220 again, then “enjoyed” two weeks over Christmas. Went right up to 233 (13 lbs in 2 weeks) then back down to 223 in a couple of weeks - mostly water weight I am sure. Now for 2-3 weeks down a pound up 4. Went as high as 227. My macros are 5% carbs, 70-75% fat and 20-25% protein. Lowered my cals from 1600 to 1400 hoping to bump the weight loss but didn’t seem to help. This week lowered fat and upped protein so about 60:30 but too early for results. I know the literature says this woe has weight loss in the long run and I know I feel so much better off sugar - the Christmas splurge really proved that - but I really want/need to see the scale move soon. It is stressing me out.
Your comments really hit home though so am going to really try to just follow the program and enjoy less pain and more mobility. The support here helped. A kind ear and advice mean a lot especially when I am surrounded by disbelievers who I feel almost want me to fail.
Thanks again. I will just keep plugging. That said if anyone has any magical insight please feel free to share.
Are you familiar with Stephen Phinney’s macro chart?
If you’re set at 70-75% of your weight loss calorie limit of fat, that’s probably too much.
70-75% fat is total fat including body fat.
A closer match of you’re applying those ratios to a calorie deficit would be more like 60-65% like the chart shows
2 -
Here he explains it
1 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Are you familiar with Stephen Phinney’s macro chart?
If you’re set at 70-75% of your weight loss calorie limit of fat, that’s probably too much.
70-75% fat is total fat including body fat.
A closer match of you’re applying those ratios to a calorie deficit would be more like 60-65% like the chart shows
Are these percentages by calories or grams? By grams, I have roughly the same protein and fat as goals. Because of the differences in calories per gram, that skews things a lot if you are going by calories.
0 -
Calories is the only way percentages are expressed. 100 grams of fat and 100 grams of protein is never expressed with percents. They would say a 69%/21% fat to protein.
If grams are compared, the convention is to talk in ratios and always mention by weight. "My meat tends to be 3 to 1 lean to fat, by weight." Note that still doesn't mean 3 to 1 protein to fat, as lean meat is not 100% by weight.
Unless someone says it is grams or weight, always assume calories.1 -
OK - so with MFP and 1400 calories as the target for the person in column 1 trying to lose, it seems as if the macros should be set for C 10%, P 50%, and F 40% to approximate the %'s in the "adapt" pie chart. This would be 36 g of carbs, 140 g of protein, and 78 g of fat. I suspect that most people are not following these recommendations when eating keto for weight loss. They jump straight to the "maintain" column ratios and enter something like C 10%, P 20% and F 70%.1
-
We would hope that most people would set their macros up based on grams and work the percentages out for themselves. Most of the good keto calculators will make it clear that the percentages come only after the grams are determined, and everyone has their own percentages. Some people are more sensitive to carbs and have a higher calorie goal. Even if I went back to having carbs, I would keep them very low (20 grams), and my target would be <2% of my calories.
I also detest the idea of dietary energy from protein. This is the last resort for your body. There are better uses for protein. Some will become energy, but way less than 4 calories a gram. But, that idea won't die. Sure, if we burn protein, it gives that much energy, but that's not how the body works.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Are you familiar with Stephen Phinney’s macro chart?
If you’re set at 70-75% of your weight loss calorie limit of fat, that’s probably too much.
70-75% fat is total fat including body fat.
A closer match of you’re applying those ratios to a calorie deficit would be more like 60-65% like the chart shows
Are these percentages by calories or grams? By grams, I have roughly the same protein and fat as goals. Because of the differences in calories per gram, that skews things a lot if you are going by calories.
This is showing percentages. I definitely believe that working with grams, protein very specifically, and basing that off what you need to maintain muscle is the best method but if someone uses Phinney’s chart the way it is intended to be used, they will have enough protein for most people that don’t have any specific increased need.
For example.
What Phinney is saying is that the typical 75/20/5 split that many follow should be that ratio of MAINTENANCE calories.
So if you were expected to maintain weight at 2000 calories, you would have a 75/20/5 ratio that would equal 166g fat/ 100g protein/ 25g carbs. If you want to create a 500 calorie deficit you take ALL 500 calories from the fat grams. That leaves your percentages in MFP much different than 75/20/5 but you maintain the 100g protein and 25g carbs. Those never change throughout. Well, in his example the carbs change but that’s just because so many people can’t make that low a lifestyle. They don’t have to change. That part is a choice. And if they do, protein should still stay at least 100g no matter what.
So at 1500 calories for weight loss the grams would be 100g fat/ 100g protein /25g carbs and the percentage split is more like 60/26/14
That’s just one very simple way to determine macros that doesn’t involve thinking about how much lean mass you have or whatever. I don’t think it’s the best but it’s also the most commonly used so why not explain how it’s SUPPOSED to be applied.
Instead, what is happening is that people are applying 75/20/5 to the already reduced calorie limit. So that split of 1500 calories is 125g fat/ 75g protein/ 19g carbs. You lose an entire serving of meat and gain in its place 225 extra fat calories that could’ve come off your gut had you not eaten it. Not to mention the risk of losing muscle that is now very real.3 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Instead, what is happening is that people are applying 75/20/5 to the already reduced calorie limit. So that split of 1500 calories is 125g fat/ 75g protein/ 19g carbs. You lose an entire serving of meat and gain in its place 225 extra fat calories that could’ve come off your gut had you not eaten it. Not to mention the risk of losing muscle that is now very real.
As long as I have been here, I am just now starting to better understand things. This makes a lot of sense.
1
