Eating Meat after 17 Years of being Vegetarian to Build Muscle - Good Decision?

Is there a reason you're doing IF? It has no bearing on weight loss whatsoever. Some people find it easier to stick to their calorie allowance if they only eat within a set window, but that's it. Anything else you've read to the contrary is BS.

And yes, you are misinformed about varying carb intakes making a difference to fat loss. Calorie deficit dictates fat loss. That's it. Everything else is for satiety, good nutrition, personal preference. It's not at all unusual for carbs to make up a bigger percentage of your calorie intake, and not the least bit detrimental.

There is flat out no reason for you to be making yourself eat things you don't like.

misslizzierod wrote: »

Based on personal research, which I might be wrong but I am always open to learning, moderate carb intake is important when trying to lose fat as opposed to high carb intake. I am not on a low carb diet but after tracking my macros, the data I received demonstrated that carbs where taking up a much higher amount than my protein in my diet.

This is inaccurate. For example, MFP's default macros are 50% carbs, 20% protein, and 30% fat, and that works fine for fat loss. It's also not high carb (terms like "moderate" or "high" carb seem so incredibly subjective, as with your apparent view that anyone with a higher percentage of carbs than protein would be eating high carb, which is not consistent with typical definitions). At 1600 cals, MPF's defaults would be 200 g carbs, 80 g protein, and 53 g fat. Now, I can see wanting to eat more protein than that (I am using 1600 since I don't have your stats, but you did say that preserving/gaining muscle was a priority, so I'm assuming not 1200).

Specifically, as has probably been noted upthread, a commonly recommended goal for someone in your position is 0.8 g/lb of healthy goal weight. For myself, 5'3 with a 120 goal weight, this comes to 96. Based on this formula, 105 could be a perfectly fine goal (it's consistent with a goal in the low 130s), so I don't question that at all. At 1600, then, we are talking around 25% protein, and at even 1200, we'd be talking around 35% protein (but if you are trying to gain muscle and have the exercise activity to support that, 1200 seems way too low).

If at 25% or 30% protein, even if taken all from carbs, we are talking 45-25-25 or 30-40-40 -- full disclosure, I did the first part of my weight loss at 40-30-30 and loved it. The point I want to make is that neither would be considered "high" carb (nor would MFP's default) and yet neither has protein higher than carbs. That is because excess protein does nothing and absent doing some very low carb diet (which I have nothing against), carbs tend to be the primary source of energy, as well as important for many important nutrients (fruits, veg, beans and legumes, whole grains, potatoes and sweet potatoes, etc., all have lots of nutrients, which is why the demonization that carbs sometimes get is distressing).

That said, if what you are saying is you want to hit 105 g protein on something like a 25% or 30% protein diet (gram number is more important than percentage), that should be extremely easy on vegetarian. (I've done periods of both vegetarian and vegan and find it easy to hit 100 or over on vegetarian, while on vegan, without more meat subs than I like, I tend to struggle to consistently eat over 80.) Of course what you are going to prioritize will be different if an ethical vegan, and one can be healthy and lose weight and even preserve/gain muscle eating 70-80 g protein at my stats, and likely at yours. But since you are not an ethical vegan this doesn't matter.

TL/DR: I think it should be pretty easy to hit your protein goal on a vegetarian diet of about 25-30% protein (105 g), especially if you are calculating a calorie goal consistent with not being completely sedentary and a healthy rate of weight loss. I think this likely will be harder, or at least more limiting in what you can eat, if you have told yourself carbs must be a lower number (less than 105) than your protein, and that that would have no benefits to weight loss.

I actually do currently eat lower carb and like it, as it works for me, but I like meat and have no ethical issues with eating it (although I care about how I source it). If you were vegetarian for reasons other than ethics or personal taste preferences, I have no reason to say don't eat meat (and it is possible to do that even on a low carb diet). But if you feel better ethically or enjoy your diet more without meat, I'd say this idea that you must eat protein and carb amounts that make a vegetarian diet more difficult is a mistaken one.

While some people find IF or reducing carbs HELPFUL, neither is NEEDED in order to lose weight.

Easiest weight loss in my life was when I was in Costa Rico, eating tropical fruit all day long and rice and beans twice a day. Very high carb but I dropped a size without even intending to.