Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Eating and Exercise Plans > Weight Loss Plans > JUDDD
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-20-2013, 10:49 AM   #31
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
SlowSure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London/Herts UK
Posts: 3,335
Gallery: SlowSure
Stats: 157/114/115-120
WOE: JUDDD Maintenance. Ketogenic PHD.
Start Date: 11 Dec. 2011 Restart 1 Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by GME View Post
At 127 lbs and 42% body fat that leaves you with an LBM of 86 lbs. With 25% body fat you would weigh 108 lbs. Is that possible?
I'm more accustomed to working in metric than imperial so it's taken me a while to process this calculation. Actually, I've an LBM of < 77lbs and a fat mass of approx 50lbs.

If I didn't gain any muscle (and it's not that straightforward), I would, indeed, have to weigh less than 100lbs just to have a body fat of approx 25% and that would leave me 20lbs below my 'ideal' weight range for my current height.

Please excuse me while I wander off into a wilderness somewhere and howl.
SlowSure is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 07-20-2013, 11:56 AM   #32
Big Yapper!!!!
 
Librarygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,972
Gallery: Librarygirl
Stats: HW 207/(JUDDD) 198/CW 172/GW 150 5'4 49 yo
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: Low calorie 6/12 ; Low carb 9/12/ ; JUDDD 11/13/12
All I can think is, it must be much better than it was at 157, right? I don't even want to know my BFP, lol. Take heart, because you know you can work on it and are strong.
Librarygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 11:57 AM   #33
Major LCF Poster!
 
Sirtain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 1,741
Gallery: Sirtain
Stats: 202then/154March/Xnow/140soon
WOE: Paleo+JUDDD
Start Date: March 2013
You aren't over-fat, you are just under-muscled. No worries, you can deal with it. Think how strong you will be, once you build up a bit!
Sirtain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 12:04 PM   #34
Big Yapper!!!!
 
Librarygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,972
Gallery: Librarygirl
Stats: HW 207/(JUDDD) 198/CW 172/GW 150 5'4 49 yo
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: Low calorie 6/12 ; Low carb 9/12/ ; JUDDD 11/13/12
Take heart, Slow. Hydrostatic body fat measurement is the gold standard by which other methods measure themselves. The Bod Pod is not *always* accurate, and is not considered hydrostatic (measurement). I found where many people were appalled at their results and knew them to be inaccurate. Read some of this:
The Pitfalls of Body Fat “Measurement”, Part 3: Bod Pod » Weightology Weekly
Librarygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 12:14 PM   #35
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
calichris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,944
Gallery: calichris
Stats: 273.7/204.8/147 or size 8/10
WOE: IF/IE
Start Date: 5/26/12; JUDDD 7/11/12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimmietoo View Post
If the BF % is correct, your weight at 22% BF would put you at a BMI of 16.5 based on my calculations, indicating you to be seriously underweight!
That is weird, and yet another example of the flaws in the BMI. It has no idea how much lean body mass you have.
calichris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 01:20 PM   #36
Senior LCF Member
 
jdforshort's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bakersfield,CA
Posts: 756
Gallery: jdforshort
Stats: 221/155/136, 5'4", 60yrs
WOE: Atkins/PPower/Mod Carb/JUDDD
Start Date: LC 3/23/12, JUDDD 6/2/12
Oh Wow! And here I thought I was doing great! I'm in a whole lot of ***t too then at 5'4"! I'll 2nd Cindy, Hydrostatic is the best! No way could you be "obese" with that amount of exercising and that fantastic of stats! Fascinating subject though!
jdforshort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 01:26 PM   #37
Senior LCF Member
 
Kimmietoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 531
Gallery: Kimmietoo
Stats: 350/269.2/??? 58 yo, hypothyroid age 8; menopausal
WOE: start JUDDD 01/24/13 at 310
Start Date: July 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarygirl View Post
Take heart, Slow. Hydrostatic body fat measurement is the gold standard by which other methods measure themselves. The Bod Pod is not *always* accurate, and is not considered hydrostatic (measurement). I found where many people were appalled at their results and knew them to be inaccurate. Read some of this:
The Pitfalls of Body Fat “Measurement”, Part 3: Bod Pod » Weightology Weekly
Excellent resource, Cindy!

Kimmie
Kimmietoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 01:42 PM   #38
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
calichris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,944
Gallery: calichris
Stats: 273.7/204.8/147 or size 8/10
WOE: IF/IE
Start Date: 5/26/12; JUDDD 7/11/12
Interesting article, Cindy. SS, would you be interested in a hydrostatic "second opinion"?
calichris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 02:48 PM   #39
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
SlowSure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London/Herts UK
Posts: 3,335
Gallery: SlowSure
Stats: 157/114/115-120
WOE: JUDDD Maintenance. Ketogenic PHD.
Start Date: 11 Dec. 2011 Restart 1 Jan 2013
In summary: although the assessment is worse than I'd feared, I had the Bod Pod assessment because I knew from my bulk at this weight that my body fat percentage must be high.

The best available, affordable assessment in the UK is the Bod Pod. The Bod Pod, like other assessment technology has some biases for particular demographic groups, however is more likely to be inaccurate for very lean women, men with high muscle mass and some other groups that do not include me. My demographic comes within the 'normal' error range.

The aspects that shock me are: how low my muscle mass must be (it's not distinguished - see wonk alert below) because it is included as part of the lean muscle mass; that it's possible to be morbidly obese in body fat terms while being a normal weight in the absence of any history of metabolic derangement or eating disorders.

I've tried writing the wonk alert discussion of how body fat is assessed but I can't get it down to a reasonable length. So, my shorthand version is as follows.

Chris Kresser is correct in some of his criticisms of body fat measurement technology (and he also has some criticisms of hydrostatic weighing as well). The essence of his comments on both hydrostatic ('dunk' tank) and Bod Pod technology is that both of them are dependent upon a 2 compartment model: crudely, they divide you up into lean body mass (lbm; aka fat free mass or FFM) and fat mass.

[Wonk note which is wonky even by wonk alert standards. Strictly speaking, LBM and FFM are not the same although the terms are often used interchangeably. Some of you may be wondering how your essential fat portions are counted - e.g., your brain and your cell membranes. Some people state that LBM doesn't include these but FFM does.]

Chris Kresser does remark quite correctly, that the only way to know what somebody's body fat is is to autopsy them Everything else is a proxy and best estimate. The current best approximation that is possible (implausibly expensive and the realm of professional athletes, Olympians and the like) uses a 4 component model. It uses several technologies (such as total body water measurement by deuterium dilution aka labelled water; dexa and mri scans; hydrostatic weighing) to distinguish what makes up your body water, the mineral content and density of your bones, the deposition and density of your body fat, the weight of your gizzards and other soft tissues (in effect).

So, the only reason to use a different technology would be if I had strong reason to doubt this evaluation. And it's not at all straightforward to opt for something else in the UK. iirc, Michael Mosely had a Bod Pod assessment for Eat, Fast, Live Longer.
SlowSure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 03:02 PM   #40
Way too much time on my hands!
 
KeirasMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 13,336
Gallery: KeirasMom
Stats: 277.6/151/135??, 5'9", 41 y.o., Hypothyroid
WOE: Back to JUDDD!
[Wonk note which is wonky even by wonk alert standards. Strictly speaking, LBM and FFM are not the same although the terms are often used interchangeably. Some of you may be wondering how your essential fat portions are counted - e.g., your brain and your cell membranes. Some people state that LBM doesn't include these but FFM does.]

This ^^^, combined with how well you research and articulate your findings, leads me to believe that they did NOT include your brain in this calculation, and it's obviously the most well developed muscle in your body. That's got to account for at least 20% of the calculation being in error, so you're actually at an ideal BF%.
KeirasMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 03:11 PM   #41
Way too much time on my hands!
 
Kissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London UK
Posts: 18,862
Gallery: Kissa
Stats: 184/124/126 5'3" Age 66
WOE: JUDDD/5:2
Start Date: 2001 Atkins -50 2011 JUDDD - 10
Slow, I hope this isn't getting you down. It must have put a damper on you day out in town though.

Sending hugs.x
Kissa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 03:16 PM   #42
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
calichris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,944
Gallery: calichris
Stats: 273.7/204.8/147 or size 8/10
WOE: IF/IE
Start Date: 5/26/12; JUDDD 7/11/12
Dawn! I heartily agree!

SS, I'm sorry that hydrostatic is not an option, and maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but there's always the chance the results skewed higher than they really are? At any rate, the important thing is that it sounded as though you wanted to make body composition changes anyway. I would be very interested in what your plan is so we can keep learning with you. I'm looking forward to seeing your next bodypod measurement results showing your progress!
calichris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 03:37 PM   #43
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
SlowSure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London/Herts UK
Posts: 3,335
Gallery: SlowSure
Stats: 157/114/115-120
WOE: JUDDD Maintenance. Ketogenic PHD.
Start Date: 11 Dec. 2011 Restart 1 Jan 2013
Further to the above, I don't always seem to have access to bits of Chris Kresser's site but I found his piece on hydrostatic weighing and body fat assessment.
Quote:
Basically, the whole two compartment model has significant potential for error because of the assumptions made about the density of fat-free mass. So how much error are we talking about here? To answer that question, we need a standard against which we can compare underwater weighing. Since we can’t kill people, we need something else. Enter the four compartment model. This is where we divide the body into 4 components: mineral, water, fat, and protein. This model has an advantage over the two compartment model because it avoids the assumptions about the density of fat-free mass. It involves measuring body density with underwater weighing or the Bod Pod, total body water using a technique called deuterium dilution, and bone mineral content using DEXA. Equations are then used to get the estimates for the four components. A four compartment model is very expensive and isn’t available to your average Joe; it’s only used in research studies. While the results are still an estimate, it is by far the best estimate that can be made in a live person. The four compartment model is the gold standard against which all other techniques should be judged.

Small Error For Populations, Not Individuals

So how does underwater weighing compare to the 4-compartment model? This is where you have to differentiate between how good something is on average, and how good it is in individuals. A technique could give you a 0% error rate on average, but half the people could have a +10% error and the other half could have -10% error.

The research shows that underwater weighing has pretty low errors on average, when compared to 4-compartment models. On average, underwater weighing underpredicts (meaning it gives you lower body fat percentages than a 4-compartment model) body fat percentage by 0.1 to 1.2%, although one study showed an overprediction in young women of 2.1%. Overall, that’s pretty good. Of course, that depends on whether you use the right equation for your ethnicity...

Now, when we start looking at individuals, the error gets significantly higher. The individual error rate can get as high as nearly 5-6%. So let’s say you have your body fat tested via underwater weighing, and it comes out to be 20%. However, your true body fat could be as low as 15% or as high as 25%. That is a huge range, and it is impossible to know how good your number really is...

The bottom line is that underwater weighing can give good results when looking at group averages, but not so good results when looking at individuals. The sad thing is that underwater weighing is actually the best method out of the 2-compartment models. Other methods, including the Bod Pod, BIA, and skinfolds, are significantly worse.
However, some of the research quoted in support of criticisms of the Bod Pod is not entirely germane to the criticism (however this is complicated by his accidental link to the wrong study, I think). His criticisms are more relevant to using a Bod Pod to track changes in body fat over time than as a snapshot estimate. (I've consulted the full text of some items but it's possible that I've missed the part that caught his eye.)
SlowSure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 04:18 PM   #44
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
SlowSure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London/Herts UK
Posts: 3,335
Gallery: SlowSure
Stats: 157/114/115-120
WOE: JUDDD Maintenance. Ketogenic PHD.
Start Date: 11 Dec. 2011 Restart 1 Jan 2013
Sorry for working backwards through this - it's taken a fair while for some of the chatter to quieten down between what feels like my emotional response and my more analytical side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeirasMom View Post
Oh, SS, it's what you feared, but I can't believe it. You appear so slim and fit! You are active. You work so hard at your entire health, not just weight management. I'm so sorry it didn't turn out better.
The ghouls of Public Health would delight in pointing to me as An Awful Warning. It's not enough that the BMI thresholds for assessing normal weight, overweight and obesity were changed downwards (by units of 5) a few years ago, now they've created the spectre that you shouldn't be lulled into a false sense of security just because you're normal weight (even after its re-definition.)

Public Health has done some remarkable things for our general welfare and longevity in the West. However, in the field of food policy and its crusade against the 'epidemic of obesity and associated metabolic disorders' it has long since given up any semblance of making evidence-based prognostications. I shall leave that topic there as I will otherwise end up ranting about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobelowcarber View Post
Slow, I am sorry to hear that. I am just having very hard time believing that you are 42% BF, looking at your pic. I think if you stepped on Tanita scale you would be 20-22% BF.
Every so often, newspapers run items where they have 8 people in a line and say something like, "Who do you think has the healthiest body - it's not who you think". And the fatter looking people turn out to be OK and the slimmer people are those who are revealed as having high visceral fat and therefore at greatest risk. This experience is rather like being the one in the photograph with the notional buzzards flying overhead and a large target painted on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flutter View Post
Btw, that assessment sounds like the evil scale's horrific cousin or something!!!! Goodness, I am gonna live in denial!!! xoxoxo
It definitely is the evil cousin. Best laugh that I had all day, thank you. (And that includes having 2 small boys attempt to explain quantum physics to me during our kayaking trip. )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarygirl View Post
Slow, my first reaction is that the test is wrong, lol.... Also, do you think IF is in any way related?
The machine is calibrated carefully because it's in use in a university research dept. and it has a standardised technique.

On the IF point, I badly wish that I'd had an assessment done before the weight loss because I don't know. Not that my individual experience would be more than an anecdote but in the absence of any assessment, I don't know if I increased, decreased or maintained my body fat percentage. (Although my body fat has reduced, it would be true if my body fat had originally been, say, 50%, or 30% or just the same at 42%.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carly View Post
What do you think is the reason. If anyone might know I would think you would be the one. This surely makes me fear that mine is awfully high since I can do the type of physically demanding exercise I would enjoy.
...

Information (if accurate) is the first step toward creating change.
I'm completely stymied in coming up with a decent reason, even just for me as an individual, because I don't know what I was just previous to the weight loss.

Something that I have been becoming more concerned about as I self-assessed that my body fat was higher than I expected is how easy it is to lose muscle mass during calorie restriction. And in retrospect, if I had to speculate, I'd question whether I've been eating sufficient protein over the average week to sustain and repair muscle, particularly given the amount of relatively high volume of exercise that I was doing until recently.

Ntombi has had excellent results in minimising the loss of lean body mass during her weight loss. Her last assessment reported that she'd lost 23lbs, of which only 0.5lb was LBM, the remainder was body fat. Most research reports that for every pound of weight loss, women typically lose 20-25% of that from their lbm rather than their fat stores.
SlowSure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 04:33 PM   #45
Blabbermouth!!!
 
Ntombi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Boston, then OH, then NYC, now SoCal. Whew!
Posts: 38,349
Gallery: Ntombi
Stats: Restart: 360/284.4/190
WOE: Atkins for weight loss, NK for maintenance.
Start Date: Restarted: 1-3-13 Original: 8-23-02
The thing to remember is that they all have a margin of error. DEXA and hydrostatic have the smallest, with the Bod Pod being fairly close behind. BIA and calipers are the most problematic, but can still be helpful within context.

It's not about fractions of a percentage, it's a tool to give you a snapshot and a goal.
Ntombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 05:04 PM   #46
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
SlowSure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London/Herts UK
Posts: 3,335
Gallery: SlowSure
Stats: 157/114/115-120
WOE: JUDDD Maintenance. Ketogenic PHD.
Start Date: 11 Dec. 2011 Restart 1 Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellen770 View Post
Four months later, after being the top woman lifter at my YMCA, he tested me again...and it was WORSE! We were both shocked!

...This coming Friday I have another appointment and another assessment...will see if this type helped.
That would be a horrible shock. You'd end up having to consider esoterica such as had you started to store fat within your muscle tissue. And then you'd end up with sets of researchers arguing that, depending on your metabolic state, that's either a good thing or a bad thing. Good luck with your next assessment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirtain View Post
I agree with the weight lifting idea. Also, how do you feel on ketosis? It might be worth going into.
I already do some weight training although I am going to have to discuss with my trainer whether it's feasible to increase its intensity/frequency. (I have some mobility issues that mean I work with isolated muscle groups rather than compound lifts because I use walking poles to get about and I can't lift much weight above shoulder height because it's associated with triggering a migraine.)

Interestingly, although it's only been since March, I've pretty much been in notional ketosis since then. (A hack expt. followed by a modified ketogenic protocol for migraine management. The major caveat here is that I haven't verified this with blood ketone readings.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by calichris View Post
The good news is, your health markers all seem excellent. And you look great! I agree with the others that as our resident research queen you will find the solution.

Thank you so much for sharing your results ... you gave us a gift by alerting us to think about both our lean body mass and the scale. I look forward to seeing you tackle this and succeed in the same way you did your weight loss goals.
One of the really helpful comments that Chris Kresser makes somewhere is that all of this is just a number which is useful to know but it has to be taken in concert with everything else.

That said, however people do it, I'm moving towards the opinion that it would be good, wherever possible, for people to know what their body composition is (as best they can) before they lose the majority of their weight. You can 'afford' to make a couple of experiments or diet mis-steps when you have enough muscle mass to experiment with, but if you've already whittled it down to a horrifying level, it severely restricts your options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarygirl View Post
All I can think is, it must be much better than it was at 157, right? I don't even want to know my BFP, lol. Take heart, because you know you can work on it and are strong.
Oh, thank you I really don't know if it's better or worse than it was at 157 - I regret not having it assessed.

Those of you who have somewhere between 95-160lbs of LBM (mine is <77lbs), you may want to plan and research very carefully how you maintain the maximum amount possible. If you keep as much as you can, you'll have a much better body fat percentage, a much trimmer profile and a more generous maintenance calorie allowance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdforshort View Post
Oh Wow! And here I thought I was doing great! I'm in a whole lot of ***t too then at 5'4"...Fascinating subject though!
There's no reason to suppose that yours would be similar to mine (only 1 woman was similar to me in 875 reported in the Braverman and Shah study) if that's any consolation to you I'm swithering between resentment, horror and being intrigued.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeirasMom View Post
...they did NOT include your brain in this calculation, and it's obviously the most well developed muscle in your body. That's got to account for at least 20% of the calculation being in error, so you're actually at an ideal BF%.
My new alter-ego is born as I've now reveals as the new MegaMind, complete with a specially adapted head to accommodate my 22lb brain Unlike MegaMind, I should be relieved that my skin isn't blue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kissa View Post
Slow, I hope this isn't getting you down. It must have put a damper on you day out in town though.
I'll admit that the odd frustrated thought of, "I contain more fat than whipping cream does!" crossed my mind. I thought it was going a bit far though when I was looking at the animals in London Zoo and speculating which of us had the higher body fat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by calichris View Post
I would be very interested in what your plan is so we can keep learning with you. I'm looking forward to seeing your next bodypod measurement results showing your progress!
I shall definitely keep people posted. At the moment, I'm profoundly irritated at the lack of appropriate Public Health guidance to cover this contingency because the standard advice of, "Move more, eat less" is wholly misguided in this set of circumstances. Yet, the numbers being as they are, I don't have much of a margin to experiment without potentially making things worse.
SlowSure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 07:28 PM   #47
Major LCF Poster!
 
Sirtain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 1,741
Gallery: Sirtain
Stats: 202then/154March/Xnow/140soon
WOE: Paleo+JUDDD
Start Date: March 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowSure View Post

I'll admit that the odd frustrated thought of, "I contain more fat than whipping cream does!" crossed my mind.

This just makes you MORE desirable! Whipping cream...mmmm!
Sirtain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 07:32 PM   #48
Blabbermouth!!!
 
Ntombi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Boston, then OH, then NYC, now SoCal. Whew!
Posts: 38,349
Gallery: Ntombi
Stats: Restart: 360/284.4/190
WOE: Atkins for weight loss, NK for maintenance.
Start Date: Restarted: 1-3-13 Original: 8-23-02
SlowSure, what kind of protein levels have you been eating, and how did you get to that number? I see so many people struggling with how to arrive at a helpful number.
Ntombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2013, 07:51 PM   #49
Big Yapper!!!!
 
Librarygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,972
Gallery: Librarygirl
Stats: HW 207/(JUDDD) 198/CW 172/GW 150 5'4 49 yo
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: Low calorie 6/12 ; Low carb 9/12/ ; JUDDD 11/13/12
Quote:
I'll admit that the odd frustrated thought of, "I contain more fat than whipping cream does!" crossed my mind. I thought it was going a bit far though when I was looking at the animals in London Zoo and speculating which of us had the higher body fat.
On a positive note, as a lover of water and water sports, you do have an advantage in colder water. Much like a duck (I wasn't going to say a whale).

Last edited by Librarygirl; 07-20-2013 at 07:53 PM..
Librarygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 01:59 AM   #50
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
SlowSure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London/Herts UK
Posts: 3,335
Gallery: SlowSure
Stats: 157/114/115-120
WOE: JUDDD Maintenance. Ketogenic PHD.
Start Date: 11 Dec. 2011 Restart 1 Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ntombi View Post
SlowSure, what kind of protein levels have you been eating, and how did you get to that number? I see so many people struggling with how to arrive at a helpful number.
tbh, that was weird because using a couple of the keto calculators that are available online (and include some of the ones recommended over on the Nutritional Ketosis board) I got my recommended weight and then multiplied at 0.6-1 as per the Volek and Phinney recommendations (although they recommend more in Art and Science of Low Larb Living than they do when subsequently interviewed). So, that gave me a grand total of 40-60g of protein per day to shoot for, with experimentation necessary within that range. (Of course, now that I notionally know my LBM, according to keto calculators, I should lower that range. )

Before - I'd say that I was probably eating around that level with a broader range of 40-80g (including animal and vegetable sources). However, during weight loss periods, I'd have to estimate that I've often been nearer the lower part of that range than the higher (how often has all the coverage and public health advice been that we all eat too much protein). More recently, of course, the protein intake has been probably lower because of the 4:3 pattern - and because of my sense of body fat, that has been beginning to gnaw at me so I did some further reading about it.

Notionally, ADF should reduce the amount of dietary protein that people need to consume because the genetic changes that are promoted by it should adapt the body to a more efficient processing of their muscle/red blood cell contents etc. and effectively re-using some of those broken down proteins amino acids by expanding the amino acid pool. (This is very crude but I hope it makes sense.) There's also the notion that we become better at repairing cells etc. and much more efficient biological scavengers.

However, there's little quantification of how much of a difference this would make and the assumption might well be that an eating pattern of EOD with 'normal' protein intake would be sufficient.

Last edited by SlowSure; 07-21-2013 at 02:07 AM..
SlowSure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 02:05 AM   #51
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
SlowSure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London/Herts UK
Posts: 3,335
Gallery: SlowSure
Stats: 157/114/115-120
WOE: JUDDD Maintenance. Ketogenic PHD.
Start Date: 11 Dec. 2011 Restart 1 Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirtain View Post
This just makes you MORE desirable! Whipping cream...mmmm!
Much richer than even the HWC to which you are accustomed - that much more luxurious and decadent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarygirl View Post
On a positive note, as a lover of water and water sports, you do have an advantage in colder water. Much like a duck (I wasn't going to say a whale).
We were all thinking it. Had there been any whales, I probably would have gone along and part of my brain would have been running bouyancy calculations. I was even doing this on the river watching people in various of the boats yesterday (kiwi, kayaks in fibreglass and canoes with wood and fibreglass and even making an allowance for the warmth of the water and its turbidity - not that that's Going Too Far).

Last edited by SlowSure; 07-21-2013 at 02:08 AM..
SlowSure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 10:50 AM   #52
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
calichris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,944
Gallery: calichris
Stats: 273.7/204.8/147 or size 8/10
WOE: IF/IE
Start Date: 5/26/12; JUDDD 7/11/12
Mark's Daily Apple recommends a gram of protein for each pound of lean body mass, which seems logical to me?

ETA: This article recommends 1.2 g per kilogram of body weight and a positive energy balance (uh oh). I'm thinking weight training is probably best on up days.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/exper...tion.jampolis/

If I'm doing the calculations correctly, converting pounds to kg, multiplying by 1.2, then converting grams to ounces, that's just under four ounces of protein! Can that be right? because that is easy peasy. I get the same result with 1g for my estimated lean body mass.

Last edited by calichris; 07-21-2013 at 11:04 AM..
calichris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 11:35 AM   #53
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
calichris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,944
Gallery: calichris
Stats: 273.7/204.8/147 or size 8/10
WOE: IF/IE
Start Date: 5/26/12; JUDDD 7/11/12
Oops! I knew that was too easy to be true. Apparently there are 7 g protein in 1 oz cooked meat, so I would need almost 16 ounces (!) for the 1.2 g per lb calculation.

My whey protein powder has 24 g of protein in it for 120 calories ... 4 oz of boneless, roasted chicken breast has 27 g for 147 calories, so if I had 16 oz it would be just under 600 calories and that is only the chicken, nothing else. Wow.
calichris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 01:41 PM   #54
Senior LCF Member
 
Kimmietoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 531
Gallery: Kimmietoo
Stats: 350/269.2/??? 58 yo, hypothyroid age 8; menopausal
WOE: start JUDDD 01/24/13 at 310
Start Date: July 2009
Yes. Wow.

When I do my DD calculation at my current weight of 270, that's 122.73 kg. At just maintaining and not losing LBM of .8 grams per kg, I would need almost 4 protein shakes per day to get to the maintenance requirement of 98 grams of protein, or 500 calories without a spoonful of anything else. That is just to maintain, not gain or lose.

As a result, that's why I was reviewing pumping up exercise to raise the DD calorie allotment per the Johnson calculator as well as looking at the other percentages for weight loss.

It will do no good to lose significant quantities of muscle by over restricting protein while JUDDDing.

While I don't have measurements of body fat or even other measurements to compare, I honestly "feel" significantly fatter than the last time that I weighed this amount. It's very likely true that I do have a higher percentage of body fat though, because I hadn't gone through menopause at that time.

This is a very good lesson, though, for all of us, to be very mindful of our protein consumption and making sure that it is adequate as we continue on.

I wonder what the net effect would be if we got our protein on DD's at close to maintenance and upped it on UD's to the 1.2 for muscle building?

Something to consider........

Kimmie
Kimmietoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 04:28 PM   #55
Big Yapper!!!!
 
Librarygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,972
Gallery: Librarygirl
Stats: HW 207/(JUDDD) 198/CW 172/GW 150 5'4 49 yo
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: Low calorie 6/12 ; Low carb 9/12/ ; JUDDD 11/13/12
Those higher protein needs are for body builders though and won't really help you keep your LBM if you aren't also strength training, if I'm not mistaken. What would a moderate to light exerciser need? In order not to lose LBM? To be honest, I have a tendancy to glaze over when reading technical jargon, so could someone be so kind as to tell me what percentage (or exactly) how much I would need at 177 lbs?

I read that I need about 50 g of protein a day, unless I am doing heavy weight lifting (and often). That's two protein shakes on DDs.
__________________


"Never give up on a dream just because of the length of time it will take to accomplish it. The time will pass anyway."


"In every triumph there is a lot of try."

"Have the courage of your desire."
*Cindy*

Last edited by Librarygirl; 07-21-2013 at 04:32 PM..
Librarygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 04:46 PM   #56
Blabbermouth!!!
 
Ntombi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Boston, then OH, then NYC, now SoCal. Whew!
Posts: 38,349
Gallery: Ntombi
Stats: Restart: 360/284.4/190
WOE: Atkins for weight loss, NK for maintenance.
Start Date: Restarted: 1-3-13 Original: 8-23-02
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarygirl View Post
Those higher protein needs are for body builders though and won't really help you keep your LBM if you aren't also strength training, if I'm not mistaken. What would a moderate to light exerciser need? In order not to lose LBM? To be honest, I have a tendancy to glaze over when reading technical jargon, so could someone be so kind as to tell me what percentage (or exactly) how much I would need at 177 lbs?

I read that I need about 50 g of protein a day, unless I am doing heavy weight lifting (and often). That's two protein shakes on DDs.
Due to illness, I have been restricted from exercise for close to a year, and I have been successful in retaining almost 100% of my LBM while losing over forty pounds of excess fat, purely through diet. Along with losing fat, preserving my LBM has been a primary goal.

I periodically get my BF% tested hydrostatically, and between February and last week, I have lost only half a pound of LBM, and over 23 pounds of fat.

It is possible.

I have a loose protein goal of 120g/day, with the aim of maintaining my 154 lbs of LBM. I don't do percentages, I use absolute values. So I never go above 20g total carbs, that loose protein goal (I'm fine with a protein range, as I don't count it daily), and get the rest of my calories from fat. I don't count calories or protein, only carbs, but this blueprint works for me.

I don't know how (or whether) JUDDD affects the body's protein needs, but I personally would make sure I got adequate protein daily.

When I'm able to exercise, I do high intensity strength training, like I said upthread.
__________________
<-- Buddy
Ntombi: 5'6˝" 40 years old
Started Atkins 8-23-02 325+
bought scale 9-7-02: 318/259.6/180?

Diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (and other conditions) Summer 2005 after years of misdiagnoses--> food plan went out the window!
Restarted--again--January 3, 2013.

Last edited by Ntombi; 07-21-2013 at 04:47 PM..
Ntombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 04:54 PM   #57
Big Yapper!!!!
 
Librarygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,972
Gallery: Librarygirl
Stats: HW 207/(JUDDD) 198/CW 172/GW 150 5'4 49 yo
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: Low calorie 6/12 ; Low carb 9/12/ ; JUDDD 11/13/12
I think the benefits of IF outweigh the (debatable) effects of less protein on fasting days. Of course, that is just me.
Librarygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 05:37 PM   #58
Big Yapper!!!!
 
Librarygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,972
Gallery: Librarygirl
Stats: HW 207/(JUDDD) 198/CW 172/GW 150 5'4 49 yo
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: Low calorie 6/12 ; Low carb 9/12/ ; JUDDD 11/13/12
Also, unfortunately, caucasian women especially, lose more LBM as they age.
Librarygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 07:00 PM   #59
Senior LCF Member
 
Kimmietoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 531
Gallery: Kimmietoo
Stats: 350/269.2/??? 58 yo, hypothyroid age 8; menopausal
WOE: start JUDDD 01/24/13 at 310
Start Date: July 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ntombi View Post
Due to illness, I have been restricted from exercise for close to a year, and I have been successful in retaining almost 100% of my LBM while losing over forty pounds of excess fat, purely through diet. Along with losing fat, preserving my LBM has been a primary goal.

I periodically get my BF% tested hydrostatically, and between February and last week, I have lost only half a pound of LBM, and over 23 pounds of fat.

It is possible.

I have a loose protein goal of 120g/day, with the aim of maintaining my 154 lbs of LBM. I don't do percentages, I use absolute values. So I never go above 20g total carbs, that loose protein goal (I'm fine with a protein range, as I don't count it daily), and get the rest of my calories from fat. I don't count calories or protein, only carbs, but this blueprint works for me.

I don't know how (or whether) JUDDD affects the body's protein needs, but I personally would make sure I got adequate protein daily.

When I'm able to exercise, I do high intensity strength training, like I said upthread.
I am very impressed with your accomplishment of losing 40 pounds of fat while maintaining virtually all of your LBM.

120 grams of protein is a lot....but it clearly is working well to keep you losing actual fat and maintaining LBM.

Congratulations on your amazing accomplishment and thank you so much for your input here about this important thing for us to consider as we formulate our own plans.

Kimmie

Last edited by Kimmietoo; 07-21-2013 at 07:04 PM..
Kimmietoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 07:08 PM   #60
Big Yapper!!!!
 
Librarygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,972
Gallery: Librarygirl
Stats: HW 207/(JUDDD) 198/CW 172/GW 150 5'4 49 yo
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: Low calorie 6/12 ; Low carb 9/12/ ; JUDDD 11/13/12
Kimmie. I just re-read what I wrote, and although I believe it, I didn't mean to say that opposing opinions were necessarily wrong. I just don't know. Everything I've read, even before dieting, have always said that, if anything, most Americans consume too much protein. Idk, I did link something that wasn't allowed, but did have some interesting information about fasting and protein intake. You could google it.
Librarygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:42 AM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.