Low Carb Friends

Low Carb Friends (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/)
-   Main Lowcarb Lobby (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/main-lowcarb-lobby/)
-   -   Calories ??? (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/main-lowcarb-lobby/802845-calories.html)

johnsnana 04-25-2013 06:58 PM

Calories ???
 
I have read that my intake should be 65-70% fat & 20% protein but this is varies on how many calories your taking in. Curious to how many calories other women are consuming WHO ARE LOSING WEIGHT. I am 5' 1" & 118 pounds, & 45 years old. I had contacted Atkins customer support & they told me between 1500-1800. I used to consume about 1800-2000 but after hitting an all time low of 114, I creeped up to 121 & went off the wagon. I have a hard time figuring out what number of calories work for me since I jog 3-5 miles every other day (but an otherwise sedentary lifestyle). I would love to hear what other women who are losing eat calories wise & with what type of exercise. Thanks :)

Arctic_Mama 04-25-2013 07:41 PM

I'm a nursing 26 year old mom. Trying to shed a little baby weight and then the remaining pounds I hadn't yet gotten out of the way before this recent baby, I'm eating 1950 calories per day with light to moderate activity.

For your age and size, unless you are burning serious calories in strength related exercises, I think your calories look a bit high (even with the Atkins metabolic advantage). Sorry I couldn't give you better news, but 16-1800 per day you work out may be a better bet.

reddarin 04-25-2013 09:34 PM

Interesting. The folks at Atkins said 1500 to 1800 to lose weight. What is your goal weight?

johnsnana 04-25-2013 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reddarin (Post 16394393)
Interesting. The folks at Atkins said 1500 to 1800 to lose weight. What is your goal weight?

My goal is 109 but although that is within my "healthy range" for my height/small frame, it may not be possible. My lowest thus far has been 114 on Atkins (the day after my 1/2 marathon) /o:

Today I had 1750 calories (ran 55 minutes/burned 440 calories) & totals were 65% fat 14% protein 21% carbs

Leo41 04-26-2013 01:23 AM

You are a small woman, and that suggestion for calories seems far too high to me. Age is also a significant factor as our metabolism begins to slow in the 40s as menopause approaches.

The only way to determine your caloric requirements is by trial and error, in my experience. If you're gaining, your calories are too high--no matter what any charts or calculators tell you.

If you don't lose or gain, you've found your 'maintenance level,' the calories that will keep you at your current weight.

If you want to go lower, you need a caloric deficit, so you need to eat 300-500 calories lower than your maintenance level. If you find yourself losing 1-2 lbs a week, then you've identified a good level for weight loss.

Unless you are seriously tracking (weighing and measuring your food), you can't reliably determine your daily caloric intake.

Punkin 04-26-2013 03:32 AM

I'm 5'3 and have a small frame, 42yrs old and fairly active. If I want to lose weight I can't go much about 1500cal/day. I could probably maintain at around 1700 cal/day, but I am not at my goal weight yet.

drjlocarb 04-26-2013 05:54 AM

I have to eat 1600-1700cal, 88-95ptn-15nc to lose and I weigh 227lbs.

72%-22%-6%

nolcjunk 04-26-2013 06:40 AM

I'm 110 and have been at goal for several years- I ate about 1200 to get here, and maintain with a little more food.

1800 calories would make me gain.

johnsnana 04-26-2013 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolcjunk (Post 16394769)
I'm 110 and have been at goal for several years- I ate about 1200 to get here, and maintain with a little more food.

1800 calories would make me gain.

Wow, if I read right, you are quite thin for 5ft 6" (not judging) though, as I always get frustrated when members ask me "what am I trying to lose for" since I am within my bmi range already. I want to be as lean as I possibly can, since running is important to me. The atkins book says you can stall from not eating enough & also mentions the 1500-1800 calories but I seem to be realizing that there are no "magic numbers" to LC'ing. I can run 7 hilly miles & not lose an ounce and a few days of not working out at all & I lose! I do a lot of experimenting with the percentages of fat/protein/carbs, as well as exercising, not exercising with only weight training etc.. Tried WW, stayed within my points, didn't use activity points or bonus points & limited my fruits to 5 versus the "unlimited" allowance & still didn't lose weight!
LC'ing just seems to be the best solution for me with my addictive personality since I never indulge on my LC foods :o)

Thanks folks for the replies:)

reddarin 04-26-2013 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsnana (Post 16395472)
I want to be as lean as I possibly can, since running is important to me.

You might buy, or borrow from the library, The Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance. It was written by Phinney/Volek and Dr. Volek is a huge exercise guy. This book was written for the LC fitness enthusiasts community. I haven't read it so I do not know how well it fits your situation but it sounds like it'd be right up your alley.

johnsnana 04-26-2013 12:32 PM

Thank you Reddarin, I'll check it out

Strawberry 04-26-2013 12:41 PM

You are going to get a wide variety of responses here, because age makes a huge difference (Metabolism starts really slowing around age 20, and takes another dip around age 35). Your height and percent of fat and percent of muscle also make a huge difference. Then of course their is your activity level. Not to mention your metabolic rate (some people just are faster than others - possibly thyroid related, as there is a range of thyroid activity considered "normal")

nolcjunk 04-26-2013 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsnana (Post 16395472)
Wow, if I read right, you are quite thin for 5ft 6" (not judging) though, as I always get frustrated when members ask me "what am I trying to lose for" since I am within my bmi range already. I want to be as lean as I possibly can, since running is important to me. The atkins book says you can stall from not eating enough & also mentions the 1500-1800 calories but I seem to be realizing that there are no "magic numbers" to LC'ing. I can run 7 hilly miles & not lose an ounce and a few days of not working out at all & I lose! I do a lot of experimenting with the percentages of fat/protein/carbs, as well as exercising, not exercising with only weight training etc.. Tried WW, stayed within my points, didn't use activity points or bonus points & limited my fruits to 5 versus the "unlimited" allowance & still didn't lose weight!
LC'ing just seems to be the best solution for me with my addictive personality since I never indulge on my LC foods :o)

Thanks folks for the replies:)

I don't really believe that eating less causes stalls, unless you are basically starving and eating away your muscle, and even then you continue to lose (like anorexics).

I have a small frame and a small bust and like the lean look as well, plus my face and stomach hold on to fat the most and I wanted to get rid of my chubby baby looking cheeks.

I think what you're experiencing is common- the water weight gain from exercise. I always go up a few right after a strenuous workout, and then lose it. Plus, those few pounds don't matter much- I think it's better to be toned than flabbier at a lower weight. I would drop your cals by about 100 a week and see what happens.

Also, another thing that is true for me (and other thin women that I know), I can't eat a ton of fat. I base my meals around protein (to make sure I am getting enough for my size) and veg, and round it out with fat. 1200 calories does not leave a whole lot of space for tons of fat and I always want to make sure I get adequate protein (especially when exercising) because that is a much bigger problem since there is no such problem with lower fat (as long as you are getting some). I know some people eat very little protein and I think that can be dangerous.

johnsnana 04-26-2013 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolcjunk (Post 16395659)
I don't really believe that eating less causes stalls, unless you are basically starving and eating away your muscle, and even then you continue to lose (like anorexics).

I have a small frame and a small bust and like the lean look as well, plus my face and stomach hold on to fat the most and I wanted to get rid of my chubby baby looking cheeks.

I think what you're experiencing is common- the water weight gain from exercise. I always go up a few right after a strenuous workout, and then lose it. Plus, those few pounds don't matter much- I think it's better to be toned than flabbier at a lower weight. I would drop your cals by about 100 a week and see what happens.

Also, another thing that is true for me (and other thin women that I know), I can't eat a ton of fat. I base my meals around protein (to make sure I am getting enough for my size) and veg, and round it out with fat. 1200 calories does not leave a whole lot of space for tons of fat and I always want to make sure I get adequate protein (especially when exercising) because that is a much bigger problem since there is no such problem with lower fat (as long as you are getting some). I know some people eat very little protein and I think that can be dangerous.

Hmmm, I am assuming you are not practicing the atkins approach but more a low carb approach which can be 30-100 net carbs per day? Atkins says 65-70% but I have done a lot of researching & it all says that the fat should be at least 50% and suggest closer to 65%. I get plenty of protein & the fat that atkins suggests but I need to eat between 1700-1800 calories on average, & I was actually hungry 1st thing this morning. I am no stranger to eating less calories. I just came off a 2 week experiment of eating 1150 calories per day, with about 100 net carbs total. It was mostly clean eating as well. It dropped me down 2 lbs but that was with jogging every other day. surprisingly, I wasn't hungry because I learned to eat the best foods to fill me up (high in fiber). I felt out of sorts though because my fat intake was so low & my carbs were so high (even though they were from veggies & whole grains). I went from 121 to 119 but I just decided that the LC approach works a bit better for me. I started it back yesterday & lost 1lb already today. At 117.6, I haven't been there since Jan 2013 so it feels good.
Anyway, here was my stats for yesterday.
1773 calories
65% fat (127 grams)
14% protein (104 grams) well above the suggested amount)
21% net carbs (37.5 grams)
Fiber 55 grams (well above)

It's interesting to hear how the numbers work differently for everyone & I like to experiment with suggestions on here so thank you for sharing.:)

nolcjunk 04-26-2013 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsnana (Post 16395715)
Hmmm, I am assuming you are not practicing the atkins approach but more a low carb approach which can be 30-100 net carbs per day? Atkins says 65-70% but I have done a lot of researching & it all says that the fat should be at least 50% and suggest closer to 65%. I get plenty of protein & the fat that atkins suggests but I need to eat between 1700-1800 calories on average, & I was actually hungry 1st thing this morning. I am no stranger to eating less calories. I just came off a 2 week experiment of eating 1150 calories per day, with about 100 net carbs total. It was mostly clean eating as well. It dropped me down 2 lbs but that was with jogging every other day. surprisingly, I wasn't hungry because I learned to eat the best foods to fill me up (high in fiber). I felt out of sorts though because my fat intake was so low & my carbs were so high (even though they were from veggies & whole grains). I went from 121 to 119 but I just decided that the LC approach works a bit better for me. I started it back yesterday & lost 1lb already today. At 117.6, I haven't been there since Jan 2013 so it feels good.
Anyway, here was my stats for yesterday.
1773 calories
65% fat (127 grams)
14% protein (104 grams) well above the suggested amount)
21% net carbs (37.5 grams)
Fiber 55 grams (well above)

It's interesting to hear how the numbers work differently for everyone & I like to experiment with suggestions on here so thank you for sharing.:)

I am doing Atkins. I don't remember ever reading to make fat that high of a percentage. I remember something where he said that many foods in nature tend to occur in that percentage naturally (for example eggs have around 65% fat, not that we should eat mostly fat. He included lots of veg on his diet and as you go up the rungs you get more and more carbs from them and things like fruits and beans and decrease fat.

I am someone who does not feel best on tons of fatty stuff like hwc, coconut oil, steak fat. I feel better with more protein and tons of veg and some fat.

Trillex 04-26-2013 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolcjunk (Post 16395730)
I am doing Atkins. I don't remember ever reading to make fat that high of a percentage. I remember something where he said that many foods in nature tend to occur in that percentage naturally (for example eggs have around 65% fat, not that we should eat mostly fat. He included lots of veg on his diet and as you go up the rungs you get more and more carbs from them and things like fruits and beans and decrease fat.

I am someone who does not feel best on tons of fatty stuff like hwc, coconut oil, steak fat. I feel better with more protein and tons of veg and some fat.

I kind of feel like the fat issue with Atkins is a bit confusing. I'm following Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution (2002) -- I've read that book multiple times since I started -- and although you *can* eat a large percentage of fat, this copy of the book doesn't stress the *need* to eat lots of fat.

Phinney and Volek stress the importance of fat, which I respect because they have done tons of research. And it seems fairly universal that people on the forum get the best results from eating lots of fat. I definitely ate a high percentage of fat during my first 6 months on Atkins -- mostly because I am mad about triple-cream cheeses -- but I just got *fat overload* after the holidays and, since then, I've stuck to the Atkins induction list (as I have since the beginning) but I haven't felt like eating cheese so my daily fat percentage has been quite low since January. I just can't even STAND the smell of butter at this point! And I won't be able to look at steak for a good long while because I just ate too much of it during my first few months. So even though I've had some days where I've eaten less than 20g fat, I feel like I'm still a *true* Atkins dieter, according to the book I'm following, because I'm sticking to induction-level carbs and induction-list food choices. I had a day where I had scallops for lunch, with jalapeno-spiced spinach and onions, then tuna steak with sliced bell peppers and kale for dinner. That whole day came to 10g fat. But I feel like that's a *legitimate* Atkins day, although I don't think most Atkins dieters seem to eat that way.

I haven't *intentionally* gone low-fat and low-carb as some sort of diet strategy but, except for cheese, I've just never been a huge fan of grease. I think I've been able to stick with Atkins because I genuinely enjoy the food. If I had to *force* food that I don't feel like eating into my daily menus to meet particular macros, it would make eating SUCH a pain for me and I think that would cause me to eventually quit the diet. So I kind of feel like Dr Atkins created a brilliant diet that is flexible enough to allow people with different tastes to follow the plan. I've been following the plan for 11 months and, as my tastes have changed, I've been able to stay true to the diet guidelines while changing the nature of what I eat to match my current preferences.

I resisted diets for YEARS because they all seemed to be about counting things and that just seemed totally painful to me. I'm not proud of my character flaws, but I'm a bit lazy and I'm a finicky eater. That's why I feel like Atkins is an amazing blessing, because it's super simple and it fits my personality. I just *don't eat* foods that are *not* on the lists, and I don't have to count things and/or eat foods that I don't want to eat in order to lose my excess bodyfat. If I had to shoot for a particular daily calorie range -- high or low -- I would want to pull my hair out.

Mssarge 04-26-2013 09:03 PM

Johnsnana, just a quick note...I've low carbed for years but am now in intermittent fasting; actually Johnson's Alternate Day Fasting. For an estimation of your caloric load, may I suggest you go to Dr. Johnson's website as there is a calculator there to help you determine how many calories you should be eating. It also has a tool to figure age and level of activity...just a suggestion.

nolcjunk 04-26-2013 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trillex (Post 16396213)
And it seems fairly universal that people on the forum get the best results from eating lots of fat.

I don't know if that is true, even though it gets repeated a lot- eat more fat for better results, even though Atkins never said that. Also, more fat doesn't lead to deeper ketosis- yes, you might show a deeper purple color on ketostix but that is because it counts dietary fat as well. A lot of people report stalls, overeating things like hwc and fat bombs, and having problems from limiting protein.

All the people here that have maintained for a while at healthy goal weights and that I consider role models are not huge fat eaters.

Leo41 04-27-2013 02:12 AM

As nolcjunk suggested, there's confusion about the need for 'fat' when eating low carb. I first read Dr. A in 1972, and while he emphasized eating whole eggs, using full fat mayo, and butter, he also said that by eating typical low-carb, whole foods (meat, eggs, dairy), a person would probably have a diet composed of about 65% fat naturally via the foods themselves and the normal amount of fat used in their preparation, since they carbs were no longer a part of this WOE. He never emphasized any 'need' for additional fat.

I lost healthily and steadily eating low carb without consciously adding fat. In fact, I lose best with less fat--no mayo and limited butter and EVOO in my food preparation. I often make stir fries with just my homemade bone broth.

My skin, hair, and nails are all healthy, and my regular bloodwork (I'm hypothyroid and regularly checked) is superb. At age 71, the only Rx I take are my thyroid hormones--no meds at all.

I've maintained my loss for two years--and for me the secret is to keep carbs and calories low.

Biochic 04-27-2013 04:05 AM

I am 5'2" and 52 yrs old. There is no way I could get that many calories in. I'm usually around 1100/day. Now, when I wasn't LCing I could eat that many calories I a sitting but my appetite just isn't there. Part of the journey this time for me is listening to my body and recognizing hunger as opposed to stress,boredom, anxiety etc. I eat when I'm hungry and I eat until I'm full...

Rhubarb 04-27-2013 11:07 AM

I don't consciously add fat either. I tried for a while but it stalled me so I just eat fat as it comes. As it happens I don't really like fatty meat very much and I don't naturally add a lot of oil in my cooking. I thought I'd love a rib-eye steak but I learned that it's really too much for me --- I choose the filet mignon these days. And I eat chicken breast over chicken thighs. I thought I'd want to eat a lot of butter but it turns out that I really only enjoy it on bread and pasta and I don't eat those. I use a little coconut oil in cooking but I haven't found a big benefit to eating scads of it. (I do like coconut butter and coconut meat, so I've been eating some of that.) I do eat a ton of avocados. (I live in Southern California and they are exceptionally good, cheap and plentiful.

On the other hand, I love cheese and don't limit myself with it. But I rarely eat more than 4 or 5 ounces a day. And I've been enjoying using other dairy like creme fraiche and heavy whipping cream, also within reason.

So, I'm certainly not afraid of fat. It's just not something I consciously push. For me it seems to be about keeping my carbs in line, with an eye toward not going nuts on the calories or the protein. And unlike so many others, dairy seems to agree with me very well.

So far, I am very comfortable with this way of eating and as others have said, the program seems to be quite flexible in terms of how you manage the macronutrients. Which is great. But I'm mindful of others' experiences here on the boards and know that I have a long way to go before I can consider myself an authority even on my own diet. It's a learning process.

.

Geekin' in Utah 04-27-2013 12:06 PM

Quote:

I can run 7 hilly miles & not lose an ounce and a few days of not working out at all & I lose!
I would expect this (unless you dehydrate on the run). Tink about it from a biological perspective: when you put that much stress on your body, it (in the past) meant your body needed to horde energy (you were either fleeing or chasing). When your body isn't under stress, it is less concerned about making sure it can cope with the stress tomorrow. This is further complicated by the additional lean tissue created when you exercise.

Does this mean don't run? Of course not. But if I were in your running shoes, I'd break out the tape measure and use inches/cms as my measurement of choice and would weigh monthly. With strenuous exercise, weight is going to be a very confusing metric to use to determine success.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:43 AM.