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


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Eating and Exercise Plans > Weight Loss Plans > Nutritional Ketosis / High Fat, Low Carb
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2013, 11:02 AM   #31
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,460
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by clackley View Post
The amount of protein has been pretty well discussed and carbs are a given (vlc) but I really haven't seen any discussion on the amount of dietary fat that is appropriate for weight loss.

Let's say a person has a good level of ketosis established via blood testing and is still not losing. Dr. Phinney has been recorded as saying that in that case, dietary fat should be lowered. So what would be the level one should shoot for?
Actually, for NK, it is discussed but everyone says 'calories' rather than 'fat grams'. Once you have your protein grams established and your total carb grams set the only place for initial tweaking is calories which is all from the fat macro.

Phinney did give a broad outline for NK macro % --- 65-85% Fat / <35% Protein / x% Carbs.

He said that once protein approaches and passes 35% it is hard or impossible to maintain NK.

He also said that a macro ratio that looks high in protein is not necessarily high as a macro % because body fat is being used and stealthily pushes protein down as a percentage and the fat macro up as a percentage. I've seen some posts that interpret this to mean that a low fat moderate protein low carb woe is NK and, frankly, that is a gross misinterpretation of what the man said. It is used as justification for very low calories too which is also not what Phinney encourages, and in fact, he actively discourages very low calories without clinical supervision.

I think the answer lay in the realm of caloric deficit rather than absolute calories. If you keep your deficit reasonable and have no health issues (diabetes, Rx meds, etc.) then you will lose weight.

Phinney provides the formula (reference_weight/2.2)*35 for an active person and (reference_weight/2.2)*30 for a very sedentary person as daily caloric expenditure.

So, a person that has an ideal weight of 150 and is active will use about 2000 calories at that weight.

But you don't weigh 150. You weigh 225 (for example). If we use the formula for 225 we get about 3100 calories. That is probably a little high since your body composition is out of whack when you are over weight. Or it could be a little low because it takes a lot of energy moving your extra bulk around.

Be that as it may, it is a good guide for taking a stab at establishing caloric deficit which is in the here and now not the future where you are actually at your goal weight.

But the direct answer to this question: "So what would be the level one should shoot for?" ... is to gradually reduce calories by reducing fat grams *if* your other macros are correct *and* you are not eating very low calories already *and* your caloric deficit is not a huge gaping maw that is terrifying your body into doing stupid things with your metabolism.

reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 02-08-2013, 11:02 AM   #32
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
drjlocarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,346
Gallery: drjlocarb
Stats: 274 /219/190
WOE: vlc/NK
Start Date: LC-1999,jan2010 274 NK 1-1-13 at 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkbait View Post
think of it like this... you are training your body to burn fat, so if your weight was stable you would need x amount of calories a day depending on your body size and activity (this would be at whatever your best ratio is - for me 80/15/5) However, if you want to lose weight, you want your body to use your own fat for energy, not fat you eat so you need to restrict your total calories but still keep your ratio the same.
In order for the ratio to stay the same, the carbs and/or protein would have to change too. I think most of us are locked into the minimum carbs and protein and therefore can not do strict ratios.

The idea of 80/15/5 might be a great place to start, but in order for you to allow the the body to use it's own fat instead of dietary fat, that ratio must change.

Cathy is wondering how many grams of fat other folks are eating.
drjlocarb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 11:20 AM   #33
Junior LCF Member
 
sharkbait's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 26
Gallery: sharkbait
WOE: Ketonic
Start Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post

Phinney provides the formula (reference_weight/2.2)*35 for an active person and (reference_weight/2.2)*30 for a very sedentary person as daily caloric expenditure.

So, a person that has an ideal weight of 150 and is active will use about 2000 calories at that weight.

that's interesting... that means i need 4270 calories... lol... i reckon you should work off your lean body mass which in my case would be 87.5kg. Adding my goal bfp of 15% means my ideal weight assuming a stable LBM would be 100kg and my calories then would be 3500. So if I stick to that's i should eventually stabilize at 100kg but if i want to drop faster, I should reduce it. To be honest, if I was on a conventional (read delusional) diet of low fat and swimming as much as I am, I would be expecting to consume closer to 5K cal/day
sharkbait is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 11:30 AM   #34
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,460
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by clackley View Post
Thanks, I appreciate your response but I am not a fan of calorie/in, calorie/out.
But establishing appropriate fat grams is the same thing as establishing appropriate calorie intake, no?

You could log your food while eating to satiety to establish fat grams at satiety for the day over a week or a month or whatever. Then actively decrease absolute fat grams while keeping the other two macros the same.

If you experience the appetite suppression that is so ubiquitous with NK you quickly fall into the trap of eating far to little. Then you start losing lean body mass and metabolic stuff is affected like increased cortisol levels, a decreased resting metabolic rate, et. al.
reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 12:23 PM   #35
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,460
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkbait View Post
that's interesting... that means i need 4270 calories.
Yes, it means that - if your correct weight is about 270 pounds and you are around 7 feet tall.

reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 04:36 AM   #36
Junior LCF Member
 
sharkbait's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 26
Gallery: sharkbait
WOE: Ketonic
Start Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
Yes, it means that - if your correct weight is about 270 pounds and you are around 7 feet tall.

Well, i'm 6'3 and 270lbs but even at my goal weight of 15%bfp, 3500 sounds like a lot of calories...
sharkbait is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 05:37 AM   #37
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,755
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by drjlocarb View Post
In order for the ratio to stay the same, the carbs and/or protein would have to change too. I think most of us are locked into the minimum carbs and protein and therefore can not do strict ratios.

The idea of 80/15/5 might be a great place to start, but in order for you to allow the the body to use it's own fat instead of dietary fat, that ratio must change.

Cathy is wondering how many grams of fat other folks are eating.
Yes, that was what I was trying to find out.... I am currently capping my fat intake at 92g per day.....
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 05:39 AM   #38
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
drjlocarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,346
Gallery: drjlocarb
Stats: 274 /219/190
WOE: vlc/NK
Start Date: LC-1999,jan2010 274 NK 1-1-13 at 244
Yes it is sharkbait. That formula is ridiculous and misinterpreted for people trying to lose weight.

Last edited by drjlocarb; 02-09-2013 at 05:41 AM..
drjlocarb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 11:42 AM   #39
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,460
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkbait View Post
Well, i'm 6'3 and 270lbs but even at my goal weight of 15%bfp, 3500 sounds like a lot of calories...
This part: " if your correct weight " is the important part

The real question is, what exactly is 'active' and 'inactive'. Perhaps active is 40kCal for some people and 33kCal for others.
reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 12:42 PM   #40
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,460
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
"That formula is ridiculous and misinterpreted for people trying to lose weight."

From page 207 of The Art and Science of Low Carb Living:

"As an aside, the casual reader might protest that these energy expenditure numbers look pretty high. But for anyone that has worked with obese humans in a metabolic research ward, 30kcal per kg of actual body weight in the sedentary obese and 35 kcal/kg in the post-obese moderately active adult are actually quite conservative expenditure values."

Facts: 1
Snark: 0

reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 12:57 PM   #41
Senior LCF Member
 
BlueJeanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 96
Gallery: BlueJeanz
Stats: 300/273/150
WOE: Wheat Belly
Start Date: October 4, 2012
Does everyone here still have their gallbladders?

I never see this mentioned anywhere! According to some experts in low carb, those who have had their gallbladders removed (me!) should take a bile salts supplement. When I began taking it my stall ended.
BlueJeanz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 01:04 PM   #42
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,755
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
"That formula is ridiculous and misinterpreted for people trying to lose weight."

From page 207 of The Art and Science of Low Carb Living:

"As an aside, the casual reader might protest that these energy expenditure numbers look pretty high. But for anyone that has worked with obese humans in a metabolic research ward, 30kcal per kg of actual body weight in the sedentary obese and 35 kcal/kg in the post-obese moderately active adult are actually quite conservative expenditure values."

Facts: 1
Snark: 0

Sadly, we are not all the same and I gain if I eat beyond 1200 or so low carb, moderate protein, high fat calories per day. That is a fact for me. I wish it were not so. I am still obese.

I re listened to the Phinney/JM interview just this morning - and I hear him say 'calories matter' and yet we get this disconnect.

As we all know, calories are only a small piece of the picture and the 'make up' of those calories is far more important. Calories are a rudimentary scale of sorts to suss out bits of data. What seems clear to me is that it really has nothing to do with anything for the most part. What seems more relevant is the function or disfunction of the individual metabolism and the vast # of issues that may come into play there.

In all my time on this forum at large, I have yet to witness someone go from a very long stall (like the one I am in) to losing weight again by upping calories. Not.one.single.person.
__________________
Cathy
Original start - Feb. 2000 180/125

"The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body." Dr. P. Attia

"dumping carbohydrates on your broken metabolism is tantamount to doing jumping jacks on two broken legs" -The Spark of Reason

“Eat animals. Mostly fat. Enjoy!
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 02:30 PM   #43
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,460
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by clackley View Post
Sadly, we are not all the same
Right.

The implicit nature of this formula for calorie expenditure is that it is based on hard evidence. That on the whole it is correct. Does that mean that we are all the same? No. It just means that we can have an excellent starting point to work from due to many, many years of clinical practice with obese patients by Dr. Phinney.

Quote:
I re listened to the Phinney/JM interview just this morning - and I hear him say 'calories matter' and yet we get this disconnect.
What disconnect? Calories matter in both directions. Too little and too much. In fact, he deconstructs one person's question by pointing out that he is eating a lot less calories than he says he's eating.

Quote:
As we all know, calories are only a small piece of the picture and the 'make up' of those calories is far more important. Calories are a rudimentary scale of sorts to suss out bits of data. What seems clear to me is that it really has nothing to do with anything for the most part. What seems more relevant is the function or disfunction of the individual metabolism and the vast # of issues that may come into play there.
Didn't you just peg 1200 as the absolute ceiling for yourself? I understand that you are saying it is just one piece of the puzzle but it is an important piece as you yourself said earlier. In fact, it is the reason you quoted me, isn't it?

Quote:
In all my time on this forum at large, I have yet to witness someone go from a very long stall (like the one I am in) to losing weight again by upping calories. Not.one.single.person.
The.plural.of.anecdote.is.not.data.

Last edited by reddarin; 02-09-2013 at 02:41 PM.. Reason: typo
reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 02:33 PM   #44
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,460
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueJeanz View Post
Does everyone here still have their gallbladders?

I never see this mentioned anywhere! According to some experts in low carb, those who have had their gallbladders removed (me!) should take a bile salts supplement. When I began taking it my stall ended.
You might explore Jimmy Moore's site for some information. His wife had her gallbladder removed and she is LC. He mentioned it in passing on at least one podcast. I don't recall him going into any detail other than to say that she was able to slowly go high fat over about a year.

reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 08:52 PM   #45
GME
Big Yapper!!!!
 
GME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CA Coast
Posts: 9,570
Gallery: GME
Stats: 250/166/175 Trying again...223/211/146 5'7
WOE: Misc.
Start Date: April 2000 (the first time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by clackley View Post
In all my time on this forum at large, I have yet to witness someone go from a very long stall (like the one I am in) to losing weight again by upping calories. Not.one.single.person.
I did.

About 5 years or so ago there was a thread called something having to do with never eating below BMR (sorry can't link right now). It was full of people who had been stalled or had very slow losses that saw improvement by eating more.

I don't have a gallbladder. I'll check into the bile salts. Very interesting.
GME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 12:03 PM   #46
Major LCF Poster!
 
DD80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Desert Southwest
Posts: 1,292
Gallery: DD80
Stats: 188/165.0/145 5'10"
WOE: Organic GrassFed Gluten-Free 5/13 Dairy Free 2/14
Start Date: 1/10/12 Medi, 2/9/12 First UD, 1/1/13 New Plan
OP - what does your diet look like? Example of a day menu might help?

Also, do you have thyroid issue? Have you been tested recently?

According to info you gave us, you are eating at the most, 828 of your 1200 cals/day of fat? How many grams of protein and carb?

Any other health issues that might come in to play?
DD80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 01:08 PM   #47
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,755
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by DD80 View Post
OP - what does your diet look like? Example of a day menu might help?

Also, do you have thyroid issue? Have you been tested recently?

According to info you gave us, you are eating at the most, 828 of your 1200 cals/day of fat? How many grams of protein and carb?

Any other health issues that might come in to play?
Thank you for your response. I already know that I have a problem and have been working to resolve it currently with low carb/mod protein and high fat. I post daily on the 'it's day of the week - what are you eating? thread in the main lobby. I have been tracking macros for quite a while now and was just wondering what others thought was a good amount of fat.
clackley 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 03:31 AM.


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