Why 10x calories?

[nelso117]

I've been doing LC for a while now, and have done very well on it, but why is 10-12x your body weight in calories needed? I read the old version of Dr. Atkin's book...did I miss a whole chapter? Also, why must I keep a high fat count? How many grams is good? Why does this make me lose more weight than a couple eggs for breakfast, burger for lunch, and a cheeseburger for dinner w/ no snacking? Which is better? HELP

[agonycat]

Biology 101.

10 to 12 times your body weight in calories supports the BMR (Basal Metobolic Rate) aka breathing, cell repair/growth, heart beating. Supporting the BMR will ensure your body does not think it is starving to death and go into hold on to every fat cell and water drop it has.

70 to 80 percent of your calories should come from fat. Excess protein can be converted by the body to glucose. Fat is inert and does not effect the insulin levels in your system.

[nelso117]

I've been stalling for about 2 weeks now, so maybe I'll try and up it.

[wbahn]

To expand on what Agonycat has already said.

You need to support close to your BMR otherwise your body goes into a starvation mode - way bad.

You need to keep your carbs low so that your insulin levels are low and you stay in or near ketosis (depending on the plan you are using).

You need to take in enough protein so that your body had adequate amino acids available otherwise it must digest your lean body mass for them.

You need to not take in too much protein otherwise your body will begin converting some to glucose and you might as well be eating carbs.

Low carb and not-too-high protein will result in substantially fewer calories than your BMR demands, so you make up the difference with fat.

- Your body is not very efficient at burning consumed fat for fuel - somewhere in the 50% to 75z range.

- Your body can't store dietary fat as body fat if you are in or near ketosis. This requires insulin.

- Your body can pull body fat for fuel easily if you or in or near ketosis so that is what it will do for the bulk of your energy needs.


Now, about that 10x rule. That is a rule of thumb that is applicable to people not too far above their ideal weight - and you probably are close enough. For people way above their ideal weight, the rule of thumb is along the lines of 400 calories plus 10 calories for every pound of lean body mass plus maybe one or two more for every pound of body fat.

[Natrushka]

You need to not take in too much protein otherwise your body will begin converting some to glucose and you might as well be eating carbs.

Now, about that 10x rule. That is a rule of thumb that is applicable to people not too far above their ideal weight

There is no weight limit to the guideline that 10-12 times your body weight is a good place to start for calorie consumption. Carrying around extra fat takes energy. Assuming you are dealing with someone who is not on medication that will make fat loss difficult and there is no history of yo-yo dieting it is far better to start off with 10-12 calories per lb of current body weight and work down - eating too little and LCing isnt a feasible plan.

As for excess protein being turned into glucose, the process takes place in the presence of glucagon - and if glucagon is present then insulin cannot be present. It is one or the other. The glucose that is released by the process of gluconeogenesis does not cause a rise in insulin nor does it cause an ensuing storage of fat. Also, what would qualifty as "excess" is an amount that would stagger most of us - it's really not easy to do this. The minimum protein requirement is a minimum - eating more is better than eating too little.

Nat

[wbahn]

I'll have to go back and look into the protein/glucose process again and some more - I have only read through that material once and am no doubt missing some pieces from my memory. Thanks for the correction.

I don't agree, however, on the universal applicability of the 10x rule over all weight ranges. First, no rule of thumb is universally applicable and the vast majority only apply over a fairly small range. Second, the claim that it is universal means several things that are contradictory to other knowledge.

The 10x rule is necessarily an average that takes into account bone, organs, lean muscle and fat and everything else that gets included in your weight. For that rule to be universally applicable requires one of two things - either all of those elements must individually require the same daily calories per pound or the relative proportion of those elements must remain constant.

I've never heard anyone claim the first assumption is reasonable. For people reasonably near their ideal weight the second assumption is pretty good.

If it was universally applicable, it would mean that a 6'10" 350 pound man has the same BMR as a 5' 10" 350 pound woman (if their activity levels were comparable). More to the point, it would also mean that fat contributes the same amount to BMR as lean muscle does which is in direct conflict with the claim that as your body builds muscle your metabolism will increase because muscle burns more calories than fat. It can't be had both ways.

I have found many, many sites and references that all are quite consistent that BMR is dictated primarily by lean body mass with an important contribution due to activity level and that additional BMR due to excess body fat is a minor contribution.

[Natrushka]

Wbahn, that is why it is a guideline. Of course everyone will be different. Eating 4000 calories a day would be daunting and no mean feat. The idea behind encouraging people to eat up to this guideline while LCing is to break them from the "less is better" mindset that comes from a lifetime of low fat / calorie restricted dieting. In an effort to eat more you ensure that you keep track of what you are eating and you don't end up ingesting 1300 calories thinking "well that's OK - I'm not really hungry anyway". Ketosis is a double edged sword - it decreases your appetite, which is both good and bad.

It should also be taken into consideration that BMR consists of only 60-70% of your daily calories - there is leeway here. If you have a sluggish metabolism it will be less and if you have one that is racing along it will be more. BMR does not take into account your lifestyle or your daily activity level. Carrying around 70 lbs of extra fat takes energy - I know, I was doing it 6 months ago. The arguement that fat is inert and requires no energy just doesnt fly - it must be factored in.

My point was that it is far safer and healthier to start off high and to adjust down as you become more familiar with your WOL. If LC is to be a WOL and if we are to be successful with our goals of fat loss we must forget what we have been told over and over again about calorie restriction and fat consumption.

N

[wbahn]

Ah. We aren't as far apart as what I had thought - in fact not much at all.

And it's pretty obvious I blended a couple of posts when I responded to yours. I read another post today (don't know where - it's not even in this thread) that said that the 10x is a minimum that you should never go below - period. I somehow got it into my mind that it was part of your post here - which is very obviously is not and you specifically stated to use it as a starting point and adjust downward from there (which I somehow missed altogether).

My apologies.

BMR does not take into account lifestyle or daily activity to the degree that on any given day the calories associated with lifestyle and activity level are above and beyond BMR. Very true. But, in general, the more active a lifestyle a person leads the higher the BMR will be (within a range of 10% to 20%) so that if you take a marathoner and another person of otherwise identical build and had them both lay around all day the marathoner would be expected to burn quite a few more calories. Their body's BMR reflects a metabolism that is essentially always geared up and primed for sustaining high activity levels.

And I completely agree with your statement that it is far better to start off risking eating too many calories than to be on the too low a side.

Glad that got cleared up - because your views and mine are usually not too far apart and this time it seemed like they were. I just need to learn how to read.

[Natrushka]

Unfortunately, Wbahn, some of us with messed up metabolisms (for whatever reasons ) are very active. I am/was one such. I think the understanding we have of how BMR and RMR works/is calculated is altered when you take carbs out of the equation. I have been an exercise fiend for over 14 years and it wasnt until I dealt with my insulin insensitivity that I actually found out I had a metabolism.

Like most of the research that exists on fat intake and fat loss, the information that exists with respect to BMR / RMR is based on people eating the standard North American diet. The same diet that made most of us fat. I know from personal experience that there is a huge difference in my RMR from what it was in August of last year.

I think that by healing insulin insensitivity we also end up "fixing" our metabolisms that were so messed up. There was no way I could have eaten 1800 calories 7 months ago and lost weight - there's no way I would have been able to maintain my weight with that many calories. And now I do it as a matter of course every day - while losing fat. It truly boggles the mind.

Nat

P.S. It wouldn't surprize me if I had said something along the lines of 'never go below 10x' :rolleyes: - but I would hope that it would be taken in context. For some members of this forum eating 10x their current body weight would mean eating 1200 calories - going below that would not be healthy.

[wbahn]

I know what you mean about mind-bogling. I seldom went over 2000 calories a day even at a weight of nearly 400 pounds and even being active in CAP out in the field, hiking in the mountains or working the flight line on my feet for ten hours a day during a mission made no matter.

On my typical weight loss attempts I would be in the 500 to 1000 carefully tracked calories a day regime for many weeks to a few months and be walking 3 to 6 miles every other night. And after some initial success would stop losing weight, usually in concert with my energy level plummeting for the obvious reasons. They I would get so disappointed that I would finally give in to the cravings and would go for a few weeks where I would be consuming 1500 to 1800 calories a day as I fought the cravings with limited success and I would be gaining a couple pounds a week.

Then I would give in altogether and stop tracking what I was eating and gain the full amount plus usually ten pounds more within a month at the most. Then I would stabilize and it wouldn't matter how much I ate or how little - I might gain ten pounds or lose ten pounds but it would always come right back to that same setpoint. I could go for six months without weighing myself or watching what I ate - somedays a lot and some days nothing at all - and when I would clear a path to the scale and weigh myself I would be within five pounds of that weight until my next attempt whereby the cycle would be repeated.

I'm sure there are some real benefits to having a super efficient metalolism. When the famine does come I'll outlast them all. But other than that I have a hard time seeing them.

You're certainly right that the equations are probably based on a high-carb diet - although some of the sites are from other parts of the world or have specifically looked at differences among different populations. But while the multiplying coefficients might change some, the basic structure is probably pretty steady.

I, too, am hoping that long enough on this WOL and my metabolism will, at least largely, heal itself. I remember in my late teens being able to not worry about what I ate and keep my weight right in the 180 to 200 pound range because of how physically active I was. And I remember how I enjoyed being that physically active. I want to have as much of that back as I can possibly get.

[wannabsexy]

I finally went to fitday to start charting my progress and was absolutely shocked to see that I wasn't consuming near as many calories as I thought I was! When your used to doing the traditional WW or just low cal diets this is really a major switch, and a bit hard to get used to. But so far the scale has been telling me this is going to work. And of course sleeping better and totaly feeling better are fine little perks. :) I just have to add a bit more butter here, a couple more sausage links there and it's starting to add up.

[Marti66]

You guys just confused the heck out of me! I thought this was supposed to be simple. I thought there were no limits (either way) on fat or protein (unless you were doing the Zone) and that as long as you were keeping carbs way low you could eat a lot or a little as far as protein. What about Carb Solution Bars, they have a ton of protein and 2 carbs. I eat 2 or 3 a day! Plus 2 eggs plus a hamburger patty or two, plus a couple of pieces of chicken. Am I eating too much protein???? Help! :confused:

[Natrushka]

Marti, when you start out you can pretty much eat as much protein and fat as you want. As you get closer to goal and if you start to stall then you look for specifics - and there is a list of them :) You can check that out under "Low Carb Tips".

It is important you get a) enough protein and b) enough carlories. That is the main point this thread was making.

As for those 'Low Carb Bars' You might want to try doing a search for them using the function atop every page on the right. As a preview to what you're going to find I can tell you that I have yet to find a legitimate LC bar - hidden carbs abound. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

If you have been stalling or your loss has slowed down I would look to those bars as your culprit.

Nat

[donnaj]

Nat,
I am having trouble with calulating my calorie intake. I have found myself eating less and less since starting in Jan. So now I am stalling and trying to figure out why. So I starting from the beginning again and wanting to know if my calculation is right.
So, I am now at 171. I muliply this my 10 that gives me 1710 then add 400 which is 2110 calories per day. Please let me know if this is right.
Thanks
Donna

[Natrushka]

Donna, I replied to you in your Journal :)

Nat

[Marti66]

Nat
What are these people thinking!!!!!! My 2 g Low Carb Bar came out at 21.9 g on the hidden carb caculator!!!! How can they do that?! :mad: Thanks so much for being the bearer of bad news! And I will not shoot the messenger! You saved my butt! Literally :rolleyes:

[wbahn]

I don't know about you, but I don't WANT my butt saved! :D

I'm all for losing my hat, ass and overcoat - especially the non-clothing items in that list. :D

[Marti66]

Hey now wbahn!
She saved my butt from a life of feeling like it needs a "wide load" sign on it! Now that is a beautiful thing! :roll:

[wbahn]

What's a beautiful thing? A "Wide Load" sign or a butt with a "Wide Load" sign on it? :D

I'm hoping to some day qualify for a "Caution. Butt is closer than it appears" sign. :D

[Marti66]

I'd like one of those caution signs myself. Thanks for the laugh! :p

[Natrushka]

*lol* Yer both Kooks!

Nat

[captxray]

What the heck are you guys all talking about? I just eat meat, veggies, nuts, fruit, seeds that I gathered at the local market, take home, cook, and watch the pounds melt away. I don't think I could make a way of life out of something that's so "scientific." More power to you "body scientists," but I think I'll just stay back in the stone age, live in my cave, and gather whatever comes down the trail, outside! No wonder I couldn't make a success of Atkins! I've got other things to occupy my time, like whether the weather good for riding my Harley, do I need a new front tire, do I have enough gas money to take a tour across the continent, and if the stars are out, tonight. I'm losing these pondrous pounds to be able to hike in the Sierras again, like I did when I was seventeen. Pemmican is easy to make, easy to eat, no waste, no sludge left over, and about 95% efficient. That's all of the "science" I need. But whatever turns your handle to better health. Good luck to all of you Einsteins.

[Natrushka]

Bump for all the recent posts about the 10x guideline - there are some good explanations in this thread along with some caveats for those with a lot of fat to lose.

Nat

[TeriDoodle]

Great thread, Nat!! Thanks for digging it up.... I'll print it out and keep it with my other "stuff".

[I miss Bill! :( ]

[Natrushka]

Teri, sure makes it easier than re typing everything over n over agan huh? (I picked it out of the Hot Links! thread - there are a few others dealing with 10x but I think this is the most detailed).

I miss Bill and Alto and Raz :(

M

[jude]

Thought it wouldn't hurt to bring this thread to the forefront again.

I've been stalled at 156 since the end of March. Two weeks ago, I decided to make a concentrated effort to get my average daily calories up to 10x my current weight, and also to increase carbs to 30-35 (I've more or less stayed at induction levels until now).

Over the past two weeks, I've averaged 1597 calories--some days higher (yesterday 2004), some days lower--and 32 carbs.

Today, I'm down to 154.

judy

[Daryl]

Thought I'd "bump" this thread, as it discusses how many calories we may be needing, and there was some discussion of such in another thread.

[Kisal]

I understand the science that's been discussed in this thread, but I sure could use some advice from you "more learned" members who have posted here.

#1) How does a person know whether they suffer from "insulin insensitivity," and what does one do to "cure" it?

#2) I have only today begun to exercise, and since my muscles are woefully weak, I can only work at what might be called a "pre-beginner" level. I expect it will be 6 to 8 weeks before I can call myself a "beginner." Can anyone offer information to me about how to calculate my caloric needs?

#3) I do take several prescription meds that cause weight gain. I will have to take them for the rest of my life, and there's just no getting around that. My doctors recommended that I stay between 1000 and 1200 calories/day. I have no problem eating plenty of fat, since I'm literally addicted to the stuff! I've been keeping it to about 50% to 75% of my total daily calories. Is this not enough?

#4) I love meats and eggs, and could very easily overeat them, too, so I try to keep my protein to about 30% of my daily total calories. Is this sufficient?

#5) I like veggies well enough, but have to make an effort to be sure I eat some every day. My carbs, which are primarily from veggies, average about 10% to 20% each day. Is that too little? Too much?

The fact is, I have no idea what I'm doing, because I don't fit the profile of the "average" person on Atkins. I'm trying to follow the book as closely as I can, but I have no one to consult, except my doctors. Although they all support low-carb eating plans, I sometimes get the impression that some of their old "low-fat/low-cal" training slips into their thinking unnoticed. :lol:

All I can say is :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: Please?

(Sorry this was such a long post. Still, I hope someone is willing to advise me.)

[Daryl]

I understand the science that's been discussed in this thread, but I sure could use some advice from you "more learned" members who have posted here.

I'm not very "learned", but maybe I can help a little.

#1) How does a person know whether they suffer from "insulin insensitivity," and what does one do to "cure" it?

Here's a link explaining what it is and some consequences.http://www.carbs-information.com/insulin-resistance.htm

A low-carb diet may be the best way to "cure" it.

#2) I have only today begun to exercise, and since my muscles are woefully weak, I can only work at what might be called a "pre-beginner" level. I expect it will be 6 to 8 weeks before I can call myself a "beginner." Can anyone offer information to me about how to calculate my caloric needs?

I'd speak to your docs, as you state your diet requires you only taking in a specific amount. See if your increased activity will allow you more calories per the docs. Exercise often allows, if not requires, extra calories.

#3) I do take several prescription meds that cause weight gain. I will have to take them for the rest of my life, and there's just no getting around that. My doctors recommended that I stay between 1000 and 1200 calories/day. I have no problem eating plenty of fat, since I'm literally addicted to the stuff! I've been keeping it to about 50% to 75% of my total daily calories. Is this not enough?

Sounds like a good range to me. Mine is usually between 60 and 70%.

#4) I love meats and eggs, and could very easily overeat them, too, so I try to keep my protein to about 30% of my daily total calories. Is this sufficient?

Again, sounds good to me lol. The Eades have a chart in their Protein Power Lifeplan book telling what a person's minimum is, have you checked that out?

#5) I like veggies well enough, but have to make an effort to be sure I eat some every day. My carbs, which are primarily from veggies, average about 10% to 20% each day. Is that too little? Too much?

Keep in mind each person has individual needs. I'm diabetic, so mine is quite a bit less, I don't go over 30 grams of carbs a day. Not everyone can, wants to, or should eat that few though. Make sure they are high-quality carbs, though, which sounds like you're doing.

The fact is, I have no idea what I'm doing, because I don't fit the profile of the "average" person on Atkins. I'm trying to follow the book as closely as I can, but I have no one to consult, except my doctors. Although they all support low-carb eating plans, I sometimes get the impression that some of their old "low-fat/low-cal" training slips into their thinking unnoticed. :lol:

All I can say is :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: Please?

(Sorry this was such a long post. Still, I hope someone is willing to advise me.)

Hang in there; I know it can be incredibly frustrating trying to get healthy, but it is worth the effort.

[.muse.]

The original post of this thread was so long ago, but I'm praying some of the people who posted on it then are still around.

I am desperately confused, and I'm wondering if what this thread was about is not why.

I am 323lbs & 6' tall. My average daily menu is ..

B: sausage, small amount of bell pepper & eggs, scrambled
L: baked chicken wings, or fried hamburger patties with a strip of bacon
D: Baked chicken or pork chops with broccoli or green beans
S: SF Jello & hot tea

I have found that I am not losing any weight. I have cut out nearly all cheese. I'm going on walks occasionally. I'm drinking nearly a gallon of water a day. I take multi-vitamins. I'm usually at under 10 carbs a day and I am just NOT losing any weight.

I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but it is so frustrating it makes me nearly cry every time I get on the scale. :help: Please!

[Kisal]

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, as you can see from my own plea for guidance! :lol: The menu you posted looks fine to me, but here are some things you might consider:

Be careful of sausage! I used the Hidden Carb Calculator to "test" the breakfast sausages I used to eat every day. The label says 3 of them contain 2 carbs. But according to the Calculator they seem to have 10 carbs each! I now buy fresh ground pork and mix in my own seasonings and spices. With a little effort, I now have very tasty ground pork that I use to make patties to go with my breakfast.

The same problem exists for bacon, which is often cured with sugar in one form or another. I finally asked my butcher if there wasn't something else I could buy, and she found some pepper-cured bacon for me, which she now keeps in stock because it's quite popular.

Based on posts I have seen throughout this site, it appears that nitrates and nitrites cause some people to be unable to lose. You might want to test eliminating them from your diet to see if it helps at all.

The same is true of artificial sweeteners. Some people cannot use them at all, while other people only get stalled by certain ones. It's different for each person, so you'll just have to use yourself as a guinea pig to see what works for you. However, many people seem to lose again if they avoid aspartame, which might be in your SF Jell-O.

You have done very well so far, and are to be commended for that! :thup: :thup: Your profile says you restarted on Feb. 19th, so you're just starting week 3. It's common for week 3 to be a plateau, and it's very possible that you will see weight start to come off again soon. Don't get discouraged! Remember to keep track of your measurements. Don't depend only on the number on the scale to determine whether or not you're losing fat. Another thing to keep in mind is that women tend to retain water, depending on where they are in their monthly cycles.

HTH! :wave:

[.muse.]

I've been slowly eliminating a lot of things from my diet to see what's causing it. This week it's Diet Coke. Last week it was cheese. I'm basically getting down to just the bare minimum's to see why I'm not losing when I know I should be.

[Elizellen]

One thing that struck me was the thought - are you eating enough food? difficult to see without quantities listed though.

[.muse.]

One thing that struck me was the thought - are you eating enough food? difficult to see without quantities listed though.

I always thought it was a lot. 4 eggs for breakfast, 2 1/3lb hamburger patties at lunch, maybe 2 or 3 pork chops, or 2 small breasts of chicken at dinner. But doing the math, that's not anywhere near 10x my weight in calories..