Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Daily Low-Carb Support > General Low-Carb
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   ^
Old Tue, Apr-21-09, 18:07
Kharma's Avatar
Kharma Kharma is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 302
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 285/185/150 Female 65
BF:
Progress: 74%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2bthinner!
The recommended daily ratio between P, F and C in the ON (calculated per 1kg of IDEAL body weight) is 1: 3.5: 0.8 (10%, 82% and 8%),
and for an overweight person 1: 2.5: 0.8 (12.5%, 77% and 10%), until the body weight is stabilized in the normal range.

I'll use mine. I should weigh 60kg
To LOSE
60kg x 1 gram protein = 60 gram protein
60kg x 2.5 gram fat = 150 gram fat
60kg x .8 gram carbohydrate = 48 gram carbohydrate.




THANK YOU Lisa and 2bthinner. I was getting stuck on the 'example" too LOL

Doing it this way I certainly come up with different numbers than the Calculus Victus. In there it tells me: 60 protein, 90-120 fat, 30-48 carbs.

using the above ratios in 2bthinner's post I get:

I should weigh 62.27 k (137 pounds)
To LOSE

62.27 x 1 gram protein = 62.27 gram protein (13%)
62.27 x 2.5 gram fat = 155.7 gram fat (75%)
62.27 x .8 gram carbohydrate = 49.81 gram carbohydrate. (11%)

1849 calories


Hmm.. maybe that's why I lost 9 pounds the first week LOL. Seriously, eating 1849 calories a day seems crazy to me. I wonder if the weight will come off at that amount. I've been eating 1200-1300 calories for so many years! I haven't really been watching calories, just that's where my numbers usually fell in fitday end of day.

Last edited by Kharma : Tue, Apr-21-09 at 19:06.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Tue, Apr-21-09, 20:44
awriter's Avatar
awriter awriter is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,096
 
Plan: Kwasniewski Ratios
Stats: 225/158/145 Female 65
BF:53%/24%/20%
Progress: 84%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merpig
What a detailed post Lisa! I admire you for sticking to the program and finding something that seems to be working, as I hope it will for me too.

I hope it works for you, too, Debbie. Besides, what choice did I have? Go back to a low fat, low calorie diet - knowing how that kills you? Couldn't do it.

Quote:
I know the frustration of a stall as I've been there done that - back in the 1997-2001 time frame when I first did low carb. I lost 80 pounds and then hit a brick wall with still an additional 80 to got based on my *own* goal, and actually still about 100 if I were to base it now on JK's ideal weight. Yet I never lost another ounce over the next 2 1/2 years.

Aside from the personal disappointment, what was so difficult for me was the intellectual wall. I could not understand how, doing one thing, I could lose so much weight - and then doing exactly the same thing, not lose even one pound more. It's crazy-making. I sometimes muttered "why? why? why?" under my breath. And what I really like about this is it's not magic. There's a real biological reason for this that I simply didn't see at the time. And there are still many people on this forum who are reading this thread and shaking their heads in disbelief. It can't be the protein - it has to be the carbs!

Quote:
I do enjoy my protein. Even today I'm sitting already near my max for protein even though I'm still a little low on the fat side and fairly low on the carb side.

As someone who has now done this for over six weeks, I'm going to share something with you. Because of our metabolic problem with protein, the very thing that's harming us is addictive to us. I felt exactly like you did six weeks ago. And five weeks ago. And even four weeks ago. I too fudged around with my protein numbers so I could let myself eat more of it. But I was just kidding myself, as I believe you're doing now. I only lost 1/2 pound the first two weeks because of it. Yes, you lost more, but you have a lot more to lose, so I believe it's equal.

It wasn't until I truly understood that protein was harmful to me that I went to my real protein number, and grasped that whether or not I ever get to weigh 125 pounds is beside the point. Irrelevant. There's a substance that is killing me, and allowing myself to eat more of it than I absolutely must have to live is self-destructive.

And then two things happened: the weight started dropping off, and within another ten days the addictive nature of it was gone for me. I could eat under my limit -- well under -- with no problem. Eating fat became easier. And the more fat and calories I ate with the lower protein, the more the weight came off. And the less I felt I need to eat protein.

Quote:
Per JK my ideal weight is 140 pounds. I'm going with the 150 number.

Of course it's your choice, and if that works for you, great. But please consider if it doesn't that as long as you continue to eat more protein than your body can deal with - the excess will continue to harm your metabolism, which will then take longer to heal. There's a reason you couldn't lose any weight for 2.5 years, and that reason is protein. And remember too that by using inflated protein numbers, you are also then artificially inflating your fat and carb numbers too -- putting you right back where you were when you couldn't lose weight. This isn't about believing your ideal weight is 'unrealistic' to ultimately acheive. It's a biological problem. If you truly have the metabolic BPAA defect -- it only manifests itself in the presence of too much fat with excess protein. And here you are, eating more protein than you need or should eat, and increasing your fat allowance. I'm just saying. And genuinely supporting your decision as well. I hope it works for you.

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Tue, Apr-21-09, 21:24
kimbar69 kimbar69 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 623
 
Plan: LC and almost vegan/IF
Stats: 190/179.6/150 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 26%
Location: GA
Default

Wow Lisa thanks so much for this thread of information!!! I would love to see your daily food menu. I am trying not to eat meat or animal products right now as sort of a test for myself so I am struggling a bit but like you I have been stalled and stuck at about the same weight for a very long time. My family jokes about what "diet" I am doing this week as I have been searching for my answer for so long but if I hadn't been trying who knows how big I could have gotten. I even laugh at myself some days as it is easier than crying. lol Thanks again!!
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 07:14
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 6,112
 
Plan: IF/Fung IDM/Potato Hack?
Stats: 375/272.6/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by awriter
But please consider if it doesn't that as long as you continue to eat more protein than your body can deal with - the excess will continue to harm your metabolism, which will then take longer to heal.


I hear what you are saying. But the difference between the two is so minimal that I can't obsess too much over it. I mean if my protein goal is 64g and I find I've actually had 65 or 66g I can't believe it's going to kill me. Prior to this plan I was eating 140-160g of protein on many days! Now *that* is a big difference. Clearly if you eat 2-3 times more protein than your body needs it's not a good thing.

But a couple of grams is probably not even statistically significant. As someone else posted (and sorry I can't attribute properly, but there are so many Kwasniewski posts and threads that I find it hard to go back and look for it) all our numbers are just "best guesses" anyway. We can weigh and measure to the best of out ability, but there are still going to be unknowable variables in things like the actual amount of fat vs. protein or carb in our food items. And at present we have no easy way to do a chemial analysis of every bite - nor would I want to! That's just too obsessive.

Maybe I'll be happier with less protein as time passes. Already, after only 10 days, I'm feeling happier with smaller amounts of protein and fat.

I mean, my protein need based on 150 pounds is 68g. Based on 140 it's 64g. According to Lifeform yesterday I ate 66g. But was it really? I mean was it actually 68, or 64, or some other value? I just came close. Unless I eat well *under* my number there is always going to be that balancing act.

And maybe I well reach a point where I am well under my number. I'm still in the mindset of not wanting to lose lean body mass. And while I understand *too much protein* is not a good thing there also has to be an issue with too little.

So baby steps, baby steps .... I'm down another pound today. That's 2 for this week now. Added to last week's 3 I'm down a total of 5. <Happy Dance>
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 08:43
Sagehill Sagehill is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,744
 
Plan: Longer-term IF, Dr. Fung
Stats: 250/195/170 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 69%
Location: FL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merpig
But a couple of grams is probably not even statistically significant. As someone else posted (and sorry I can't attribute properly, but there are so many Kwasniewski posts and threads that I find it hard to go back and look for it) all our numbers are just "best guesses" anyway.

So baby steps, baby steps .... I'm down another pound today. That's 2 for this week now. Added to last week's 3 I'm down a total of 5. <Happy Dance>
Merpig, that's great about your loss! I think Kwas. is correct, that high-fat, low-protein is what many, if not most, insulin-resistant and diabetics should follow. I keep thinking of a diabetic friend who always insisted that she just couldn't stay on low-carb diets like Atkins and Protein Power for more than a week because low-carb, high-protein always made her feel physically ill. Now we know the mechanism that explains why she feels this way.

But I think you're also right in that if one is used to eating LOTS of protein (and I'm one too, especially since I raise my own of all kinds of meat) it's probably easier to step into OD slowly, which might be why there's a three-level version floating around.... someone discovered that starting with a higher protein level and working their way down to the optimal level helped them stay on it longer. It probably doesn't have anything to do with how long one has been on low-carb.

The other disconnect I'm getting about OD is that the 1/ 2.5/ .8 based on optimal weight seems to be putting it in a lower-calorie diet, which is not the impression I get from reading various newspaper articles about the "Polish Atkins." It seems from one video interview that those women, who look very tiny by the way, ate some 200+ g fat per day; and the sample diets at Homodiets are all around 250 g F and about 2500-3000 calories.

I think it's important not to get obsessed about the exact ratio of P/F/C to eat, since like Merpig says, the difference between 2.5 and 3.5 is really only a few calories, especially when one's been overdoing protein before. Plus we can never know exactly what percentage of P/F/C we're eating anyway... maybe the difference between what you're really eating and what FitDay says you're eating is 2.5 or 3.5 anyway. Why drive yourself crazy?

Just do the best you can.
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 09:27
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 6,112
 
Plan: IF/Fung IDM/Potato Hack?
Stats: 375/272.6/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagehill
The other disconnect I'm getting about OD is that the 1/ 2.5/ .8 based on optimal weight seems to be putting it in a lower-calorie diet, which is not the impression I get from reading various newspaper articles about the "Polish Atkins." It seems from one video interview that those women, who look very tiny by the way, ate some 200+ g fat per day; and the sample diets at Homodiets are all around 250 g F and about 2500-3000 calories.


Yes, I have this same issue in my mind. The ratio of 1/2.5/.8 definitely puts this in a "calorie-restricted diet" category in my mind. If I use 140 pounds for my 'ideal weight' I get gram numbers of:
64/160/51, which in calories equals 256/1440/204, or 1900 calories
if I use 150 pounds my gram numbers are:
68/170/54, which in calories is 272/1530/216, or 2018 calories

so that's a pretty narrow range, not even 100 calories between the two. I mean clearly 1900-2000 is not a 1200-calorie diet, yet it's still a pretty stringent caloric restriction. Even the rabid low fat site of "Sparkpeople" (which my company's fitness program directed me too) told me I should be eating 2200-2400 calories a day to lose weight! And I thought I had read somewhere that at his clinic Dr. K put *all* the patients on a 3000 calorie-a-day diet for the sake of ease. Yet clearly his patients must have been of many sizes, ages, heights, weights, states of health, and at least two genders.

And as for worrying about using either 140 or 150 as my 'ideal' weight - well from the numbers above the margin between the two is *very narrow*. 4 grams of protein. I know it all adds up, but 4 grams is *tiny*. An ounce of meat is about 28g. Have you put an ounce of meat on a scale? There is not much to it. 4g is less than *one bite*. I don't think I can even accurately measure to that level of granularity.

I'm willing to buy the premise that excess protein is a problem for me. I've seen a 5-pound drop and a PLUMMET in my blood sugar numbers since cutting the protein. I agree that eating a 14-oz steak will certainly wreck more havoc on my body than a 4-oz steak.

But truly, is eating a 4.1-oz steak instead of a 4-oz steak going to send my metabolism into a tailspin? Who can even measure that difference? I have trouble comprehending that even a damaged metabolism can have tolerances that low, or who could stay alive as long as a week?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagehill
But I think you're also right in that if one is used to eating LOTS of protein (and I'm one too, especially since I raise my own of all kinds of meat)it's probably easier to step into OD slowly


Tee hee, going low protein for you must be kind of like a former friend who was trying to give up carbs, and who was a professional pastry chef! I hope you have a big freezer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagehill
Just do the best you can.


Exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm just trying to concentrate on the ratios and come as close as I can manage. From my weight and blood sugar numbers it seems I'm managing pretty well so far. This plan *is* more complicated than I'm really happy with, but the proof is in the pudding (sugar-free pudding of course!) so far. And like any new discipline, I'm convinced it will become easier and more like second nature the longer I persist.
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 10:23
Kharma's Avatar
Kharma Kharma is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 302
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 285/185/150 Female 65
BF:
Progress: 74%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagehill
The other disconnect I'm getting about OD is that the 1/ 2.5/ .8 based on optimal weight seems to be putting it in a lower-calorie diet, which is not the impression I get from reading various newspaper articles about the "Polish Atkins." It seems from one video interview that those women, who look very tiny by the way, ate some 200+ g fat per day; and the sample diets at Homodiets are all around 250 g F and about 2500-3000 calories.


it's my understanding the ratios change once we hit goal weight (our ideal body weight), and it is more calories to maintain. I nabbed this from an earlier post:

Quote:
The recommended daily ratio between P, F and C in the ON (calculated per 1kg of IDEAL body weight) is 1: 3.5: 0.8 (10%, 82% and 8%),
and for an overweight person 1: 2.5: 0.8 (12.5%, 77% and 10%), until the body weight is stabilized in the normal range.


So we are eating fewer calories now if we're using the numbers for an overweight person. Unless I'm reading this wrong, which is totally possible lol.
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 10:30
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,211
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

My understanding is, if you feel like the calories are too low, add more fat but try to keep the protein down-ish. I don't think one has to obsess though. But don't listen to me, I'm gaining weight still.
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 10:45
LOOPS's Avatar
LOOPS LOOPS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,091
 
Plan: simple HFLC <30g
Stats: 74/72/62 Female 5ft 6.5 inches
BF:29%/27%/24%
Progress: 17%
Location: LA SERENA, CHILE
Default

Yeah see this is why my heart sank about the different ratios for losing weight. 1700 calories is at least 300 less than I'm used to eating, and, therefore, I don't think I can do this diet properly. It's just not a solution for me to restrict calories. Protein, maybe, but calories - forget it, it just sounds like another calorie-restricted variation of low-carb.

Regarding veggie protein, well I got the impression from the interviews that people were eating almond bread. I wonder if they count the protein in the almonds, as it is quite a lot.
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 10:47
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,211
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I personally wouldn't consider a nut a vegetable.
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 10:52
Kharma's Avatar
Kharma Kharma is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 302
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 285/185/150 Female 65
BF:
Progress: 74%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LOOPS
Yeah see this is why my heart sank about the different ratios for losing weight. 1700 calories is at least 300 less than I'm used to eating, and, therefore, I don't think I can do this diet properly. It's just not a solution for me to restrict calories. Protein, maybe, but calories - forget it, it just sounds like another calorie-restricted variation of low-carb.

Regarding veggie protein, well I got the impression from the interviews that people were eating almond bread. I wonder if they count the protein in the almonds, as it is quite a lot.


I think I have the opposite fear you do, I've been eating much less calories for years! (On Atkins). I wasn't trying to restrict calories, just by end of day my Fitday was usually in the 1200-1300 range. I'm worried eating 1800+ calories on this will make me gain weight lol.

As for your almond question... I love almonds and eat them almost every day. I personally count the protein in them towards my protein totals.
Reply With Quote
  #27   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 11:07
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,033
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/279/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 42%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LOOPS
Yeah see this is why my heart sank about the different ratios for losing weight. 1700 calories is at least 300 less than I'm used to eating, and, therefore, I don't think I can do this diet properly. It's just not a solution for me to restrict calories. Protein, maybe, but calories - forget it, it just sounds like another calorie-restricted variation of low-carb.

Regarding veggie protein, well I got the impression from the interviews that people were eating almond bread. I wonder if they count the protein in the almonds, as it is quite a lot.

Don't restrict calories! Eat the carbs and protein you are allowed per your ratio and ignore the fat ratio completely. Eat as much fat as you are hungry for. You will lose weight.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #28   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 11:11
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 6,112
 
Plan: IF/Fung IDM/Potato Hack?
Stats: 375/272.6/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LOOPS
Regarding veggie protein, well I got the impression from the interviews that people were eating almond bread. I wonder if they count the protein in the almonds, as it is quite a lot.


For me, (the one who is eating almond bread) - yes, I'm absolutely counting the protein. One slice of almond bread (based on getting 20 servings out of the recipe) has 9g of protein, and I count it.

For breakfast this morning once again I crumbled a slice of the almond bread into a bowl, topped it today with 30g of chopped walnuts for a little extra "crunch", and added heavy cream to make a yummy breakfast "cereal". For the last few days I've been alternating that breakfast with one of eggs. Both delicious, and nice to have some choices and changes.
Reply With Quote
  #29   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 11:12
awriter's Avatar
awriter awriter is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,096
 
Plan: Kwasniewski Ratios
Stats: 225/158/145 Female 65
BF:53%/24%/20%
Progress: 84%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharma
I wasn't trying to restrict calories, just by end of day my Fitday was usually in the 1200-1300 range. I'm worried eating 1800+ calories on this will make me gain weight.

Brenda, one month before I switched to K I tried an experiment. Changed from my usual 1400-1500 a day down to 1200 a day. For an entire month, no cheating, no upping my carbs. Very little food actually. Didn't lose an ounce.

Now I'm eating 1700-1900 calories a day and not only losing something - even if it's just an ounce or so - just about every day. And frankly, the morning after the highest fat and highest calorie days (which means the lowest protein consumption days), I lose the most. The morning after I've eaten up to my protein ratio (which means lower fat and calories) - I've lost the least, or nothing at all.

Take a deep breath and give it a try.

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #30   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 11:15
awriter's Avatar
awriter awriter is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,096
 
Plan: Kwasniewski Ratios
Stats: 225/158/145 Female 65
BF:53%/24%/20%
Progress: 84%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharma
it's my understanding the ratios change once we hit goal weight (our ideal body weight), and it is more calories to maintain.

Correct. Once I reach ideal weight I move from the 2.5 fat ratio to the 3.5 fat ratio and can eat up to 60 more fat grams a day -- a whopping 540 more calories. A day.

Lisa
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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:53.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.