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
  #31   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 10:19
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
It seems from one video interview that those women, who look very tiny by the way, ate some 200+ g fat per day

Since they were tiny they were probably in the "normal weight range," and therefore eating at the 3.5 fat gram ratio. When I get there my fat grams per day will be 200g as well.

But that's immaterial. If you want to eat more protein, more fat and more carbs than the ratios say you should -- according to Dr. K's most recent calculation -- and you continue to lose weight, then do it and enjoy! We'll all celebrate the loss of every single pound.

Lisa
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 10:25
LOOPS's Avatar
LOOPS LOOPS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,089
 
Plan: simple HFLC <30g
Stats: 74/72/62 Female 5ft 6.5 inches
BF:29%/27%/24%
Progress: 17%
Location: LA SERENA, CHILE
Default

1700-1900 calories would leave me wanting. And I don't eat high protein either - 80g a day. My perfect weight is 60 kilos, which I did achieve before I started my on-going weight gain (see journal).

Yes I would LOVE to believe this would work for me, but I've noticed in the past when dropping protein to 60g and upping fat a lot I did not lose anything - apart from maybe some muscle. But then my carbs were uber-low as well. Maybe the secret is in increasing the carbs.

I wish there were some explanation as to why carbs are better than protein for getting glucose. Wish I spoke Polish for that matter, then I could probably find out. Anybody know?
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 10:30
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 LOOPS
Maybe the secret is in increasing the carbs.

The main K thread has a lot of info about why this is both correct and important.

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 10:37
LOOPS's Avatar
LOOPS LOOPS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,089
 
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 Lisa - not meaning to be rude but I'm not new to Kwasniewski's ideas or the science behind high fatting - I used to hang out at the Optimal forum for quite awhile, and yes, of course I am keeping up with the thread. But no, it doesn't explain about this. I want the science. Who actually has the book? What does it say?

Coming from doing high fat high calorie eating for over 3 years I need hard proof about raising carbs. I hope you understand.
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 11:44
capmikee's Avatar
capmikee capmikee is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,160
 
Plan: Weston A. Price, GFCF
Stats: 165/133/132 Male 5' 5"
BF:?/12.7%/?
Progress: 97%
Location: Philadelphia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2bthinner!
PS. There is an English version available from the publisher.
http://www.wgp.com.pl/index.php?id_j=en
(No, I don't have one. There are a couple of people who do.)

Thanks for the link, 2bthinner. There seem to be several books with virtually the same title. Are they different editions, or different books? If anyone could help me decide which one to get, I will probably order it. I would be willing to get a German version if the best version is not available in English, but I'd have to ask my wife to help me understand it.
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 11:53
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 capmikee
Thanks for the link, 2bthinner. There seem to be several books with virtually the same title. Are they different editions, or different books? If anyone could help me decide which one to get, I will probably order it. I would be willing to get a German version if the best version is not available in English, but I'd have to ask my wife to help me understand it.


I asked the same question a while ago. A member who has the books answered:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pangolina
I think Optimal Nutrition is probably a more useful book for beginners. It's the one I turn to first when I have a question. It has the most straightforward information about the how's and why's of the diet, as well as guidelines for pregnancy and feeding babies and children. There's also an index [Edited to add: actually, no there isn't one... sorry... I guess I misremembered ] -- a feature that Homo Optimus lacks.

Homo Optimus is kind of long-winded at times, and seems to be more oriented towards theory. There are several chapters about specific diseases and how they're affected by diet, which could be of great value to some people. It also has a couple of chapters on JK's religious and political ideas (basically, implicating wrong diet as the cause of all of society's ills since the dawn of the human race), which are entertaining, if somewhat kooky. The most practical part, IMO, is the recipe section... though if you don't like the ones on the web site, you won't like these ones any better.

----

To the person who asked about fruits and vegetables, it's not that we're supposed to avoid them completely. They're just considered optional extras, as we can get all the necessary vitamins from the recommended animal foods. The main disadvantages are that they're expensive and full of fiber, which is considered to be a bad thing (the author of The Fiber Menace takes a similar approach to this subject). In the suggested menus, they're mainly used as a garnish or flavoring. Still, if we prefer them -- or if we have a health condition that requires the avoidance of starches -- we can eat vegetables and less-sweet fruits for our carb allowance, instead of potatoes or grains.

Sweet fruits are more strongly discouraged, though he isn't absolutely strict about this. For instance, the menu for Day 7, totalling 44 g carb, includes a milkshake made with cream and orange juice. It also includes half a dark chocolate hazelnut bar. It looks like this is an example of a special treat day. He does mention in Optimal Nutrition that it would be all right to eat such things in small amounts on occasion, but not as a regular practice.

----

Regarding exercise, he says that it's inhumane to require obese people to take part in vigorous activity. He also believes that strenuous exercise on an incorrect diet can be harmful. On the other hand, he says that as people become healthier through optimal eating, they'll naturally want to exercise more, even into old age. The elderly people described in the news articles certainly seem to support this claim.

----

Regarding different types of meat, he says that you can absolutely do the diet without eating pork. Lamb or beef are also fine; they're not as ideal, but certainly adequate. Chicken is less desirable, and fish even less so, because of their low fat content. Of course, you can add extra fat when cooking or serving, but he believes that this is inferior to eating meat together with its naturally occurring fat.

Speaking of added fat, in Homo Optimus, JK mentions that England was an especially strong and well-nourished nation around 1830 (and has been in decline ever since). I'm interested in English history and traditional cooking, so I looked on Google Books and found a cookbook from 1842, called A New System of Domestic Cookery, by "a Lady." The copy that was scanned was the 66th edition, so it was evidently a popular book at the time. It's a fascinating read, if you like that sort of thing. One of the techniques that's most strongly recommended is "barding," which involves adding extra fat to lean meats, e.g. by stuffing bacon under the skin of chickens before cooking them. There are also illustrated instructions for carving a cod's head, a calf's head, and other delights. I guess this was the sort of thing that my great-great-great-great-grandparents used to eat. It sounds like an Optimal paradise.

----

Regarding vegetable protein, I haven't seen anything anywhere that says that it shouldn't be counted. However, he does say that it has lower biological value, so you'll need to eat more than the standard allowance in order to get enough. By contrast, those who get all of their protein from the "most optimal" sources -- egg yolks, liver, and kidney -- can get by with even less than the standard amount. So if you're eating a substantial of vegetable protein (e.g. nuts), I guess you'd have to take that into account when fine-tuning your ratio. Sorry that's not very specific; if I find something else, I'll let you know.

BTW, JK is more positive about nuts than about other vegetable foods. Some of them are naturally optimally balanced. They're a good snack if you're lacking in other options, and they make delicious baked goods (as I've already discovered, thanks to the Specific Carbohydrate Diet). Still, they shouldn't take the place of animal foods.

Okay, that's it for me; I have to go stuff a cod's head. Just kidding....
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 11:59
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 LOOPS
Who actually has the book? What does it say? Coming from doing high fat high calorie eating for over 3 years I need hard proof about raising carbs. I hope you understand.

No problem on this end. There's are several links in most of the threads, including this one, that will take you to the site to order the books in English. I think you may be disappointed when you read them though, since the explanation K has given in many places is always the same: you must eat just enough carbs to remain out of ketosis. And the reason for that is to make sure your glycogen storage tank (the one used for flight or fight and also these days when exercising; thus refilling it is always the body's priority) is filled by carbs, not by protein via gluconeogenesis. That has been discussed on the threads, and that's pretty much what you're going to find in the books. I've seen the same thing stated on all the OD forums as well.

In any event, if you do find out more by all means share it here. As for me, I honestly don't care what the books or science has to say about it, because I must go only by what happens to my body when I lower or raise my carbs. Somehow, my body isn't all that interested in theory -- no matter how much it might work well for some people, or not at all for others.

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 12:34
capmikee's Avatar
capmikee capmikee is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,160
 
Plan: Weston A. Price, GFCF
Stats: 165/133/132 Male 5' 5"
BF:?/12.7%/?
Progress: 97%
Location: Philadelphia
Default

Thanks for the repost, Kharma.

I think I understand this page now, but it's a little confusing:

http://www.wgp.com.pl/index.php?id_s=205&id_j=en

At the top of this page there are copies of Optimal Nutrition and Homo Optimus, apparently in English, for $30 and $48. Further down, the Polish versions are shown for $20 and $24, but the descriptions say "Available in English." I guess that means, "Look at the top of the page where you'll find the English versions" but that wasn't obvious at first.

When I have the money and the time to read, I'll probably order Optimal Nutrition.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 12:39
Kharma's Avatar
Kharma Kharma is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 302
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 285/185/150 Female 65
BF:
Progress: 74%
Default

It is confusing. and a little frustrating ordering is so convoluted.

I have a friend going to the Czech Republic in 3 weeks. Trying to decide if she may have luck finding the english versions there (and save on shipping) or if I should just bite the bullet and order them now.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 12:55
capmikee's Avatar
capmikee capmikee is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,160
 
Plan: Weston A. Price, GFCF
Stats: 165/133/132 Male 5' 5"
BF:?/12.7%/?
Progress: 97%
Location: Philadelphia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by awriter
The main K thread has a lot of info about why this is both correct and important.

I've been thinking about the question of increasing carbs a lot myself. Dr. K's approach fits with my philosophy: don't make your body do extra work. That's why I'm against fiber - fiber only lowers GI by making your body do extra work passing it through. Calorie restriction makes your body do extra work by denying it the fuel it needs. Grains and beans make your body do extra work by binding up minerals and flooding your body with other antinutrients, which then need to be flushed. So it makes sense that you don't want to tax your body with excess protein.

My problem now is figuring out which carbs I could have. I'm planning to keep it pretty Paleo. I'm on a no-vegetables trial right now because I want to rule out vegetables as a cause of my troubles, but when that is finished I'm thinking of upping my sauerkraut and maybe adding some turnips or potatoes. Plus, it will be berry season by then and I can't say no to a few fresh local berries!
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 13:02
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

By the way, I'm gonna try a new experiment!

I will eat only my ratios from Dr K. 90g protein and 70g carbs per day with as little fat as possible to see if that can possibly speedup weight loss or if I'm just going to feel lethargic. I probably know what will happen, but I need to see it for myself.

I was thinking of eating Egg Protein powder and Minute Rice (white) or rice pastas.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 13:07
capmikee's Avatar
capmikee capmikee is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,160
 
Plan: Weston A. Price, GFCF
Stats: 165/133/132 Male 5' 5"
BF:?/12.7%/?
Progress: 97%
Location: Philadelphia
Default

Egg protein powder sounds like a bad idea. Even fresh egg whites would be better - but seriously, how low-fat are you going to go if you're not going to eat the egg yolks?
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 13:11
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

I would only intake fat that comes with the nutriments I will eat to reach my 90g of P and 70g of C. I know powder isn't that great. But I don't know of any other convenient way of doing this experiment.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 14:12
MizKitty's Avatar
MizKitty MizKitty is offline
95% Sugar Free!
Posts: 7,010
 
Plan: Very high fat LC/HCG
Stats: 310/155.4/159 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 102%
Location: Missouri
Default

2bthinner, thanks for the extra help with the ratios. I'm still not clear where we are getting our suggested number of calories a day to apply the percentages too, but I am much clearer now on the percentages.

Awriter, thank you for post #17... I could relate to so much of what you said there. I'm mentally fighting the idea of such a reduced amount of protein (Deprivation!!! the brain screams) but I'm doing it anyway and not finding it as hard as anticipated, so hoping a metamorphisis in my thinking will continue and my success will mirror yours too.
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Wed, Apr-22-09, 14:30
kallyn's Avatar
kallyn kallyn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,998
 
Plan: life without bread
Stats: 150/130/130 Female 5 feet 7 inches
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Pennsylvania
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MizKitty
2bthinner, thanks for the extra help with the ratios. I'm still not clear where we are getting our suggested number of calories a day to apply the percentages too, but I am much clearer now on the percentages.


The ratio for weight loss is p:f:c of 1: 2.5 :0.8. Your protein is based on your ideal weight, with 1g protein for each kilogram of body weight. So, for example, if your ideal weight is 56kg, then your protein is 56g. Then using the ratio, you can figure out the other macronutrients. In this case, fat would be 140g (56 * 2.5) and carbs would be 45g (56 * 0.8). It all changes depending on what your "ideal weight" is.

So instead of taking your calorie limit and working backwards, you take your protein limit and work forwards.

Does that make sense?
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 16:38.


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