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 > New Members & Low-Carbers > Newbies' Questions
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Jul-20-17, 14:59
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
New Member
Posts: 19
 
Plan: Atkins 72 / IF
Stats: 224/153/155 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 103%
Default Fat Percentage

I have started keeping track of my calorie percentages. I have seen some suggestions that a LCHF diet should be around 65% fat, 30% protein and 5% carbs. I am not too concerned about hitting that target, but I am keeping track to better understand the effect of changes to my diet. Right now, I seem to be around 50% fat, but I am wondering if I am counting correctly. For example, if I have a meal of 80/20 beef, broccoli and cheddar cheese, the labels show a that to be 433 total calories, 281 fat calories, 112 protein calories and 10 carb calories. or 65% fat, 26% protein and 2% carbs. In this example, I am browning the beef and then adding the broccoli to the pan. I then add the cheese in the bowl. If you are still reading after all that, here is the question. I am not adding any grease, but the grease from the 80/20 ground beef gets picked up by the broccoli and and eaten. So when the package says 280 calories and 200 fat calories, does that include the exuded grease in the pan, or does that assume it gets thrown out. If it does not include that grease, the total calories would be more like 533 with fat calories 381, which would make the fat percentage closer to 71%. Probably not important, but if I am going to keep track, I want to be accurate.

Last edited by dcc0455 : Fri, Jul-21-17 at 09:58.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Jul-20-17, 16:00
Kristine's Avatar
Kristine Kristine is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17,967
 
Plan: Primal
Stats: 165/149/145 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Default

Hello and welcome!

The package should state the total nutrition of everything including the fat, as if you're eating everything including the grease. When I'm tracking, I track going by the raw weight for a recipe like this in which I'm consuming the fat. Chili and stews are another example in which I'd be consuming all of the fat from the raw meat.

OTOH, there's bacon, or other meats in which you might not be consuming the extra grease. That's a little less accurate, but don't get caught up in the details. Just record whatever numbers you have, eg. 3 oz of cooked bacon. In the long run, you'll still see patterns.

Best of luck!
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Jul-20-17, 17:34
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
New Member
Posts: 19
 
Plan: Atkins 72 / IF
Stats: 224/153/155 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 103%
Default Great feedback

The package should state the total nutrition of everything including the fat, as if you're eating everything including the grease. When I'm tracking, I track going by the raw weight for a recipe like this in which I'm consuming the fat. Chili and stews are another example in which I'd be consuming all of the fat from the raw meat.

Thanks for the reply. I have been counting as if it was included with the label numbers, but to be honest, thought it probably wasn't. Either way, I'm not so concerned with the number itself, but rather any significant changes. Its great to get feedback so quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Jul-21-17, 07:47
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,317
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Welcome,
Beside calorie labels being allowed by US law to vary 20% either up or down in accuracy, the biggest missing "macro" in any of the common LCHF recommendations is how much energy is being drawn from your own body fat, or as Dr Westman calls it, your on-board pantry.
You don't have many pounds left to lose, so it won't be as large as when you started induction, but accuracy is an elusive goal when it comes to calories
All the best,
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Jul-21-17, 10:06
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
New Member
Posts: 19
 
Plan: Atkins 72 / IF
Stats: 224/153/155 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 103%
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Welcome,
Beside calorie labels being allowed by US law to vary 20% either up or down in accuracy, the biggest missing "macro" in any of the common LCHF recommendations is how much energy is being drawn from your own body fat, or as Dr Westman calls it, your on-board pantry.
You don't have many pounds left to lose, so it won't be as large as when you started induction, but accuracy is an elusive goal when it comes to calories
All the best,


Thats a great point and reinforces the thinking that the actual number is not as important as the trend. I assume my body is using much less of its own fat at 160 than it did at 220. What I hadn't considered is if that means if should increase my fat intake at my current weight, to maintain that balance. At the end of the day, its not a specific formula that matters, but rather the results, but it may be something to consider as the weight loss slows down or stalls. Thanks for your feedback.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Jul-21-17, 10:28
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Maintaining
Posts: 2,534
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 170/135/120 Female 62 inches
BF:22%
Progress: 70%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

In a recent Fung blog post:
Quote:
There are really two different places where our body can obtain energy
1.food
2.Stored food energy (glycogen in liver, or body fat)
But here’s the CRITICAL point. You can only get energy from one or the other, but not both at the same time.
https://intensivedietarymanagement....d-fasted-state/
This is self-evident, but reading it on the page brought it home to me. This helps me eat less often.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Jul-21-17, 17:25
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
New Member
Posts: 19
 
Plan: Atkins 72 / IF
Stats: 224/153/155 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 103%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesinger
In a recent Fung blog post: This is self-evident, but reading it on the page brought it home to me. This helps me eat less often.


Thanks for the feedback. I guess that is the argument for intermittent fasting. Of course, like everything, the devil is in the details. For example, how long after eating does the body use the food before switching to stored food energy. I assume that will depend on the type and amount of food, activity level, metabolism, etc. Its another one of those factors that we can only estimate, but still worthwhile to consider. Lots of great info here.
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 23:11.


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