By trial and error and objective assessement of how you feel (energy and appetite control), function and lose weight, I guess.

Hi there Cyrus,

I agree with LarrtyAJ, that it's determined by personal lean body mass (hence why body builders, as has been noted, can eat so much more than the average person).

Technical guidelines are only of limited use. What truly matters, imho, is how your body works. So determining LBM can be one way of finding out how much protein you need and how much you could have before converting that protein into 'carbs'.

There's a few notes here: http://metabolicshiftapproach.wordp...w-much-protein/

And again, any formulas are still only guidelines. Experiment to see what works for you. I know eating too much protein will stall my fat loss, no matter how low I keep my carb intake.

good luck

No eating enough protein can also cause muscle loss. Its not the end of the world if protein gets converted to glucose.

It is problematic if you're trying to lose body fat and you're eating so much protein (or carbs for that matter) that the lipolysis is blocked. Glucose is glucose, no matter the source. Too glucose will stop fat-burning in it's tracks, at least according to Atkins and the Eades. I don't recognize the plan you're following. The key is to find the amount of protein that preserves the lean body mass and controls the appetite and not so much to make too much protein and thwart your efforts. It's a little different for each person.

You don't need to avoid glucose in you blood to prevent fat burning. You need to have calories below what you burn in a day. Atkins and Eades have a lot of good ideas, but the brainwash their readers about the dangers of carbs just like the USDA brainwashes most of America concerning the dangers of protein and fat (not like they are listening anyhow). Whether you reduce carbs or fat you will loose fat if your calories are in check. Eating enough protein to cause a lot of conversion into glucose will still allow for fat burning if you calories are where they need to be. I'm not suggesting you don't have to worry about having too much protein, but if fat loss stalls in that case it isn't because the protein was converted to glucose...it was because that person was eating too much. Easy.

If you like protein and it controls your hunger better than fat. Eat more protein and lower the fat. Just keep your calories at a level you know works and you will loose weight no matter what macronutrients you indulge in. It has to be said.

Ok OK. I didn't realize you were anti-Atkins and Eades. Sorry.

BTW I don't lose on low-calorie, low-fat diets any more. But I do lose on a high calorie diet of high fat and moderate protein. What do you make of that?

MSundi83: 'You don't need to avoid glucose in you blood to prevent fat burning.'
No? What about the insulin? Insulin being the fat-storing hormone...
Sounds to me like you need to avoid it...

ElleH: Sounds good. I'm curious, are you hungry on this high-fat, moderate protein approach?

No way, Cyrus! If I was hungry, I wouldn't be able to do it! I don't *do* hunger! I find myself dropping back to 2 meals a day when I do the HF/MP. But my calories are about the same as if I ate 3 meals.

I actually feel better and better that way. I cycle back and forth between higher fat/moderate protein and high fat/high protein--or a more traditional atkins. Does that make sense? It's actually kinda hard to make sure I get all my fat in when I'm doing HF/MP, so I go back to a more traditional Atkins for a few days/a week after a week or so HF/MP, just to take a break from the counting and making sure. Sometimes I think changing things up frequently is actually a good thing!

How about those of you who do the high fat / LC start listing your foods or use MY PLAN for those of us who are interested in this. Thanks

ElleH: I'm not anti-Atkins or anti-Eades. I think they have some guidelines that have helped a ton of people including myself in the past. I'm just not onboard with the whole anti-carb mentality either. I think both sides try to oversimplify things when there are more ways to skin a cat. It doesn't matter what diet you are on. Total calories make more difference than protein, fat, or carb macros. If you don't lose on one, but do on the other that has to do with total calories not being equal on both diets. It can also do with the fact that water is held differently on different diet types. The scale is a terrible way to measure the success of any diet plan, especially when comaring it to another diet plan. Also, you can see better results changing from one diet to another regardless of the diet. Like switching from a high carb to low carb diet can give you a boost to help your progress along. Calories still matter the most. There is no evidence to show that there is a metabolic advantage to low carb in humans (only some crappy numbers in mice). Until there is I don't listen to anecdotes about low carb being the only diet to help someone lose fat. It is probably just the best diet for that person to stick too.

Cyrus: Insulin is an anabolic hormone. It can be used to store protein, fat, whatever. That doesn't make it inherently bad for someone. Protein causes insulin release as well in case you didn't know, just not to the extent of carbohydrate.

You don't have to avoid it to prevent fat gain. You have to avoid excessive calories so your body uses dietary intake and stored energy for its uses instead of storing too much carbohydrate and fat in adipose tissue. If you don't give your body enough fuel (ie you are dieting and in a caloric deficit) it doesn't matter if isulin is a storage hormone...you don't have enough extra energy for it to store. This is how thermodynamics and your body works even when you aren't following Atkins or whatever. If those plans help you lose fat and give you a belief system that pushes you along, then don't let me stop you, but this is whats going on.

I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm just telling you what I know to be true. I think if you don't listen to opinions and research outside a bestelling diet book you are just ignoring reality. Bottom line....I'm not anti LC and not pro-any diet in particular. I'm pro-science however.

Well, it may 'have to be said' in your opinion, but let's see a scientific basis for your statement. Not a body-builder website or article from "Men's Health," but an honest to goddess published research study.

Why?
Well, because the calories in/calories out ratio that you keep touting, and the tired-out "a calorie is a calorie" refrain is a myth, and there actually IS published honest to goddess scientific research that blows the ratio out of the water and debunks the myth. And guess what? It wasn't published by either the late Dr. Atkins or by either of the Drs. Eades, although the Drs. Eades were both aware of and have publicly commented on the articles' publication.

Several articles which scientifically present another POV on these topics are linked on the forums at www.proteinpower.com, as .pdf files, in the "Getting Started" forums. One is called "Thermodynamics and Metabolic Advantage of Weight Loss Diets" by R.D. Feinman, Ph.D., and E.J. Fine, M.D., which was published in METABOLIC SYNDROME AND RELATED DISORDERS, Volume 1, Number 3, 2003.

Another is "Is a calorie a calorie?" by Andrea C Buchholz and Dale A Schoeller, published in Am J Clin Nutr 2004;79(suppl):899S–906S. Printed in USA. © 2004 American Society for Clinical Nutrition.

Those are only two articles; there are several more. Low carb research is way past one study in mice. In fact, a new study was published last week by The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) which pointed out that people following a controlled carb diet were more successful than people following three other types of popular plans (the Zone, the LEARN diet and a variation of Ornish's diet plans. Mike Eades commented about it in his blog, and I linked the full published article from my JAMA subscription.

Msundia83, later in this thread you posted

Well, what you know to be true could be a few bricks short of a load.
The foundation and development of Protein Power is pro-science, based on the treatment methods and records of two bariatric MDs, and you'll find the scientific research papers linked or stored on the Drs. Eades website to back up the theories on which they based their work. Don't you think it's just the teensiest bit presumptuous to assume that people are confining their 'listening and research' to 'a bestselling diet book' when the authors and the magic of internet search engines make honest to goddess actual research available? Do you just assume nobody but yourself has done any reading on the subject? THAT is ignoring reality IMO, but YMMV.

Some of us came to PP from science backgrounds, and some of us still work in science and research for a living. So do a bit of googling and see if your calorie deficit theory holds up to current research. I suspect you'll find a few holes in your boat of choice, but then again, the more holes you have the easier to find a place to put your oarlocks and row. So why not bring an open mind and do a little homework, lose the assumptions and do a little actual research before telling the world that a calorie deficit is the only thing that makes a difference in weight loss. Happy hunting.

Let's all not forget though..insulin halts lipolysis(fat burning)...period.

Once insulin is 'blunted" fat burning hormome Glucagon is released..

Simple Science!

msundie,
With all due respect where have you been? there are lots of research(done with humans) on the metabolic advantages of low carb dieting..

Here is one,and I'll pull up more if you would like..


Thermodynamic Edge For Low Carbohydrate Diets: SUNY Downstate Researchers Say All Calories Are NOT Alike

In a paper published in Nutrition Journal (Open Access, available without subscription at http://www.nutritionj.com/home), two researchers from SUNY Downstate Medical Center show that low carbohydrate, high protein diets can be expected to be more effective than low fat diets, going against long standing prejudice of the nutritional community, which has claimed that only calories count.

(PRWEB) July 31, 2004 -- “There are numerous examples of low carbohydrate diets being more effective than low fat diets with the same number of calories. It doesn’t always happen but it can happen,” said Dr. Richard Feinman of the Department of Biochemistry. “The nutritional establishment has been reluctant to accept this, because they say it violates the law of thermodynamics. However, they never seriously look at the thermodynamics, which not only says its possible, but it is to be expected.” he added.

In their paper, Dr. Feinman and Dr. Eugene J. Fine explain that thermodynamics is as much about efficiency as it is about energy conservation. Carbohydrate is an efficient fuel, whereas protein is not. On a low carbohydrate/high protein diet, even though total energy is conserved, more energy is wasted as heat, a process known as thermogenesis. This energy comes from burning fat.

The researchers stress that “the human body is not a storage locker. It is a machine and the efficiency of the machine is controlled by hormones and enzymes. Carbohydrates increase insulin and other hormones that regulate enzymes, leading to storage rather than burning of fat.”

“Of course, people are different” said the authors, “but many people are sensitive to the effects of carbohydrates and for them, a low carb diet is going to work well.”

The practical point is that getting rid of the idea that “a calorie is a calorie” opens the door for serious research into what kind of diets will be most effective and which people will benefit most. “This is important,” they explain “because millions of people
are seriously trying to lose weight on low carbohydrate diets, and instead of being given directions on the best way to do this, they have been largely discouraged by health professionals and self-appointed expert groups. The obesity epidemic is too important to allow this to happen.”

Note to editors/reporters: You can read the entire scientific paper by going to http://www.nutritionj.com/home and clicking on “Provisional PDF” at the bottom of the headline.

oh and by the way, do you think our ancetors ever ate and assimilated only 60 grams of protein when dining on a Mastadon or Brontosaurus burgers?? Hell no, they took in a ton of protein!!

Yes they ate less frequently,but when they did eat, it was a large amount of protein!!