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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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' - 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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

Donna, I replied to you in your Journal

Nat