70% fat,25% protein ,5% cabs macro rations. is that in grams or calories?

(mark whittaker) #1

since fat has 7cals per gram and protein/carbs each have 4 cals/gram. it makes a difference.

so when they say 70% fat, 25% protien, 5% carbs. Is that by weight or % of calories?

I have been keto for almost 4 months and I have been doing by weight… I think.

Does anyone know the intended way to calculate it?

(Eric - The patient needs to be patient!) #2

By calories I believe.

1 g fat = 9 calories (big C Kcals for the scientists)
1 g carbs = 4 calories (big C)
1 g protein = 4 calories (big C)

(Todd Allen) #3

Most here don’t recommend targeting percentages. Instead find your daily limit for carbs and stay below that, 20 g is a good starting point. Determine your goal for protein, typically somewhere in the range of 0.6 to 1.5 g per lb lean body mass. And eat fat to satiety.

(Allie) #4

Forget percentages and focus on grams.

(Bacon enough and time) #5

That is correct.

(LeeAnn Brooks) #6

Yes, it’s by overall calories, but it’s a vague thing. You don’t want to go over 20 net grams of carbs, no matter where that lands for overall percents.

(Terence Dean) #7

This graphic from an app I use may help to explain it visually.

You can see that my fats consumed 138.4g are 78% of the total daily calories consumed at 1212 kcal.

(mark whittaker) #8

what app is that?

also… that is a huge calorie deficit for the day!

(Terence Dean) #9

Yes it does look huge to some people but I am 6ft 2", and weigh 116.3kg, that deficit only gives me a modest 1.0 kg loss per week, I actually average 1.5 kg. If I wanted to maintain my weight at 116.3 kg (which I don’t) I would need to also eat the equivalent of that deficit (1149) to equal my total daily calories burned (2638). FYI my exercise is moderate, I walk twice a day for 20 minutes (-170 cals).

(Mike W.) #10

The only time you EVER want to be in a caloric deficit is when you’re fasting…

(Terence Dean) #11

Wrong. Read this blog if you’re interested.


Just to quote a piece of this article regarding Nutritional Ketosis and weight loss.

…being in nutritional ketosis will accelerate the rate at which the body burns fat, and this is a fundamental key to the short- and long-term benefits of a ketogenic diet. If the extra fat that is burned is compensated by an increase in dietary fat, then no body fat loss will occur (but there still will be other benefits). However, most people carrying excess fat tissue who achieve nutritional ketosis by eating natural low-carbohydrate foods initially feel more satiated, allowing them to eat less fat than they burn, which results in net fat loss. But eventually, even when one is in sustained nutritional ketosis, our natural instincts prompt us to increase fat intake to meet our daily energy needs resulting in a stable weight and body composition.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #12

Mike, with due respect, I think you’re misunderstanding the way LCHF works. You must be in caloric deficit to lose fat. There’s no way around that. Maybe there’s some crazy biochemical exception to that rule, but in general, CICO is technically accurate. It just doesn’t explain why people get hungry when, for instance, they’re in calorie surplus.

There’s been some debate over the mechanism by which LCHF seems to work such magic, at least in very overweight people, but a simple explanation is that fat satiates, and by removing the carbs you’re reducing insulin levels and therefore reducing hunger signals. Which means that an obese person who begins eating LCHF will suddenly find that they’re a lot less hungry and will rapidly be satiated while in caloric deficit – thereby enabling fat loss.

Nowhere in the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model is there a suggestion, as far as I know, that fat-burners don’t need to be in caloric deficit to lose fat.

(LeeAnn Brooks) #13

That’s not true. Controlling insulin will allow one to lose fat. Either through good choices or food timing, fat can be lost without restricting calories.


You must be in caloric deficit to lose fat. There’s no way around that.

Uh oh…I’ve come to realize this is sacrilege around these parts. :wink:


I rarely want to get into the calorie debate because I know it’s fraught and I know a lot of people know more than I do about this. But I just wanted to point out that while this statement is correct, one important detail is the definition of calorie deficit, and what causes it (i.e. - it’s quite reasonable that it’s about more than eating less and burning more through exercise).

Just my own n=1, I recently broke a three week stall by consciously increasing my fat (and therefore calorie) intake, without changing anything else. I suspect our own experiences give us some biases. For me, calorie restriction and exercising worked for weight loss/maintenance for a long period of my life, until it didn’t anymore (around age 40).

(Terence Dean) #16

I recommend everyone read this short FAQ by Dr Stephen Phinney before it hits the fan. :stuck_out_tongue:


Quote: “…Try slowly reducing dietary fat to see if you can do so without increasing hunger.”

If that’s not inducing a fat calorie deficit then I don’t know what is. The thing is I’m on a fat deficit and don’t feel hungry BUT I was also eating 203% of my fat macro last week and not feeling hungry as well but stuck on a plateau for a week.

Guess what happened when I started eating 100% of my fat macro with a built in calculated deficit? You got it, weight loss.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #17

Yeah, I mean like most of the assertions made around nutrition “science,” none of this is proven. But the laws of thermodynamics don’t get suspended just because you’re in fat-burning mode. The working assumption must be that the system cannot be taking in more energy than it burns whilst burning through fat stores and dropping fat weight.

There’s a mechanism by which removing the carbs works. Science can explain it. I keep seeing magical thinking appear in these forums, and it worries me.

(Allie) #18

I’m not in caloric deficit and am still losing the last few stubborn bits of fat…


Right. And there’s a difference between saying:

  1. You must be in a caloric deficit to lose fat.
  2. You must decrease your calories consumed and/or increase your workout (intentional calorie burning) to lose fat.

“1)” can be true while “2)” can not be true at the same time. Basically, yes you have to be in a caloric deficit…but all the various inputs/outputs of those CICO that put you in a caloric deficit can’t be controlled by diet/exercise alone.

(Terence Dean) #20

I agree with you on the exercise bit because I doubled the amount of exercise I did and it made no difference to the scales. Which seems kinda weird but lowering your fat intake enough does in Keto assuming of course that you are fat adapted. I cannot see this working if you’re not keto adapted but happy to be proven wrong.

@Shortstuff if you’re eating fat to satiety its quite possible that you are in fact eating less dietary fat than you realize, are you measuring how much fat you are eating?