I started Keto 4 weeks back and I am 5’9 with the initial weight of 219.6lbs. Using Keto calculator I started with macros as <20g Carbs, 80g Protein and 158g Fat. I have been keeping a close eye using my fitness pal and am hitting my macros continuously (sometimes fat go up to 170g) and have so far lost 13lbs.
I do not have food cravings seeing bread, rice, chapati (which was unthinkable for me sometime back) but I still have hunger pans once in a while, mostly it feels like its for salty food. I do take some pink himalayan salt on my tongue once in a while to crave those hunger pans.
I have read around but not sure when is time for me to start lowering down on Fats or do IF while on Keto. Should I continue this path although the weight loss is not happening for last 1 week. I feel good in general so not worried about weight loss specifically, but more confused on what should be my next steps
BTW, this forum and the community is absolutely magnificent
PaulL
(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?)
#2
As long as you are keeping your carbs under 20g and your protein around 80g, let your body tell you how much fat to eat; in other words, add fat to your meal until you are no longer hungry and don’t get cravings between meals. Given the amounts you listed, you are eating 1822 calories a day, which is definitely not excessive. Some days you may want a little more fat, other days not so much. Just listen to your body and let it tell you the right amount to eat. Once it is assured of enough energy, it will start burning off stored fat, instead of hanging on to it. But give yourself at least several months on keto, because it can take time to become fully fat-adapted.
As for the salt, the carbohydrate you were eating was making you retain water, and your body was storing salt in order to balance out your electrolytes. Now that you are not eating any carbohydrate to speak of, all that water has been flushed from your system, and your kidneys are excreting salt at a higher rate, so you need to pay attention to getting enough salt—and potassium and magnesium as well. (And you are right; salt on the tongue does help with calming hunger pangs.) Not only that, but recent research has been revealing that the daily recommended salt intake is ridiculously low. It seems that the “science” telling us that salt is bad for us is of the same quality as the “science” telling us to avoid fat!
If you want to eat less fat, and you are in ketosis, then just eat less. Your macros will stay the same as the difference will just be made up from burning stored body fat instead of fat you are eating.
My numbers from the last day I ate.
Net Carbs 5.9 g
Protein 49.7 g
Fat 120.4 g
Energy 1306.9 kcal
I eat five days a week with a goal of 7000 kcal/week or an average of 1400 kcal/day on the days that I am eating.
If you eat more fat in your diet, then you will burn less body fat. As you get closer to your goal weight you will need to increase your intake of fat as your fat deposits will not be sufficient to provision your metabolic needs. I am getting to that stage now.
On the other hand, if you are fine with a slower rate of weight loss, then you can eat more fat along the way. As long as you are in it for the long run, you will still achieve your goals. The primary focus should be eating net carbs < 20 g/day, every day, and moderate protein.
Thanks for your replies. I guess I need to start paying more attention to what my body is telling me. Right now I feel like I donot trust the signals though…sigh
I suggest you adjust your macros to 60% fat and 35% protein. Follow that macro, figure out you daily caloric needs and subtract 500 calories. This should result in a one pound fat loss per week. Moderate protein results in a feeling of being sated when eating fat, and provides additional substrate for hepatic gluconeogenesis, which in the lipolytic context is as important as being ketogenic. It will also cause your body to draw on stored fat.
For 1300 calories it would be around 114 g of protein, and 87 g of fat.
Says who? I’m aware of all the studies out there that have been done to determine minimum protein requirements. Minimum does not mean optimum. The 35%, moderate level is arguable as more optimum in the evolutionary context, as it’s in line with the paleo guidelines which our hunter-gatherer ancestors followed. A more moderate level of protein does two things. It increases satiety, and provides the substrate for limited dietary gluconeogenesis, which prevents catabolic gluconeogenesis. However, eating this additional protein does not mean it will all be converted, but just assures that there is plenty available for it’s primary function, that of cellular replacement, repair and growth. Since the macro also lowers the total amount of fat consumed, it’s more likely body fat will be burned for energy. I highly suspect that this is why it prevents fat loss stalls and the need for things like EF. The simple protocol of not eating until hungry appears enough to continue fat loss.
There’s nothing wrong with eating higher levels of fat within the general health context, but higher levels can stall fat loss.
Says who? Quite a few such as Dr. Rosedale and Dr. Longo. This is a controversial subject with a wide range of opinions about what is an appropriate level of protein consumption.
Also … there is no clinical science about palio guidelines or evolutionary context. Just as it is very hard to scientifically determine what is a “Mediterranean Diet” because there is no common diet to the diverse Mediterranean peoples, the idea that there was “Palio Diet”, is even more questionable as many different primitive peoples, even today, eat far different diets. We only have speculation, assumptions, about what palio people ate, but one assumption that is very likely true is that different palio people ate very different localized diets, that there was no one palio diet. It is quite safe to say that they did not eat the processed modern highly engineered foods that is the bulk of SAD, but there is no way that any rational person can assert that there was some unified level of protein consumption across many diverse and isolated paleolithic populations.
What we can say scientifically, is that we are largely ignorant on the subject of what level of protein consumption is optimal and it might well be that that level is highly situational depending on the needs, goals, health of each individual.
Remember, the context of our discussion is the role of the protein-fat macro, specifically for fat loss. Carbs are given as low, below 5% of daily caloric intake, even to the point of 0%. Macro percentages that can sustain health vary widely. That’s not our current subject.
The paleo concept that is being put forth today usually advocates much lower protein and sometimes higher carbs than the original concept of over 15 years ago. What is sometimes ignored was that carbs were often available only seasonally, so their higher use in the macro nutrient sense was not chronic year round. I’ve even seen as much as 20% carbs being advocated. To me this seems absurd, as it would alter the insulin-glucagon secretion pattern from reasonably sustained lipolysis.
The scientific basis for the original concept was the relatively new science of isotopic analysis of things like bones and teeth, using strontium and calcium. As I recall, the studies are available that support the macros are in the sources for “Cereal Grains: Humanity’s Double Edged Sword”.
The reason the paleo macro works well for fat loss is that it provides enough fat for satiety, without excessive amounts that can stall fat loss. The higher protein levels enhance that, while preventing catabolism. There’s no doubt that it works better or worse for some, but IMO it’s a better starting point for beginners because it’s more specific, especially during the initial adaptive stage. Once adapted and aware of the processes happening, an individual can always tailor their specific macros as they seem best.
I’ve always assumed when anyone mentioned a paleolithic diet, they were simply meaning a pre-agriculture diet.
Something else I just saw for the first time, it was in the ‘next age’ Neolithic, that agriculture began. Later in that same article was mentioned that Paleo man was taller and lived longer than Neo. So to use the same logic as many ‘nutritionists’, at least the one that follow the ‘SAD’ diet, agriculture is killing us.
I would not argue that agriculture is not killing us, as individuals, but I think it unlikely that the current human population would be sustainable without modern agriculture.
The issue I have is that the palio diet is not paleolithic, it was invented quite recently based on a lot of assumptions just as the Mediterranean diet was something that was created, defined, in modern times and not a diet eaten by Mediterranean peoples, there was no single diet eaten by Mediterranean peoples.
What is or is not appropriate levels of macro consumption needs to be determined experimentally with controlled clinical trials and what is “best” is quite likely to be individualized. I think it likely that there are many healthy ways to eat, as there are many healthy natives peoples eating different diets, but I certainly can not prove this. What we also know, with a high degree of certainty, is that SAD is not a healthy way of eating. It might be that the focus should be on what to exclude from the diet instead of what to eat, but even any dietary variable, a particular item we are consuming, is confounded with everything else we are eating.
What I would like is to have a lot more solid, objective, clinic science to look at these questions. The palio diet might be quite healthy, not because of any specific macro ratios, but more so because what is excluded from the diet. Until we have solid science, my view is that the palio concept, not eating modern engineered foods, is likely a safer choice then eating Twinkies, I just don’t think that such a manufactured dietary concept has anything more to do with genetics or optimal macro nutrients than does the manufactured Mediterranean diet.
I am trying to be a dietary agnostic until the science is clear and yet I actually have to eat something today, or at least in a few days.
Hmmm, my understanding of the original paleo concept differs from yours Richard. Having a limited background, as well as a lifetime interest in Anthropology shapes my views.
The paleo concept is divided into two major aspects, being both macro nutrient as well as micro nutrient. It seems to me that current interpretations are more micro nutrient oriented, focusing especially on grains and their specific detrimental effects. What I have seen is advocating grain elimination, but substituting another plant carbohydrate source it their place. This ignores the macro nutrient aspect, and often applies also to legumes. Really, the Carb intake of the original concept was limited to seasonal fruits, not carbs that were eaten chronically. All this was within the macro nutrient framework of large animal consumption, as eating them would result in the 60/35/5% macro. Especially if using pemmican as the primary food storage method. Also noteworthy is that the egg also has the same paleo macro. The periodic Carb intake occurred in Summer and Fall, which enabled a temporary switch to a lipogenic carb-fat based hormonal secretion pattern allowing limited fat gain, helping Winter survival and the subsequent fat depletion once the meat-fat lipolytic pattern was resumed when carb supplies ran out. These concepts are the basic principles of the original paleo concept. It always was a lipolytic/ketogenic pattern.
