Yea i cant overeat lean meats also… especially if its chicken breast im done after 300g per meal, haha.
1 Like
That’s a night and day difference, unfortunately. Those fat calories accumulate quickly.
1 Like
I agree
but some advocates claim calories don’t matter on this type of eating…was the point i was driving towards
1 Like
Well yeah, that was your problem lol. I could eat ribeyes all day and slap some big healthy layers of fat on me, but I know better… Which is why the rules I followed were to eat as much LEAN protein as I wanted
Who claims this?
Keto advocates that have written books, books on the carnivore diet, atkins diet
And the statement you just made…you can eat all the lean meat you want…unless i am mis-interpreting what you saying
if you wanted to eat 5000 calories of lean protein per day…do you not think you will not get fat
What you are missing here is the ability to do so. If you didn’t see my breakdown above, then I’ll reiterate.
Chicken Breast Macros (per 4oz):
110 cal
Carbs: 0g
Fats: 3g
Protein: 23g
5000cal/110 = 45.5 servings of 4oz chicken breast… which means 11lbs of chicken breast.
Sure, you could potentially eat it, but who would want to? That was the whole point, is that with those food restrictions - calories are a bit irrelevant in the sense that they don’t need to be counted… They don’t need to be counted because it is highly unlikely anyone is able to actually eat in a surplus with those food restrictions.
Calories do matter, and I commonly say so; they just didn’t matter in terms of the diet I chose to follow at that time because the food restrictions in place virtually guarenteed a caloric surplus wasn’t going to happen. Regardless, I wasn’t advocating to disregard calories.
4 Likes
Makes sense…thanks for clarifying
I agree
2 Likes
@Andrewgen_Receptors , if not for nothing, I thought the point you were making was easy to understand and that most rational humans would concur.
5 Likes
I like that we had a discussion and folks could work out the nuances/ semantics together! Good stuff.
6 Likes
Agreed. I kept scrolling back, thinking I missed something.
1 Like
This is quite a sweeping statement and, of course, I also doubt your average Atkins bod is consuming 300g PRO a day.
But the really interesting part is that research actually shows the reverse is true when it comes to low carb diets, i.e. they improve kidney function is some populations. Check out the article below:
Source: Journal Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity, August 2021.
In the study, Dr David Unwin, a GP in Southport, Merseyside, analysed the records of 143 type 2 patients who had followed a low-carb diet — an approach he has been offering since 2013.
The patients (who have an average age of 61) had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of five years and three months. They had normal kidney function or mild kidney disease and had followed a low-carb diet for an average of 30 months.
A previous study showed that this group lost an average of 9.5 kg, and 47 per cent reversed their condition. In the latest study, two thirds of these patients also had improved kidney function.
In addition, estimated glomerular filtration rate (which measures kidney function) improved by 2.4 units over the time frame (a drop of 2.5 was expected). Two other markers of kidney health also improved — one by 64 per cent.
This is contrary to what might be expected with older people who have type 2 diabetes, says Dr Unwin, due to the effects of the disease and the fact that our kidney function decreases with age.
Dr Unwin and his co-author Professor Chris Wong, a consultant nephrologist from Liverpool University Hospitals Foundation Trust, believe the improvement is down to better blood sugar levels (which reduce pressure on the kidneys) and blood pressure.
‘We suspect high blood sugar is central to the damage that people with type 2 diabetes experience to their kidney function, so reducing blood sugar levels seems to be a logical first step,’ says Dr Unwin.
1 Like
That would be a cool experiment to run, although I’m unsure whether the ethics police would approve. 
Jose Antonio’s high protein studies are the closest comparison. Subjects in one group consumed their normal fat and carb intake but added 300g PRO per day to their diet. This worked out as an 800 kcal daily surplus. After 8 weeks, there was no significant difference in body composition between them and the control group.
1 Like
I find this interesting. If I applied your rules regarding carbs (so about 110 gms of carbs per day for me) but ate as much fat and protein as I wanted, I think I would naturally end up in a deficit. There are only so many ribeyes I could eat before getting tired of them and this is coming from someone who used to eat 7-10 servings of fatty red meat a week.
1 Like
You may be correct in that, and there is nothing wrong with it - if that is the case. For me and my unhealthy eating history, I have no self-regulation; I’m a plate cleaner, and I get hungrier at the thought of dieting. For me, your method absolutely would not result in a deficit. It appears that you have better self-regulation than I do, so I’ll commend you on that.
To note, although I was simply using Ribeye as an example of an overly fatty meat - the macros are as follows:
Ribeye Steak Macros (8 oz, boneless):
544 Cal
Carbs: 0g
Fats: 34g
Protein: 46g
It would only take four 8 oz ribeyes to reach ~2200 calories, and adding in 110g of carbs (440cal) would net 2600-2700 calories. For me, this would still be a deficit (I weigh 215-220lb) but I would honestly still be looking for food to eat. In perspective, I couldn’t eat this much in chicken breast in a day - or at least I really wouldn’t want to.
Again, this was just some half-cocked diet I made up for myself to follow because I break out in hives at the thought of being hungry (kidding) and it worked well for me. It sounds like more conventional dieting would work quite well for you though!
P.S. I do conventional dieting now and it works well, I just have to be very smart about my food choices because I don’t tolerate hunger well
EDIT:
Yes, you could trim fat off the ribeye and likely stretch the calories much more effectively - it was just an example =)
1 Like
The Deep Water diet has you eating no direct carb sources(just incidental carbs from nuts, nut butters, and Greek yogurt) and having 2 grams of protein per pound of Bodyfat and 1 gram of fat per pound of body weight. I would have about 3200 calories a day, 360 grams of protein, 180 grams of fat. I went from 185 to 192 in 6 weeks staying around the same Bodyfat, and potentially leaner. This is totally anecdotal, and I actually attribute the gains to the training, but the food was such a vital recovery tool for the hard training. It’s definitely a factor.
7 Likes
No doubt this is all hugely individual. I don’t think I really have better self-regulation – I’d have to really, really force myself to get down four 8oz ribeyes in a day. I could do it, but it’d be painful and I would want to do it day in and day out. For me a high fat and relatively low carb diet really fills me up on lower calories so I just naturally eat less without having to count them.
Edit: Also, I wouldn’t call your original diet idea half-cocked – it actually struck me as a pretty good strategy.
1 Like
Protein: 370g = 1480cal
Fats: 185g = 1665cal
Incidental Carbs: meh?
Total Calories Consumed: 3145 +~10%
Sorry, I wanted to run the numbers
From what I recall of Deep Water, it stresses the physiological adaptation aspect of training quite heavily. Based on my own experiences and beliefs, heavy metabolic stressors (exhibited mostly by gym noobs) cause significant physical adaptations that can’t really be explained by common rationale of science or bro-science.
I would argue that the metabolic adaptation you put your body through via extreme training such as Deep Water attributed to this result. Otherwise, the math works out as follows:
7(lbs)x3500(cal) = 24,500cal
24,000(cal)/6(weeks) = 4,000cal surplus per week (571cal daily surplus)
3,200(cal, maintenance) - 571(cal surplus) = 2,628cal daily maintenance
Given your physique, I’m doubtful that your maintenance is actually ~2,600 calories, but maybe I’m wrong. What I’m getting at is that I think your results were more a result of your training than nutrition - because the results are inconsistent with both scientific evidence as well as bro science.
I absolutely agree that the calories prescribed in the Deep Water diet are vital for recovery.
Sorry, I went off on a tangent talking about physiological adaptations when we were talking nutrition… I’m tangent-prone 
1 Like
Many people report the same result, which is a big factor in why the Keto diet is so popular (not a Keto fan, but I can’t argue the results many people obtain).
Lol I thought so too at the time. I say it was half-cocked because I knew very little about nutrition at the time and kind of just hip fired the idea up on the wall… turns out it works pretty well! I’d be willing to bet it would work again if I tried - however most evidence points to having some carbs involved in the diet being extremely beneficial.
1 Like
