daily fat intake

[cmp007]

How much should I intake in fat daily? Im also trying to lose a few lbs. Im about 5'10'' 185lbs ~13%BF.

 

[IainDaniel]

Anywhere between 20-30% should be good.

 

[dhuge67]

I'd go 60 to even 70% if you want to lose fat.

 

[Nitrox]

Bodyweight management is all about balancing calorie intake with calorie expenditure. Go with a macronutrient ratio that works with your body type and lifestyle and that ensures proper nutrition.

 

[IainDaniel]

I'd go 60 to even 70% if you want to lose fat.

60-70% of your daily calories from fat?!?!?

 

[dhuge67]

60-70% of your daily calories from fat?!?!?

HELL YES.

If you make fat your dominate macronutrient, and limit carbs to 20-30 GRAMS per day, you will BURN a wild amount of fat and in a short time. Keep protein high (1-1.5 g per lb) and eat a lot of good fats (olive oil, natural pb, fish oil (up to 40g a day), eggs, steak, hamburger, etc).

The key is, if you put fat that high, obviously you have to CUT OUT carbs almost completely. Tough at first, but very possible.

I'm currently doing it and I can already see fat loss in my stomach and face after just 4 days..

It's called the Anabolic Diet.

The cool part is, after 12 days on this low carb thing, you get to have a "carb-up" day or two (you can determine how much you need but don't go TOO wild). Then, go back to the diet for 5 days on, then 2 days carb-up. Repeat until you lose the fat you want to lose.

Also, after the induction phase, you can cut back fat intake (even pretty drastically) and still lose fat and still be "fat adapted." You can go as "low" as 40% of intake, but most stay around 50% for optimal fat loss.

Read up on the anabolic diet. It seems that for some who don't tolerate carbs well, that it's the best way to lose FAT weight.

 

[Nitrox]

HELL YES.

If you make fat your dominate macronutrient, and limit carbs to 20-30 GRAMS per day, you will BURN a wild amount of fat and in a short time. Keep protein high (1-1.5 g per lb) and eat a lot of good fats (olive oil, natural pb, fish oil (up to 40g a day), eggs, steak, hamburger, etc).

The key is, if you put fat that high, obviously you have to CUT OUT carbs almost completely. Tough at first, but very possible.

I'm currently doing it and I can already see fat loss in my stomach and face after just 4 days..

It's called the Anabolic Diet.

The cool part is, after 12 days on this low carb thing, you get to have a "carb-up" day or two (you can determine how much you need but don't go TOO wild). Then, go back to the diet for 5 days on, then 2 days carb-up. Repeat until you lose the fat you want to lose.

Also, after the induction phase, you can cut back fat intake (even pretty drastically) and still lose fat and still be "fat adapted." You can go as "low" as 40% of intake, but most stay around 50% for optimal fat loss.

Read up on the anabolic diet. It seems that for some who don't tolerate carbs well, that it's the best way to lose FAT weight.

:blink: Extreme macro nutrient ratios are not required for fat loss. I've tried it and I found that it is not what it is cracked up to be.

The reason you burn so much fat on a high fat diet is because that is the majority of the fuel that you are providing it. Burning existing fat STORES has little to do with macro ratios and a lot to do with achieving an overall energy deficit.

If this diet is geared towards weight loss why did the author called it 'anabolic' instead of catabolic? Sounds like another sensationalized diet. On a 70% fat diet I would be concerned about inadequate micro nutrients. Not to mention that I would also find the food selection unpleasant.

Again to each their own. Given cmp007's original post, it appears that he is new to the nutrition game. Do you think that recommending a strict and extreme diet is really appropriate? Why not start with a more balanced 40p/40c/20f or 33/33/33 at an appropriate calorie level?

 

[dhuge67]

:blink: Extreme macro nutrient ratios are not required for fat loss. I've tried it and I found that it is not what it is cracked up to be.

The reason you burn so much fat on a high fat diet is because that is the majority of the fuel that you are providing it. Burning existing fat STORES has little to do with macro ratios and a lot to do with achieving an overall energy deficit.

If this diet is geared towards weight loss why did the author called it 'anabolic' instead of catabolic? Sounds like another sensationalized diet. On a 70% fat diet I would be concerned about inadequate micro nutrients. Not to mention that I would also find the food selection unpleasant.

Again to each their own. Given cmp007's original post, it appears that he is new to the nutrition game. Do you think that recommending a strict and extreme diet is really appropriate? Why not start with a more balanced 40p/40c/20f or 33/33/33 at an appropriate calorie level?

I don't think it's extreme at all. Read the book and then get back to me, until then, keep on believing that Carbs will get you where you want aesthetically if you wish to.

Also, how long did you try the diet? It takes a solid 6-8 months to become totally fat-adapted. What you do is, over time reduce the fat intake to as low as 40% and then reintroduce carbs in the peri-workout time frame. It's not so bad, except for the first 2 weeks.

Oh, and it works miraculously and almost impacts you aesthetically like some anabolic drugs might; hence the name of the diet.

 

[IainDaniel]

Whatever floats your boat.

Carbs are very important along with each Macro to a healthy diet. Sure asthetically, short term do whatever works for you. But when it comes to health I think getting a balance in nutrients from varying food sources is the most important.

BTW losing weight isn't about what type of Macro you consume or neglect. Whether it be Protein, fats, or Carbs. The basics of it are Cals in vs. Cals out. Get adequate protein and EFA's and fill in the rest with healthy choices.

 

[jonny21]

:blink: Extreme macro nutrient ratios are not required for fat loss. I've tried it and I found that it is not what it is cracked up to be.

The reason you burn so much fat on a high fat diet is because that is the majority of the fuel that you are providing it. Burning existing fat STORES has little to do with macro ratios and a lot to do with achieving an overall energy deficit.

If this diet is geared towards weight loss why did the author called it 'anabolic' instead of catabolic? Sounds like another sensationalized diet. On a 70% fat diet I would be concerned about inadequate micro nutrients. Not to mention that I would also find the food selection unpleasant.

Again to each their own. Given cmp007's original post, it appears that he is new to the nutrition game. Do you think that recommending a strict and extreme diet is really appropriate? Why not start with a more balanced 40p/40c/20f or 33/33/33 at an appropriate calorie level?

:goodpost:

 

[dhuge67]

Whatever floats your boat.

Carbs are very important along with each Macro to a healthy diet. Sure asthetically, short term do whatever works for you. But when it comes to health I think getting a balance in nutrients from varying food sources is the most important.

BTW losing weight isn't about what type of Macro you consume or neglect. Whether it be Protein, fats, or Carbs. The basics of it are Cals in vs. Cals out. Get adequate protein and EFA's and fill in the rest with healthy choices.

You are wrong: the type of Macro you consume has a lot to do with how the body works and affects fat burning in a major way. Making fat 70% of intake, with protein taking up 30% or so, causes a few things to happen:

1) When fat is the primary fuel for a certain period of time (varies among individuals), you will become fat-adapted and burn fat for fuel rather than protein or glucose.

2) Carbs are not anabolic and there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate and the nutrients that carbs provide can be had from good meat and a multi-vitamin, not to mention the carb-up days where you will replenish yourself (and muscle glycogen) with all that you "missed" throughout the week.

3) It is no secret that controlling insulin is key in controlling fat gain and loss. If you cut out carbs, you cut out more major insulin spikes, which leads to less fat storage. Also, Fat is calorically dense, while protein and carbs are relatively low calorie. If you eat low fat and high protein and moderate carbs, you're not getting many calories and are in fact signaling your body to use amino acids (read: muscle) for fuel. In this situation you are "burning the walls to heat the house." If you start off a diet, it's smarter to start with higher calories so you have somewhere to DROP to when fat loss stalls.

4) Once fat-adapted, you can gradually decrease fat intake and bring it down to 40-50% of intake, while increasing protein. Calories are cut, fat still continues to be the preferred energy source (if you had become properly fat-adapted), and you can continue to burn fat and lose fat (or gain weight I.E. Muscle Mass) depending on how much you are consuming overall.

 

[jonny21]

You are wrong: the type of Macro you consume has a lot to do with how the body works and affects fat burning in a major way. Making fat 70% of intake, with protein taking up 30% or so, causes a few things to happen:

1) When fat is the primary fuel for a certain period of time (varies among individuals), you will become fat-adapted and burn fat for fuel rather than protein or glucose.

2) Carbs are not anabolic and there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate and the nutrients that carbs provide can be had from good meat and a multi-vitamin, not to mention the carb-up days where you will replenish yourself (and muscle glycogen) with all that you "missed" throughout the week.

3) It is no secret that controlling insulin is key in controlling fat gain and loss. If you cut out carbs, you cut out more major insulin spikes, which leads to less fat storage. Also, Fat is calorically dense, while protein and carbs are relatively low calorie. If you eat low fat and high protein and moderate carbs, you're not getting many calories and are in fact signaling your body to use amino acids (read: muscle) for fuel. In this situation you are "burning the walls to heat the house." If you start off a diet, it's smarter to start with higher calories so you have somewhere to DROP to when fat loss stalls.

4) Once fat-adapted, you can gradually decrease fat intake and bring it down to 40-50% of intake, while increasing protein. Calories are cut, fat still continues to be the preferred energy source (if you had become properly fat-adapted), and you can continue to burn fat and lose fat (or gain weight I.E. Muscle Mass) depending on how much you are consuming overall.

It's just not as efficient and should not be run for extended periods of time.

 

[Rodja]

Your 2nd point is one the worst points I have ever heard. Guess what your brain survives off of...glucose. Last time I checked, glucose is a carbohydrate. There is not a need for the extreme diet. Patience is the key when it comes to shedding lbs. They weren't gained in a day and they won't be lost in a day.

 

[dhuge67]

Your 2nd point is one the worst points I have ever heard. Guess what your brain survives off of...glucose. Last time I checked, glucose is a carbohydrate. There is not a need for the extreme diet. Patience is the key when it comes to shedding lbs. They weren't gained in a day and they won't be lost in a day.

The brain can function totally normally off of ketones.

Read about the Anabolic Diet before you say something like that. A PT certificate doesn't mean you know everything about human physiology. I'm not saying I do, but I know for a fact that the brain does not need glucose to function normally or optimally.

This would also be a good article to read: tnation.com

Also, from Christian Thibaudeau, "A review by Hultman (1995) found that during a diet where carbs are restricted and a lot of fat is consumed, up to 70% of the energy requirement EVEN DURING HIGH INTENSITY ACTIVITIES come from the oxidation of fat (where during a high carbs diet, such activities would derive 80-90% of the energy from glycogen). So in that regard even if ketones bodies could only be used by the heart and brain, a high fat intake would still provide adequate fuel for muscle action.

However there is evidence that ketone bodies can indeed be used as fuel by the muscle... Rasmussen and Wolfe (1999) found that "ketone bodies can be oxidized by brain and muscle when glucose is limiting".

Other studies found that ketone bodies can account for up to 20% of energy production for muscle action.

So on a low-carbs diet with an adequate fat intake, muscle action can be fueled by fatty acids and ketones."

 

[Rodja]

The brain can function totally normally off of ketones.

However, it is meant to survive off of glucose. There is a reaosn why it is so plentiful in nature and for insulin/glucagon.

 

[jonny21]

Granted, ketones can be used for energy and the glycerol can be converted to glucose. It is still not as efficient and is taxing on the kidney.

The problem is that your body will not sustain the activity as long and as efficiently. Do not expect too much from performance in that environment.

 

[dhuge67]

Granted, ketones can be used for energy and the glycerol can be converted to glucose. It is still not as efficient and is taxing on the kidney.

The problem is that your body will not sustain the activity as long and as efficiently. Do not expect too much from performance in that environment.

This is why you need to understand the diet first.

You get to gorge on carbs every 5 days, so you are never lacking it. By the time the next carb up rolls around, you're depleted but ready for more.

 

[dhuge67]

However, it is meant to survive off of glucose. There is a reaosn why it is so plentiful in nature and for insulin/glucagon.

Did you ready anything else I wrote?

Also, who says it's MEANT to survive off of glucose? Primitive man usually lived in an environment that catered to living off of (PRIMARILY) meat.

 

[superdrollover]

This is why you need to understand the diet first.

You get to gorge on carbs every 5 days, so you are never lacking it. By the time the next carb up rolls around, you're depleted but ready for more.

Maybe we researched two different diets, but the one i ran did not say gorge carbs but you could eat moderate amounts
on day 6 and 7 but once back on day one you were to try and deplete the majority of your load if not all.

 

[jonny21]

Sounds like a variation of the CKD.

 

[dhuge67]

Maybe we researched two different diets, but the one i ran did not say gorge carbs but you could eat moderate amounts
on day 6 and 7 but once back on day one you were to try and deplete the majority of your load if not all.

No, the anabolic/metabolic diet calls for a wild splurge on carbs. You eat carbs until you begin to "smooth out" and sort of intuitively know it's time to stop. For some guys it might be 300 grams, for others it might be 1,000 grams or more.

 

[superdrollover]

No, the anabolic/metabolic diet calls for a wild splurge on carbs. You eat carbs until you begin to "smooth out" and sort of intuitively know it's time to stop. For some guys it might be 300 grams, for others it might be 1,000 grams or more.

My bad!

 

[superdrollover]

Sounds like a variation of the CKD.

Thats it!

I never researched the anabolic diet I just thought it was more of an increase in protein to fat ratio then the CKD

 

[dhuge67]

If anyone wants the E-Books on the Anabolic Diet, shoot me a PM with your email address.

It's good info, if not completely mind boggling at first. I admit that it is a radical departure from a modern diet, but it might also be "what the doctor ordered" for particular individuals who have insulin/carb issues.

 

[cmp007]

It seems to me if your trying to lose a few lbs and keep it off why go so far out of your way to change your entire diet to nothing but fats. Then make your body used to the fats then cut them out. That seems to be stupid if you ask me. I just wanted to know about how much grams of fat is recommended for a daily intake. Dont think I want to go off and eat 1500 calories in fat a day to make my body feed of nothing but fats... sounds stupid.

 

[superdrollover]

Anywhere between 20-30% should be good.

:goodpost:

 

[jonny21]

How much should I intake in fat daily?

20-40% of total calories.

Im also trying to lose a few lbs. Im about 5'10'' 185lbs ~13%BF.

500kcal/day below maintenance to start, adjust as needed.

 

[dhuge67]

It seems to me if your trying to lose a few lbs and keep it off why go so far out of your way to change your entire diet to nothing but fats. Then make your body used to the fats then cut them out. That seems to be stupid if you ask me. I just wanted to know about how much grams of fat is recommended for a daily intake. Dont think I want to go off and eat 1500 calories in fat a day to make my body feed of nothing but fats... sounds stupid.

The largest thread of all-time at T-Nation is one about the Anabolic Diet, with it mostly being about the member's success on the diet.

And actually, you sound stupid just dismissing something that you know nothing about. I shouldn't even waste my time with you if you're going to act this closed-minded. Realize that there are other perspectives on the issue, and MANY people have had amazing success (especially formerly very fat people) on the anabolic diet.

 

[IainDaniel]

The largest thread of all-time at T-Nation is one about the Anabolic Diet, with it mostly being about the member's success on the diet.

And actually, you sound stupid just dismissing something that you know nothing about. I shouldn't even waste my time with you if you're going to act this closed-minded. Realize that there are other perspectives on the issue, and MANY people have had amazing success (especially formerly very fat people) on the anabolic diet.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

You do realize ketones are toxic to the body, right?

 

[Nitrox]

The largest thread of all-time at T-Nation is one about the Anabolic Diet, with it mostly being about the member's success on the diet.

Hmm... T-nation. It all becomes clear. You do realize that T-nation is a commercial site and the forum is not only moderated but edited and censored before posts go live? Wanna buy a swamp?

And yes the brain NEEDS glucose (see Hypoglycemia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) but does not need dietary carbohydrate to get it. It can be obtained from the glycerol component of fat, or from protein breakdown (dietary or lean body tissue).

Carbs ARE anabolic. All food with a positive calorie value has the ability to be anabolic or anti-catabolic.

And actually, you sound stupid just dismissing something that you know nothing about. I shouldn't even waste my time with you if you're going to act this closed-minded. Realize that there are other perspectives on the issue, and MANY people have had amazing success (especially formerly very fat people) on the anabolic diet.

Actually this is all old hat here at AM. Most of the vets here have honed their views on objective studies and discussions not the preachings of a private commercial site or diet book. Calling people stupid is not a great way to be taken seriously.

 

[dhuge67]

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

You do realize ketones are toxic to the body, right?

The Anabolic Diet is not a keto-diet. You get carbs in excess, but they are restricted some of the time. It's similar to carb cycling.

And the comment about T-Nation? I've never had a post edited there after 600+ posts. The Anabolic Diet is a discussion about the anabolic diet, and has nothing to do with t-nation other than the fact that the URL of the thread contains the word 't-nation.'

 

[Rodja]

The Anabolic Diet is not a keto-diet. You get carbs in excess, but they are restricted some of the time. It's similar to carb cycling.

And the comment about T-Nation? I've never had a post edited there after 600+ posts. The Anabolic Diet is a discussion about the anabolic diet, and has nothing to do with t-nation other than the fact that the URL of the thread contains the word 't-nation.'

It is not a keto diet??? The main goal of carb-cycling diets is to go into ketosis. In case you were not aware, CKD is an anagram for Cyclic Ketogenic Diet. The "Anabolic Diet" is a different version of a CKD plan.

 

[dhuge67]

It is not a keto diet??? The main goal of carb-cycling diets is to go into ketosis. In case you were not aware, CKD is an anagram for Cyclic Ketogenic Diet. The "Anabolic Diet" is a different version of a CKD plan.

The Anabolic Diet is not a keto-diet, necessarily. For some it might be. A lot of times, the carb-up is so significant that you won't go into ketosis, except for possibly a day or two out of the week.

 

[Rodja]

The Anabolic Diet is not a keto-diet, necessarily. For some it might be. A lot of times, the carb-up is so significant that you won't go into ketosis, except for possibly a day or two out of the week.

I can guarantee that if you cut carbs as low as you recommend, then your body will go into ketosis within 36 hours or so.

 

[jonny21]

A lot of times, the carb-up is so significant that you won't go into ketosis, except for possibly a day or two out of the week.

Then it defeats its purpose.

 

[dhuge67]

Then it defeats its purpose.

Not quite. By getting the carbs at one time, you replenish glycogen levels and then deplete them each week. The key is that you are eating basically all of the carbs for the week at one time, and then you're using them all up throughout the week, while still maintaining the fat-adapted state (which is usually only FULLY reached after 6 months - sometimes more). You wouldn't maintain a fat-adapted state if you ate carbs every day.

It's a lifestyle change, not just some quick cutting or bulking diet (you can do either with this method of eating).

 

[dhuge67]

I can guarantee that if you cut carbs as low as you recommend, then your body will go into ketosis within 36 hours or so.

Again, with the carb-up, that's not necessarily true. You should also read about the Warrior Diet (which is insane to me, but interesting), which goes into a whole huge thing about how unbelievably large our glycogen stores are in comparison to what we believe they are (it goes into some talk about how there are 20,000 calories or more worth of glucose stores - If I'm remembering correctly).

 

[jonny21]

Simple fact, this fat adapted state that you are referring to is ketosis.

 

[dhuge67]

Simple fact, this fat adapted state that you are referring to is ketosis.

I agree that it can be.

Some people are not able to reach Ketosis on even 10 grams of carbs a day. It's not as simple for everyone to enter into the state of ketosis as you think.

 

[jonny21]

I agree that it can be.

Some people are not able to reach Ketosis on even 10 grams of carbs a day. It's not as simple for everyone to enter into the state of ketosis as you think.

I think you are missing the point. Ketones are a by-product of lipid metabolism. So, if fatty acids are being used as energy ketones are produced and you are in ketosis. BTW, ketones are what your brain uses for energy in absence of glucose.

 

[dhuge67]

This post will clear it up (and yes, you are right and I was mistaken to a point, however you are not always in ketosis on the diet due to the carb-up):

Despite what anybody says, the 30g of carbs does NOT keep you out of ketosis. In fact this diet has nothing to do with being in ketosis at all(as far as ketonuria goes). The next person that says "if you are in ketosis then you are not on the AD" should be beaten with a whole wheat pasta noodle.

Triglycerides AND ketones are used by the body on this diet. When you load on the AD you are refilling your glycogen stores. Now when these glycogen stores are depleted then you start producing ketones for use by the brain and other tissues to function. That is why you load again.

Some people begin showing Ketonuria(Ketones in the urine) sooner than others based on several factors with activity being the main one. There is a big difference between someone with a desk job and someone doing manual labor as far as glycogen depletion setting in even on 30g carbs.

The lower your glycogen gets, the more likely you are to start showing ketones in your urine. There is no way around this besides upping your CHO during the week, but I have found 60g at times to still be insufficient.

I have used the strips for the past two years and have seen what effects certain things have on ketone levels so despite what people want to think or say, my research strangely enough matches the data available that I(and from the sounds of it Bizmark) have read.

Now if somebody says that the doctor told Nelson Montana that if you are in Ketosis then you are not on the AD, then I wish you the best, but you should realize that that was like 8-9 years ago and there is a bigger body of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Glycogen stores empty = KETOSIS
Increased Fat intake = Increase in lipolytic enzymes
Increased lipolytic enzymes = FFA use for energy
FFA use energy = Adaptation
Adaptation + Glycogen stores empty = FFA and Ketones for energy
FFA and Ketones for energy = MEGA fat burning and protein sparing

 

[jonny21]

Glycogen stores empty = KETOSIS

True

Increased Fat intake = Increase in lipolytic enzymes

In caloric equilibrium/deficit. Otherwise more lipogenic enzymes present which will inhibit lipolytic processes

Increased lipolytic enzymes = FFA use for energy

True

Glycogen stores empty = FFA and Ketones for energy

Depends on stress levels. The more epinephrine or cortisol the higher chance of muscle catabolism regardless of "adaption"

FFA and Ketones for energy = MEGA fat burning and protein sparing

Again, in a calorie deficit.

 

[dhuge67]

j21, I think you should post that on the thread at T-Nation. I'm curious to see what the others might reply with, as far as scientific reasoning is concerned for any possible arguments contrary to what you have said.

 

[jonny21]

j21, I think you should post that on the thread at T-Nation. I'm curious to see what the others might reply with, as far as scientific reasoning is concerned for any possible arguments contrary to what you have said.

Although I peruse a few forums, I typically keep most of my posting here. I am pretty confident with my reasoning.

 

[dhuge67]

Although I peruse a few forums, I typically keep most of my posting here. I am pretty confident with my reasoning.

I'll ask for you!

 

[ItsHectic]

It might be my wishfull thinking but I think this is the diet that is going to have people settle on the happy medium of 33/33/33.

 

[dhuge67]

It might be my wishfull thinking but I think this is the diet that is going to have people settle on the happy medium of 33/33/33.

Which is not "happy" at all when you consider differing levels of caloric intake. A 33/33/33 diet with an intake of 1800 calories (late stage of a serious cutting diet), your protein intake would be 150 grams....not good, if you weigh more than 150 lbs.

 

[ItsHectic]

Which is not "happy" at all when you consider differing levels of caloric intake. A 33/33/33 diet with an intake of 1800 calories (late stage of a serious cutting diet), your protein intake would be 150 grams....not good, if you weigh more than 150 lbs.

hmmm, well (PCF) 40/30/30 or 50/25/25 or even something like 50/20/30

 

[Nitrox]

Which is not "happy" at all when you consider differing levels of caloric intake. A 33/33/33 diet with an intake of 1800 calories (late stage of a serious cutting diet), your protein intake would be 150 grams....not good, if you weigh more than 150 lbs.

Actually that is something that is debatable as well.

Firstly when you are cutting you are not really looking to build muscle but more so to preserve muscle. Consequently protein requirements are not necessarily as high when cutting.

Secondly, carbs and fats are protein sparing so as their percentages go up there is less demand on protein as an energy source.

Even for a 150lb person 1800 cals is pretty aggressive - unless they are sedentary. For say a lean 200lb'er I would expect some muscle loss on 1800 cals whether they consumed 150g or 300g of protein.