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.

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]

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]

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]

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.