dietary fat/fat stores
LoraKay131
Posts: 58 Member
quick question...if im eating 80% of my calories as dietary fat, why would my body burn stored fat? wouldnt it just use the fat im eating as energy? i know this is fairly complicated, just wanted to know if anyone had an answer in laymens terms. thank you ahead of time. 
0
Replies
-
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »quick question...if im eating 80% of my calories as dietary fat, why would my body burn stored fat? wouldnt it just use the fat im eating as energy? i know this is fairly complicated, just wanted to know if anyone had an answer in laymens terms. thank you ahead of time.
Short, verrrrrry oversimplified, generalized, non-scientific, answer = "because it CAN"
Everyone's body "can", and actually "does" - when it runs out of carbs (which happens almost every night).
By cutting carbs, increasing fats, your body "learns" to make the "switch" (to stored fats/ketones), rather than "crave" more carbs.
So it will use the dietary fat first, then body fats but in the meantime there are no carbs (glycogen) left to be converted into more stored body fat.
0 -
so the excess dietary fat that isnt used for energy is not stored for later use?0
-
ok, this has to do with insulin, correct? im doing research....:)0
-
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »so the excess dietary fat that isnt used for energy is not stored for later use?
Ideally (remember this is verrrrry much oversimplified) - there is no "excess" (because by consuming increased fats/moderate proteins you are satiated before consuming enough to have "excess").
Wish it could be explained "simply, in layman's terms..." but there is simply too much "going on" (in the body) to be able to do that or have it both ways.
0 -
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »ok, this has to do with insulin, correct? im doing research....:)
Yes, insulin levels are the key (well, ONE of the "keys"....blood sugar, carbs, individual "thresholds" for carbs/insulin, etc, resistance - they ALL play a part and any change in "one" affects the others - but now you're moving past "simple/layman's" (which is a GOOD thing).
0 -
thank you dd, i appreciate the time you take for the newbies.0
-
LoraKay131 wrote: »so the excess dietary fat that isnt used for energy is not stored for later use?
there's a constant flux of fat into and out of storage, regulated by insulin. You may be burning a blend of fat you just ate and fat released from storage while storing some more.
"Substrate utilization" is a topic to search.0 -
thanks yarwell...*types "dear mr. google...*
0 -
Like this one? http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Substrates.html
The very last point on the page is interesting:
* More fat is utilized as a fuel substrate many hours after anaerobic exercise
So lifting heavy weights is the best fat burner? while protecting your lean body mass.0 -
* More fat is utilized as a fuel substrate many hours after anaerobic exercise
So lifting heavy weights is the best fat burner? while protecting your lean body mass.
i really should be stepping up my physical activity, according to this article. cant go wrong with that, can i? thank you, cam.
0 -
Cam;Like this one? http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Substrates.html
The very last point on the page is interesting:
* More fat is utilized as a fuel substrate many hours after anaerobic exercise
So lifting heavy weights is the best fat burner? while protecting your lean body mass.
Yes.....sort of.
"Yes", because a number of trial studies have demonstrated that resistance exercise is "more" effective than cardio when looking strictly at weight loss.
"Sort of", because that statement when taken on its own (or combined with "while protecting lean body mass") implies more than has actually been shown.
I am NOT saying that exercise (either resistance OR cardio) is not beneficial, healthy, or wise. (IT IS all of those).
What it is NOT, however, is NECESSARY or absolutely "required" either to achieve the (many) health and wellness gains that result from a LCHF/NK lifestyle (including weight loss).
LCHF/NK is NOT, first and foremost a "fast, fat burner diet" and the "common wisdom" regarding loss of lean body mass is, for the most part, hocus pocus trotted out by those selling gym memberships or supplements.
A properly designed LCHF diet will maintain LBM - with or without resistance/cardio.
That resistance training IS "more effective" than cardio is "true" (as demonstrated in some trials) BUT "more" is a relative term and the bar is a low one when comparing anything to cardio (since cardio has been shown to provide virtually NO increased weight loss in controlled trials).
Many folks, for a variety of reasons, cannot pump iron or train for a marathon. Their reasons might be medical, related or unrelated to obesity, or personal, but it's important (at least to me) that the impression that "time in the gym" is REQUIRED for (or even that it will produce "much faster") weight reduction. (not saying that you are saying that, just that it's too often "implied" or interpreted that way, mistakenly)
Exercise in general (more strenuous than "light") is NOT recommended while one is in the initial stages of keto adaptation (generally 4-6 weeks).
After that, walking (or other "light" cardio) is probably "best" (IMO) for "most" - at a minimum.
"Gym time", for those that are able and enjoy the experience DOES provide a number of benefits both from the physical and the mental perspectives so for those that it does for you - GO for it.
Just don't do it because you believe that you "must" or you will fail on LCHF, OR that it will greatly enhance weight loss (or it is "required to maintain LBM") - it is NOT.
0 -
oh snap...ive been exercising, and im in my third week of keto...i am an active person, and besides that first week, have been feeling more and more desire to DO something. ive been lifting weights for about a year.0
-
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »oh snap...ive been exercising, and im in my third week of keto...i am an active person, and besides that first week, have been feeling more and more desire to DO something. ive been lifting weights for about a year.
What's done is done.....move on.
As long as you have experienced no negative effects, and lifting hasn't inhibited your degree of KA, I'd say keep doing what you're doing.
I "think" (haven't really looked much past the general recommendation into the "whys"), it's mostly to give your bod a chance to adapt to the changes and not inhibit adaptation - not that it's going to "hurt" otherwise.
If so, you'll be fine.
0 -
um...what is KA? i dont test myself for ketones...if that is anywhere near what that means. i just basically eat less/equal to 20 net carbs daily. i figure that should do it, ketosis wise. am i wrong?0
-
LoraKay131 wrote: »um...what is KA? i dont test myself for ketones...if that is anywhere near what that means. i just basically eat less/equal to 20 net carbs daily. i figure that should do it, ketosis wise. am i wrong?
I'm not 100% sure, but I think he means keto-adaptation.
Being in ketosis is marginally more complicated than just keeping carbs down. Amount of protein also matters, and the type of carbs and protein you are consuming can affect it, as well. The best way to see how they affect you is to test for a while, but generally speaking, you'll want around .5g/lb of lean body weight for protein.
A big mistake a lot of people make is keeping fat low when they drop carbs. This will not work for ketosis, and isn't (IMO) nutritionally sound. So whether dropping your carbs is enough to get into ketosis depends on how much of the others you're eating (your diary is closed, so it's hard telling whether you're on the right track).0 -
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »um...what is KA? i dont test myself for ketones...if that is anywhere near what that means. i just basically eat less/equal to 20 net carbs daily. i figure that should do it, ketosis wise. am i wrong?
Yes, as DW said, KA=keto adapted, NK=nutritional ketosis, and FA=fat adapted.
They're the same....but different<g>.
The terms are often used interchangeably and while some would argue there are distinctions, all of them are a whole lot more accurate than "I'm doing keto", or "I'm in keto", (which really means nothing - at least nothing specific).
The generally accepted definition of FA is B-OHB levels between 0.5 and 3.0mmols (and the only way to measure them definitively is blood testing).
DW's explanation is "right on" and I second her suggestion that you consider opening your diary if you'd like others to be able to comment or suggest with any degree of specificity.
On testing, not everyone agrees but some of us (me) are firmly in the camp of "there's only one way to know for sure and to what degree you are/are not "in" KA or Fat Adapted" - home blood testing B-OHB (ketone) levels.
Others have different opinions and prefer to rely on urine or breath testing (or none at all) and that's their choice but pretty much no one suggests that either of those methods are as precise or reliable as blood testing.
There is another thread on this Group that deals with the various points of view and it's up to each of us to decide for ourselves.
DW's point about the importance of maintaining levels of each macro (especially fat) can't be overstated. Low carb, high protein, and low fat simply WILL NOT "work" (and can be nutritionally harmful if not dangerous).
And, a macro balance (5% carb, 65% fat, 30% protein, for example) that "works" for someone else, may or MAY NOT "work" for you.
Each of us have specific levels of "resistance", not only for insulin, but for carbs and protein as well. And, those levels CAN change.
Those "resistance" levels can be determined only by "trial and error" (lower protein e.g. for a couple weeks and see how the change affects B-OHB readings).
It's very common for folks who have "stalled" or "plateaued" to break the stall with only a minor change in the percentage "mix".
0 -
dupe post cut
0 -
Dupe post, sorry about that (there really does need to be a "delete" button) - my bad.
0 -
lol. i understand. thank you. and...as we are 'friends', you should be able to see my diary...: )0
-
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »lol. i understand. thank you. and...as we are 'friends', you should be able to see my diary...: )
Took just a "quick" look back over the past week or so and the following are my "snapshot" impressions - I apologize in advance if they are either just "wrong" or not based on a detailed enough review;- It appears that you have adjusted total daily cal intake "target" between 1450 and 1800 (or so)
- Macro breakdown changed as well but currently at 5%C, 60%F, 35%P
- You are entering "exercise" cals and "eating them back" - sometimes, sometimes not
- Overall "adherence" to your targets is generally good (depending on "which" target)
- I might have missed it but I don't recall whether you are doing any sort of "testing" of ketone levels or if you've seen a marked decrease in "hunger" pangs
If you are not seeing a steady, modest, weight reduction (0.5#/wk or so), after three weeks of <20 carbs (oh, I see you said "net" carbs), and IF weight loss is a goal, it's probably time to reevaluate the macros.
Frankly, over the short period I looked at you've been changing a bunch of things and been a little bit "all across the map" on hitting targets - partly because they keep changing.
For openers, I'd drop the "net" carbs thing and focus on "total" (at least for now and until fully adapted IF that is your goal).
Next, I'd stop "adding back" exercise cals. The simplest way to do so is to just stop recording them (for now). Like most things LC there are various "schools of thought" on the "eating back" debate but for me, it's just another "variable" that confounds the issue and makes tracking down the reason you are not getting the results you want, more difficult.
If for no other reason that the way MFP works, when you "log" exercise cals it adds them to your daily goal "totals" and changes the individual values to comport with the percentages.
Finally, I'd suggest that 60%F and 35%P "might" be the next place I'd look. 60% fat is generally considered the "low end" for most. Upping it (and thereby lowering protein) would be my focus if it were me.
As was previous stated 0.5-0.7g/#LBM is a perfectly "safe" level for most and excessive levels "can" have a negative impact on production of ketone bodies.
Those are a few things to consider but it's important to make changes (IF YOU decide to) one step at a time in order to eliminate as many variables as you can.
For now, I'd switch to "total" carbs and stick to your current level of total cal intake (but not "eat back"). After a couple weeks it's highly likely that you'll find "cal counting" much less important (if you haven't already). As your body increases ketone production (and begins switching to "fat burning mode") any lingering "hungries" will probably disappear.
Give that a couple weeks (being as diligent as you can) and see what happens. Decide at that point IF you want to make additional changes.
Never lose sight of the fact that LCHF/FA/NK is NOT a "one size fits all", simpleton oriented "diet".
A cal is NOT a cal, a carb is NOT a carb, and only those living under a rock for the last 40 years could expect anyone to continue to buy into the CICO/High Carb/Lo Fat, dogma, given the historical increases in obesity and T2D during the period the "great experiment" has been conducted.
The VERY BEST action you can take for YOU is to continue digging into the research and learning the "whys" for the advice others provide.
Only THEN will you be in a position to make the BEST decisions for YOU!
edit: One more "after thought".
I don't see a sodium tally and you haven't made mention of it, but if you aren't aware, sodium intake is very important, especially given your exercise level (but for ALL transitioning to KA).
Typical MDR's (minimum daily requirements) are too low (for various reasons) but 3-5k/day is a good target).
Including a column for sodium on your dairy will mean changing one of the existing column headings (at least on the desktop version) since you are limited - another good reason for dumping "fiber" (and thereby "net carbs") - at least in the short term and you are confident in your sodium intake. Two cups a day of NOT "reduced salt" broth is a good start.
0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »LoraKay131 wrote: »um...what is KA? i dont test myself for ketones...if that is anywhere near what that means. i just basically eat less/equal to 20 net carbs daily. i figure that should do it, ketosis wise. am i wrong?
I'm not 100% sure, but I think he means keto-adaptation.
Being in ketosis is marginally more complicated than just keeping carbs down. Amount of protein also matters, and the type of carbs and protein you are consuming can affect it, as well. The best way to see how they affect you is to test for a while, but generally speaking, you'll want around .5g/lb of lean body weight for protein.
A big mistake a lot of people make is keeping fat low when they drop carbs. This will not work for ketosis, and isn't (IMO) nutritionally sound. So whether dropping your carbs is enough to get into ketosis depends on how much of the others you're eating (your diary is closed, so it's hard telling whether you're on the right track).
Good post.
0 -
deansdad101 wrote: »
LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »lol. i understand. thank you. and...as we are 'friends', you should be able to see my diary...: )
Took just a "quick" look back over the past week or so and the following are my "snapshot" impressions - I apologize in advance if they are either just "wrong" or not based on a detailed enough review;- It appears that you have adjusted total daily cal intake "target" between 1450 and 1800 (or so)
- Macro breakdown changed as well but currently at 5%C, 60%F, 35%P
- You are entering "exercise" cals and "eating them back" - sometimes, sometimes not
- Overall "adherence" to your targets is generally good (depending on "which" target)
- I might have missed it but I don't recall whether you are doing any sort of "testing" of ketone levels or if you've seen a marked decrease in "hunger" pangs
If you are not seeing a steady, modest, weight reduction (0.5#/wk or so), after three weeks of <20 carbs (oh, I see you said "net" carbs), and IF weight loss is a goal, it's probably time to reevaluate the macros.
Frankly, over the short period I looked at you've been changing a bunch of things and been a little bit "all across the map" on hitting targets - partly because they keep changing.
For openers, I'd drop the "net" carbs thing and focus on "total" (at least for now and until fully adapted IF that is your goal).
Next, I'd stop "adding back" exercise cals. The simplest way to do so is to just stop recording them (for now). Like most things LC there are various "schools of thought" on the "eating back" debate but for me, it's just another "variable" that confounds the issue and makes tracking down the reason you are not getting the results you want, more difficult.
If for no other reason that the way MFP works, when you "log" exercise cals it adds them to your daily goal "totals" and changes the individual values to comport with the percentages.
Finally, I'd suggest that 60%F and 35%P "might" be the next place I'd look. 60% fat is generally considered the "low end" for most. Upping it (and thereby lowering protein) would be my focus if it were me.
As was previous stated 0.5-0.7g/#LBM is a perfectly "safe" level for most and excessive levels "can" have a negative impact on production of ketone bodies.
Those are a few things to consider but it's important to make changes (IF YOU decide to) one step at a time in order to eliminate as many variables as you can.
For now, I'd switch to "total" carbs and stick to your current level of total cal intake (but not "eat back"). After a couple weeks it's highly likely that you'll find "cal counting" much less important (if you haven't already). As your body increases ketone production (and begins switching to "fat burning mode") any lingering "hungries" will probably disappear.
Give that a couple weeks (being as diligent as you can) and see what happens. Decide at that point IF you want to make additional changes.
Never lose sight of the fact that LCHF/FA/NK is NOT a "one size fits all", simpleton oriented "diet".
A cal is NOT a cal, a carb is NOT a carb, and only those living under a rock for the last 40 years could expect anyone to continue to buy into the CICO/High Carb/Lo Fat, dogma, given the historical increases in obesity and T2D during the period the "great experiment" has been conducted.
The VERY BEST action you can take for YOU is to continue digging into the research and learning the "whys" for the advice others provide.
Only THEN will you be in a position to make the BEST decisions for YOU!
edit: One more "after thought".
I don't see a sodium tally and you haven't made mention of it, but if you aren't aware, sodium intake is very important, especially given your exercise level (but for ALL transitioning to KA).
Typical MDR's (minimum daily requirements) are too low (for various reasons) but 3-5k/day is a good target).
Including a column for sodium on your dairy will mean changing one of the existing column headings (at least on the desktop version) since you are limited - another good reason for dumping "fiber" (and thereby "net carbs") - at least in the short term and you are confident in your sodium intake. Two cups a day of NOT "reduced salt" broth is a good start.
Good post. The info like you and Dragonwolf posted can be hard to find in forums. The state we are when we decide to try low carb (seldom is it the first diet most try) varies so much really makes results vary as well.
So much of the low carb base of knowledge is from the last 10 years and there are some human trials that are to report next year that could be helpful to better understand the science of this type of diet. There is much misinfo today in my view being new to this diet and finding people saying opposite things on the same subject.
0 -
thank you deans dad, for your input, i appreciate it. i have noticed a very marked decrease in hunger. i am at the end of the initial water loss, and thought it may be best to drop my cal intake a bit. i am going to switch it up, as you've advised, and drop the fiber column and aim for total carbs. im going to stick with the 1550 as a calorie goal. to be honest,
, i only added the exercise cals so i could see the close out "if you ate this way every day you'd weight blah blah in 5 weeks!" which wasnt a good plan, anyway, as its way off. my keto calculations (from various calculators) put my intake at around 1700..but that seems high to me. so im going to start with these changes, and see what happens.
um...off point here...but i ate a bunch of sauerkraut yesterday, and that stuff TORE. ME. UP. I added a bunch of salt to it, as well, and today im retaining water...so...just a warning. its best to add fermented veggies s-l-o-w-l-y. lesson learnt.0 -
I second everything Deansdad said.
I add that I only use net carbs now because I've been doing Keto for 6mo. Before that I did 20g gross exclusively for the first 4.5 mo. And I also do not eat back my exercise calories. My fat tends to be between 65 and 70%. FWIW.
And yeah, bunches of anything new, don't recommend! LOL! My first experience with CO wasn't pleasant.0 -
Or may be just listen to your body and forget the numbers. The best thing I ever did was just listen to my body, though I use metabolic tests regularly. I have been doing my own experiments from past 1 year. Its amazing that I can gain or lose weight by just changing Macro's and keeping the calories same. At one point my bulking diet was lower cals than my cutting diet. I also noticed when I eat 80% fat, I lose body fat faster and I can consume around 700-800 more calories than say a 60% Fat diet. Based on my diet macros, my RMR( measured by metabolic tests) varied drastically. I don't have a calorie goal because lot of factors can influence how much body burns. If I am cutting, I keep my workouts to 30 min and average around around 2300-2400 cals/day. I usually eat one big meal per day when I am cutting. If I am bulking, I drop my fat to 60% eat 30-35% protein and the rest is carbs. Don't restrict the calories just because some calculator on the internet suggests you to do. Almost all the calculators recommend a 1500 cals diet for me to lose 2-3 lbs per week but I can easily lose 2-3 lbs a week on much higher cal diet. If I ate that low, my body would eventually adjust and slow down the metabolism.0
-
Good point on the need to listen to what one's body is saying. So many think dieting is just a simple math formula to follow and you get skinny. Slowing down one's metabolism can happen then one is worse off than before in my view. Thanks.0
-
Leon/Gale;GaleHawkins wrote: »Good point on the need to listen to what one's body is saying. So many think dieting is just a simple math formula to follow and you get skinny. Slowing down one's metabolism can happen then one is worse off than before in my view. Thanks.
Absolutely agree with "most" of what each of you have said.
Of course "...just listen to your own body....." is (or "should be") the GOAL - I doubt that "most" of those here would disagree.
BUT, getting to that point takes time and experience and I don't think it's reasonable to expect those totally "new" to the whole idea of LCHF to just "git it" - right out of the gate.
None of us were born knowing this stuff and I think most would agree that "...if we knew then what we know....." our journey would have been at least somewhat different and we'd have "arrived" at the point where we can "listen...." a whole lot sooner.
Most of us have had a "rabbi" somewhere along the way who either nudged us in the right direction (or maybe smacked us in the head with a 2x4).
For many, even considering LCHF is a MAJOR change requiring first the total "un-learning" of all that we have told, promised, and asked to blindly accept at the knee of those we were taught from early on to "trust".
It takes a whole lot more than just "listening to one's body" when a newbie experiences "keto flu" symptoms (e.g.) and their dirty Uncle Charley trumpets, "see, I TOLD YOU that akins thing was stupid, won't listen to ME, at least listen to the doc - now you're gonna PAY.
Without some knowledge of the "whys", and the confidence (aided by the "numbers") that "others have gone before me", it's much more likely that UC's perverted "wisdom" will carry the day.
At the next family holiday get together, if Charley is still alive, the now, no longer a "newbie", will likely be a sterling example of "it works" and be willing and able to counter Charley's lunacy with FACTS and maybe more importantly "proof" that it does.
EXnewbie will also likely be completely prepared (and able to) "listen....", forget about counting almost (or mostly) completely, and manage their health and weight as well as those of you who can do so now - at least that is my hope.
Totally agree that online calculators are a joke (said so repeatedly) - but the fact is, they're pretty much all we have to work with. As long as folks realize they are nothing more than a "starting point" and can't be taken seriously we use them for what they are worth (and move toward the day where they become irrelevant.
Finally, on the "...metabolism slowing down...." issue,
Yes Gale, it CAN (and does) but not (in most cases) to the point where "...one is worse off than before."
At LEAST in the way that "most" folks understand the intent of those that advocate the "slowed down metabolism" argument - it's a vestige of the "starvation" myth and not an issue for those utilizing a properly constructed LCHF macro set. (part of the reason that starting off with a sound set of "numbers" actually does matter (IMO).
0 -
Cam & LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »* More fat is utilized as a fuel substrate many hours after anaerobic exercise
So lifting heavy weights is the best fat burner? while protecting your lean body mass.
i really should be stepping up my physical activity, according to this article. cant go wrong with that, can i? thank you, cam.
Just tripped across some very interesting info I had not seen before on "...stepping up physical activity...can't go wrong...." that might be of interest to you both.
It's a podcast interview with Dr Phinney (2012) and pretty long but very much on topic.
Mostly applicable to those doing in excess of an hour - hour and a half a day (not sure how much you guys are doing or thinking of "upping it" to.
If it doesn't start at about the 12:00 minute mark go there to begin (or start at the beginning and it'll get there).
Very "counter-intuitive" but 3 clinical studies with similar results are tough to argue with and "might" explain some of the "whys" (or, why-nots).
tinyurl.com/kuyyfmd
0 -
deansdad101 wrote: »
Cam & LK;LoraKay131 wrote: »* More fat is utilized as a fuel substrate many hours after anaerobic exercise
So lifting heavy weights is the best fat burner? while protecting your lean body mass.
i really should be stepping up my physical activity, according to this article. cant go wrong with that, can i? thank you, cam.
Just tripped across some very interesting info I had not seen before on "...stepping up physical activity...can't go wrong...." that might be of interest to you both.
It's a podcast interview with Dr Phinney (2012) and pretty long but very much on topic.
Mostly applicable to those doing in excess of an hour - hour and a half a day (not sure how much you guys are doing or thinking of "upping it" to.
If it doesn't start at about the 12:00 minute mark go there to begin (or start at the beginning and it'll get there).
Very "counter-intuitive" but 3 controlled studies with similar results are tough to argue with and "might" explain some of the "whys" (or, why-nots).
tinyurl.com/kuyyfmd
0 -
mr dean, i dont do a regimented, strict workout. ugh. i do not like it. i generally, on a day to day basis (if youve peeped youve noticed) do whatever it is i feel like doing. dancing, heavy lifting, some squats and lunges, planks...but only when i feel like it, and only if im feeling enough energy. if im sore, i clean alot..so im not of the group of folk who hop on the treadmill for an hour or run for 10 miles a day. im not set up for that mentally. im a slothlike creature, and its amazing that i am as fit as i am. if i wanted to bulk and cut, i could get there, as im 5'10" with a large frame, and lots of muscle mass. thats not what i want to do. i do not like regimented exercise. ill do it when my body is telling me to get up off my tush. : ) 0
This discussion has been closed.