Sticking to 10-15% fat for total calories
Options
Replies
-
ConwayJosh wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »The most import thing is you hit your calorie mark every day, plus enough protein. Other than that just don't go too low on fat, i would stay at least at 15% or so. Just look at Keto diets and others. Some eat super high fat %'s, high protein %, and almost no carbs, while others do it differently. You can throw %'s all around, just make sure you hit your calorie mark and protein.
The particular issue with low carb is that it depletes glycogen and has been shown at best to maintain muscle and is inferior in that regard to higher carb diets
Not true. There are many body builders out their doing Keto diets just fine.
http://sci-fit.net/2017/ketogenic-diet-fat-muscle-performance/
People do use it but according to science and anecdotal proof it may not be the best strategy.
Don't believe all studies. I have seen many body builders on Keto, that have tons of energy and muscle strength. I don't do Keto personally, but have seen many talk about it. I personally use flexible eating, which you can see here if you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URp3bVE99IU
Also a Keto chat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Ldxu5wcoE
Touché , at the end of the day this is the route I'll go for now and the diet that's optimal is the one you can adhere to1 -
https://www.instagram.com/rpdrmike
His last post I asked this question and he responds and he's also doing low fat massing1 -
Stop it your upsetting all the Keto people. Haha I use a pretty similar mix. But Israetel is the man; if you really wanna get into start bloodtesting and see how your body reacts as you increase and decrease your fats2
-
ConwayJosh wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »I'm aware that fat is essential but the minimum amount necessary for bodily function is less than 10%.
You're conflating bodyfat percentage with dietary intake of fat. Two different things.
This.
Also, you don't get brownie points for protein above your needs and carbs in excess of keeping glycogen stores sufficient. Eat the fat, it's good for you and for fuel.
I don't need or want brownie points, and since I'm in a deficit it's unlikely that my intake of carbs and protein is excessive.
Well in a deficit you will most likely not be building muscle anyway (unless you are overfat, a newbie, or returning to training after time away), in a deficit protein is there to help retain muscle, and carbs are the only macro not required, which is why most people on a cut lower carbs. The differnce in my diet from a cut to a bulk is the amount of carbs.
Like I said earlier, the RP way (created by Dr Mike) is to manipulate fats. You cut on relatively high carbs to keep performance up.
There are 4 stages on the diet templates- Base, Cut 1, Cut 2, Cut 3
Carbs don't decrease at all until you get to cut 3, which many people never even need.
I personally prefer this method because carbs can make up a lot more food volume than fats. When you remove some oil or nuts/nut butters, you aren't losing a lot of volume like you might by reducing 500 calories from carbs. You aren't even going to notice adding or removing some oil from your meals.2 -
ConwayJosh wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »I'm aware that fat is essential but the minimum amount necessary for bodily function is less than 10%.
You're conflating bodyfat percentage with dietary intake of fat. Two different things.
The video referenced above should help clarify my point but no I do understand the difference between bodyfat and daily requirements of fat for health
Also, minimum amount, does not mean ideal amount!!! we should be shooting for as close to ideal macros as we can, not just minimums.
10% is the minimum necessary for health, what is the advantage to consuming more? I know there's added benefits to higher intake for protein to help make sure I'm building as much muscle as possible. Carbs are the single best resource for energy especially for training. What advantage or benefit is there to consuming more and how much is that?
You are talking about an estimated average minimum, some people need more or less depending on their independent body's function and any genetic differences that nobody will be aware of until you reach that deficit. One of the big problems with low fat is having enough fat available to keep your nervous system functioning well, and also could expose any weaknesses your body may have in maintaining or repairing, including myelin sheaths around nerves, cell walls, fascia, so in general I'd advise against going low fat. There has to be some substantiated improvement to merit undertaking such a change with a risk, and there isn't more than anecdotal evidence, so even a small risk doesn't seem worth it. There are cases of people having longer term fat deficits in their diets suffering from an assortment of neurological disorders, and keep in mind there are non-self detectable symptoms and consequence of neuronal function and mental status long before there are detectable symptoms or a true "disease". Some anecdotal improvement on a low fat diet goes in the bucket with all kinds of other anecdotal improvement claims on a myriad of other dietary plans. I would say its not worth the risk to try, even if its a low risk, and if you do do it, don't do it long term.
Everything depends on your length of trial, and starting body fat percentage as well: someone who is already lower body fat doing this long term will probably be much higher risk of ill effect than than someone overweight for a short term.
I think the only real advantage of trying to reduce fats is (in theory if you dont just eat processed high sugar items) increasing food volume/soluble fiber, which is helpful and also may help reduce cravings if you have difficulty maintaining a lower calorie level. But I wouldn't suggest reducing it that low.
1 -
not_a_runner wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »I'm aware that fat is essential but the minimum amount necessary for bodily function is less than 10%.
You're conflating bodyfat percentage with dietary intake of fat. Two different things.
This.
Also, you don't get brownie points for protein above your needs and carbs in excess of keeping glycogen stores sufficient. Eat the fat, it's good for you and for fuel.
I don't need or want brownie points, and since I'm in a deficit it's unlikely that my intake of carbs and protein is excessive.
Well in a deficit you will most likely not be building muscle anyway (unless you are overfat, a newbie, or returning to training after time away), in a deficit protein is there to help retain muscle, and carbs are the only macro not required, which is why most people on a cut lower carbs. The differnce in my diet from a cut to a bulk is the amount of carbs.
I personally prefer this method because carbs can make up a lot more food volume than fats. When you remove some oil or nuts/nut butters, you aren't losing a lot of volume like you might by reducing 500 calories from carbs. You aren't even going to notice adding or removing some oil from your meals.
Funny you say that... as I was reading through the thread and thinking about things, I thought about how nice it would be to keep carbs higher and not have to suffer/grind through workouts as much. Then I immediately thought, holy *kitten*... I could still be eating reasonable quantities of food, too (which is a huge issue for me).
I don't cut that hard that often to need to go that low and cut macro that drastically, but I'm tucking this way for future personal reference.2 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »I'm aware that fat is essential but the minimum amount necessary for bodily function is less than 10%.
You're conflating bodyfat percentage with dietary intake of fat. Two different things.
The video referenced above should help clarify my point but no I do understand the difference between bodyfat and daily requirements of fat for health
Also, minimum amount, does not mean ideal amount!!! we should be shooting for as close to ideal macros as we can, not just minimums.
10% is the minimum necessary for health, what is the advantage to consuming more? I know there's added benefits to higher intake for protein to help make sure I'm building as much muscle as possible. Carbs are the single best resource for energy especially for training. What advantage or benefit is there to consuming more and how much is that?
You are talking about an estimated average minimum, some people need more or less depending on their independent body's function and any genetic differences that nobody will be aware of until you reach that deficit. One of the big problems with low fat is having enough fat available to keep your nervous system functioning well, and also could expose any weaknesses your body may have in maintaining or repairing, including myelin sheaths around nerves, cell walls, fascia, so in general I'd advise against going low fat. There has to be some substantiated improvement to merit undertaking such a change with a risk, and there isn't more than anecdotal evidence, so even a small risk doesn't seem worth it. There are cases of people having longer term fat deficits in their diets suffering from an assortment of neurological disorders, and keep in mind there are non-self detectable symptoms and consequence of neuronal function and mental status long before there are detectable symptoms or a true "disease". Some anecdotal improvement on a low fat diet goes in the bucket with all kinds of other anecdotal improvement claims on a myriad of other dietary plans. I would say its not worth the risk to try, even if its a low risk, and if you do do it, don't do it long term.
Everything depends on your length of trial, and starting body fat percentage as well: someone who is already lower body fat doing this long term will probably be much higher risk of ill effect than than someone overweight for a short term.
I think the only real advantage of trying to reduce fats is (in theory if you dont just eat processed high sugar items) increasing food volume/soluble fiber, which is helpful and also may help reduce cravings if you have difficulty maintaining a lower calorie level. But I wouldn't suggest reducing it that low.
Certainly a lot of information to digest there, I'm around 20% bf and I stick to mostly vegetables and fruit for carb sources and soluble fiber is on the high side exceeding daily requirements. Thank you for the info0 -
Stop it your upsetting all the Keto people. Haha I use a pretty similar mix. But Israetel is the man; if you really wanna get into start bloodtesting and see how your body reacts as you increase and decrease your fats
I've seen the videos of people heavily advocating blood tests and when I have some extra funds I'll definitely get them done.
0 -
not_a_runner wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »I'm aware that fat is essential but the minimum amount necessary for bodily function is less than 10%.
You're conflating bodyfat percentage with dietary intake of fat. Two different things.
This.
Also, you don't get brownie points for protein above your needs and carbs in excess of keeping glycogen stores sufficient. Eat the fat, it's good for you and for fuel.
I don't need or want brownie points, and since I'm in a deficit it's unlikely that my intake of carbs and protein is excessive.
Well in a deficit you will most likely not be building muscle anyway (unless you are overfat, a newbie, or returning to training after time away), in a deficit protein is there to help retain muscle, and carbs are the only macro not required, which is why most people on a cut lower carbs. The differnce in my diet from a cut to a bulk is the amount of carbs.
I personally prefer this method because carbs can make up a lot more food volume than fats. When you remove some oil or nuts/nut butters, you aren't losing a lot of volume like you might by reducing 500 calories from carbs. You aren't even going to notice adding or removing some oil from your meals.
Funny you say that... as I was reading through the thread and thinking about things, I thought about how nice it would be to keep carbs higher and not have to suffer/grind through workouts as much. Then I immediately thought, holy *kitten*... I could still be eating reasonable quantities of food, too (which is a huge issue for me).
I don't cut that hard that often to need to go that low and cut macro that drastically, but I'm tucking this way for future personal reference.
That's great to hear!0 -
Thank you for the link , I will asap and btw Dr. Mike is amazing and very thorough when giving advice.1 -
Super cool dude. Kinda strange looking seeing him in real life ... you just look at him and you’re like oh damn you are shaped like that2
-
-
Everyone does,dudes a full on square. Pretty sure to get around he just spreads his lats and lets the wind take him where he’s going.1
-
-
You know who was surprisingly late in real life was layne Norton.0
-
ConwayJosh wrote: »SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »I'm aware that fat is essential but the minimum amount necessary for bodily function is less than 10%.
You're conflating bodyfat percentage with dietary intake of fat. Two different things.
The video referenced above should help clarify my point but no I do understand the difference between bodyfat and daily requirements of fat for health
Also, minimum amount, does not mean ideal amount!!! we should be shooting for as close to ideal macros as we can, not just minimums.
10% is the minimum necessary for health, what is the advantage to consuming more? I know there's added benefits to higher intake for protein to help make sure I'm building as much muscle as possible. Carbs are the single best resource for energy especially for training. What advantage or benefit is there to consuming more and how much is that?
You are talking about an estimated average minimum, some people need more or less depending on their independent body's function and any genetic differences that nobody will be aware of until you reach that deficit. One of the big problems with low fat is having enough fat available to keep your nervous system functioning well, and also could expose any weaknesses your body may have in maintaining or repairing, including myelin sheaths around nerves, cell walls, fascia, so in general I'd advise against going low fat. There has to be some substantiated improvement to merit undertaking such a change with a risk, and there isn't more than anecdotal evidence, so even a small risk doesn't seem worth it. There are cases of people having longer term fat deficits in their diets suffering from an assortment of neurological disorders, and keep in mind there are non-self detectable symptoms and consequence of neuronal function and mental status long before there are detectable symptoms or a true "disease". Some anecdotal improvement on a low fat diet goes in the bucket with all kinds of other anecdotal improvement claims on a myriad of other dietary plans. I would say its not worth the risk to try, even if its a low risk, and if you do do it, don't do it long term.
Everything depends on your length of trial, and starting body fat percentage as well: someone who is already lower body fat doing this long term will probably be much higher risk of ill effect than than someone overweight for a short term.
I think the only real advantage of trying to reduce fats is (in theory if you dont just eat processed high sugar items) increasing food volume/soluble fiber, which is helpful and also may help reduce cravings if you have difficulty maintaining a lower calorie level. But I wouldn't suggest reducing it that low.
Certainly a lot of information to digest there, I'm around 20% bf and I stick to mostly vegetables and fruit for carb sources and soluble fiber is on the high side exceeding daily requirements. Thank you for the info
One of the big problems here is you never know who you are talking to or the specifics of the individual case which may completely skew the resultant response.
I listened to part of the posted Broderick talk and generally seems like he's talking relatively good sense there, he isn't talking about lowering it very low for long since its presented he does recommend weekly cheat meals (from another poster, not verified) and more importantly he's talking about athletes with mass trying to increase muscle mass who also are taking hormones...this is a very specific case. First of all so far he's talking about amounts per kg, which makes a big difference: .5/kg 68kg "normal" is 34, whereas the population he's talking about is say maybe say 112kg avg, so 56g at the "low" fat range. I'd say that since a bodybuilder isn't increasing his brain mass with these weight gains, and not appreciably much of any nervous tissue, so those requirements arent going up appreciably, and its more likely to be sufficient at 56g intake than 34g for the lower weight person, likewise an obese person of the same weight going with that method will also probably have enough.
You can also analyze/test this against standard recommendations by taking figures of say 2k calories (to make it easy) per day "avg" person, and 20-35% fat calories recommended. Well thats 40g on the low end. So the lighter person using this method at 34g might be at some risk, whereas the bodybuilder at 56g with the exact same amount per unit bodyweight is significantly above that recommended 40g minimum, and a 46kg woman trying this method may run into significant neurological consequences intaking 23g of fat per day over an extended period (remember all similar brain and nervous tissue mass, it doesn't enlarge as much as the rest of you with increased muscle or fat, or even vertical body mass)...it makes a huge difference who you are talking to.
Now cutting calories to a deficit adds a monkeywrench in there, but it again all depends on if you are staying with a 10% of food as you stated, or a .5g/kg as he states. Your method could run into problems, but his would keep you in a safer range.5 -
ConwayJosh wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »ConwayJosh wrote: »I'm aware that fat is essential but the minimum amount necessary for bodily function is less than 10%.
You're conflating bodyfat percentage with dietary intake of fat. Two different things.
The video referenced above should help clarify my point but no I do understand the difference between bodyfat and daily requirements of fat for health
Also, minimum amount, does not mean ideal amount!!! we should be shooting for as close to ideal macros as we can, not just minimums.
10% is the minimum necessary for health, what is the advantage to consuming more? I know there's added benefits to higher intake for protein to help make sure I'm building as much muscle as possible. Carbs are the single best resource for energy especially for training. What advantage or benefit is there to consuming more and how much is that?
Some "good" fats, increase HDL, or good cholesterol, which, in turn, helps lower LDL, or bad cholesterol. Doctors often recommend a healthy amount of good fats from foods like salmon, nuts, certain oils (olive oil?) for these reasons. I used to be on a very low fat diet, but modified a bit to include these healthy fats based on my doctor's recommendation. I typically run about 20% of daily intake, now.0 -
Rp templates are about $100, aren't they?
Ornish also sets fat as 10%. Though one can argue he goes too low for optimal health they haven't lynched him yet :-)
In case and in the case of a male with slightly lower fat requirements than females for hormonal health I don't see anything too wrong with 0.3g per lb of bodyweight in the normal weight range (slightly lower than Ann's 0.35 to 0.45). This would make a target of about 50g of healthy fats feasible for many males... or about 450 Cal.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions