We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Having difficulty meeting daily fat intake. Need help!
fdlewenstein
Posts: 231 Member
My daily macros is 71 grams carbs, 88 grams protein, and 86 grams fat. I have been able to meet the protein and carb macros, but I'm having trouble with getting 86 grams of fat. For the last sixteen days my average is about 70 grams of fat. How can I increase my fat macros without increasing my caloric intake? Any suggestions would be welcome.
1
Replies
-
Are you perscribed those macros for any specific medical reason? That's around 20% carbs, 55% fat, 25% protein. That's a pretty strange distribution in my opinion.
If you want to add fat, adding olive oil to things would be one simple way to do it. But not sure what you mean about not increasing your caloric intake? Fat has calories so any fat you add is going to increase your calories.5 -
Are you perscribed those macros for any specific medical reason? That's around 20% carbs, 55% fat, 25% protein. That's a pretty strange distribution in my opinion.
If you want to add fat, adding olive oil to things would be one simple way to do it. But not sure what you mean about not increasing your caloric intake? Fat has calories so any fat you add is going to increase your calories.
Yes, I'm on a specific program with a doctor. The macros distribution is specific for me (with genetic testing). I do use butter, avocado, and olive oil. I realize that fat has calories, but I don't want to consume more than my daily calories. I guess I really should say I am having trouble balancing the macros. I try to get as close as I can both macro and calories every day.1 -
fdlewenstein wrote: »Are you perscribed those macros for any specific medical reason? That's around 20% carbs, 55% fat, 25% protein. That's a pretty strange distribution in my opinion.
If you want to add fat, adding olive oil to things would be one simple way to do it. But not sure what you mean about not increasing your caloric intake? Fat has calories so any fat you add is going to increase your calories.
Yes, I'm on a specific program with a doctor. The macros distribution is specific for me (with genetic testing). I do use butter, avocado, and olive oil. I realize that fat has calories, but I don't want to consume more than my daily calories. I guess I really should say I am having trouble balancing the macros. I try to get as close as I can both macro and calories every day.
An actual doctor, or like a chiropractor or something? Can you give us more info on the genetic testing, why that was done, medical conditions, etc?5 -
You need to substitute carb protein options that are lower fat with higher
Ie not non-fat yogurt but whole milk yogurt; fattier cuts of meat vs leaner ones3 -
deannalfisher wrote: »You need to substitute carb protein options that are lower fat with higher
Ie not non-fat yogurt but whole milk yogurt; fattier cuts of meat vs leaner ones
Don't eat yogurt. I eat meat so swapping for fattier cuts is not an issue. I recently switched from eating chicken breast to chicken thighs. I don't really drink milk and if I have sour cream I use the full fat. I have resorted to having whipping cream in my coffee some days to increase my fat intake and I usually drink my coffee black. I use ghee when I make my eggs. I make vegetables with olive oil even though I'm perfectly fine with steamed veggies. Not sure where else I can add fat?0 -
A handful of walnuts. 30g (one serving) is 196 calories, 4g carbs, 20g fat, 5g protein.
2 -
Ask your doctor which two macros are most important to hit and concentrate on those. I'm guessing this will be protein and fat, so you will need to decrease carbs to give you calories to increase fat. So, more butter, more oil, and larger portions of fatty meat like rib eye. (Chicken thighs do have more fat than breast, but fatty cuts of steak are going to get you there faster.) For pork - cross tenderloin and chops off your list and go for fatty (and flavorful) cuts like Boston Butt.
Nuts are a great source of fat, but their calories do add up quickly. Here's a list ranked by # of carbs: https://www.trulygoodfoods.com/blog/the-best-nuts-for-keto-diet/
You get more carbs than someone doing keto (they get around 5%) but you could certainly look at keto guidelines and recipes for information and inspiration.2 -
I'm curious, too, about the 'genetic testing' you've had done to determine your macros. Can you give us more info on that, please?
Also, are you attempting to lose or maintain your current weight?2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I'm curious, too, about the 'genetic testing' you've had done to determine your macros. Can you give us more info on that, please?
Also, are you attempting to lose or maintain your current weight?
I am trying to lose weight, 50 pounds so far. My weight loss has two phases. The loosing phase incorporates intermittent fasting and 8 oz protein, 4 cups vegetables, 2 cups fruit for the day. That is a five week phase. The maintenance phase (which I'm doing now) is 1,413 calories and the macros. This is a three week phase. When I have reached my goal I will be (hopefully) maintaining my weight with the 1,413 calories and the macros. I repeat the cycle until I have reached my goal (40 more pounds). The genetic testing is part of the program. The genetic test is used to determine what type of program will work exactly for me and my body type. It's a lot of information. Some I don't really understand, but really interesting.
0 -
There's no credible genetic test that predicts the type of diet a person might do best on. You've been sold a bill of goods.22
-
fdlewenstein wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »I'm curious, too, about the 'genetic testing' you've had done to determine your macros. Can you give us more info on that, please?
Also, are you attempting to lose or maintain your current weight?
I am trying to lose weight, 50 pounds so far. My weight loss has two phases. The loosing phase incorporates intermittent fasting and 8 oz protein, 4 cups vegetables, 2 cups fruit for the day. That is a five week phase. The maintenance phase (which I'm doing now) is 1,413 calories and the macros. This is a three week phase. When I have reached my goal I will be (hopefully) maintaining my weight with the 1,413 calories and the macros. I repeat the cycle until I have reached my goal (40 more pounds). The genetic testing is part of the program. The genetic test is used to determine what type of program will work exactly for me and my body type. It's a lot of information. Some I don't really understand, but really interesting.
So definitely not done by an actual doctor then.
OP, you wasted your money, this is pseudoscience. And that losing phase sounds decidedly very low calorie.11 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »fdlewenstein wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »I'm curious, too, about the 'genetic testing' you've had done to determine your macros. Can you give us more info on that, please?
Also, are you attempting to lose or maintain your current weight?
I am trying to lose weight, 50 pounds so far. My weight loss has two phases. The loosing phase incorporates intermittent fasting and 8 oz protein, 4 cups vegetables, 2 cups fruit for the day. That is a five week phase. The maintenance phase (which I'm doing now) is 1,413 calories and the macros. This is a three week phase. When I have reached my goal I will be (hopefully) maintaining my weight with the 1,413 calories and the macros. I repeat the cycle until I have reached my goal (40 more pounds). The genetic testing is part of the program. The genetic test is used to determine what type of program will work exactly for me and my body type. It's a lot of information. Some I don't really understand, but really interesting.
So definitely not done by an actual doctor then.
OP, you wasted your money, this is pseudoscience. And that losing phase sounds decidedly very low calorie.
Don't be so quick to judge.
1 -
.0
-
fdlewenstein wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »fdlewenstein wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »I'm curious, too, about the 'genetic testing' you've had done to determine your macros. Can you give us more info on that, please?
Also, are you attempting to lose or maintain your current weight?
I am trying to lose weight, 50 pounds so far. My weight loss has two phases. The loosing phase incorporates intermittent fasting and 8 oz protein, 4 cups vegetables, 2 cups fruit for the day. That is a five week phase. The maintenance phase (which I'm doing now) is 1,413 calories and the macros. This is a three week phase. When I have reached my goal I will be (hopefully) maintaining my weight with the 1,413 calories and the macros. I repeat the cycle until I have reached my goal (40 more pounds). The genetic testing is part of the program. The genetic test is used to determine what type of program will work exactly for me and my body type. It's a lot of information. Some I don't really understand, but really interesting.
So definitely not done by an actual doctor then.
OP, you wasted your money, this is pseudoscience. And that losing phase sounds decidedly very low calorie.
Don't be so quick to judge.
I'm not judging, I'm stating a fact. There is no scientific support for weight loss based on genetic testing. Lots of people get duped by this stuff, you're not alone in that.
And at a rough estimate, without knowing what you're eating for that 8oz of protein, your diet phase comes in at maybe 600 calories a day?
But please, feel free to provide a link to the place you're doing this through to provide more information.3 -
I really appreciate all the advice and I found it helpful. Someone asked for more information about my diet and I willingly shared. I wasn't looking to be "judged". I didn't waste money and I don't believe it is pseudoscience. I understand that everyone has their own opinions and some even feel like they are well educated about health/diets, etc... However, I am an educated individual and I did research before I started working with this doctor (who did go to medical school). I'm sure there are many new trends/ideas/science that we are all not familiar with.
Again...appreciate the feedback.0 -
fdlewenstein wrote: »I really appreciate all the advice and I found it helpful. Someone asked for more information about my diet and I willingly shared. I wasn't looking to be "judged". I didn't waste money and I don't believe it is pseudoscience. I understand that everyone has their own opinions and some even feel like they are well educated about health/diets, etc... However, I am an educated individual and I did research before I started working with this doctor (who did go to medical school). I'm sure there are many new trends/ideas/science that we are all not familiar with.
Again...appreciate the feedback.
Again, was not judging you.
It's your money, your life, your health.
I'm a little puzzled as to why the macro split only applies to the 'maintenance' phase, if it's how you are supposed to eat, but whatever.
I sincerely hope I'm way off in my calorie estimate of your five week diet phases though.6 -
Thank you.0
-
Perhaps this will ruin your results, but...
Studies have actually been done on what happens when someone is told they have a genetic disposition for "x" whether they actually do or not, and the effect of being told "you have x" is far more influential than what "x" is some genes. The particular study I recall was about a metabolic gene that I believe had to due with endurance athletics and aerobic capacity.
People who had the gene aerobic gene but told they did not got worse exercise trait markers than people with the gene told they had it.
In truth, even if a test has valid evidence behind it, knowing the results might never be worth it. You're far better off having your own determination to do what you love without the albatross of genetic destiny weighing down your neck.
As you are the sum of more than just your actual DNA, but your life experiences having epigenetic effects on those genes, and even a human being with preferences acquired from experiences, what you actually find working from experimentation is going to be better in the long run than doing a diet because your genes said so. Like, say the food you hated most in the world was peanut butter, would you suddenly decide you liked peanut butter because you had a genetic test tell you it should be your favorite food? That would seem a ludicrous proposition to me. It doesn't suddenly become entirely sound when it stops being best tasting but weight loss / maintenance, and instead of peanut butter, a proportion of macro nutrients.7 -
fdlewenstein wrote: »How can I increase my fat macros without increasing my caloric intake? Any suggestions would be welcome.
The only way to do this is to change out protein or carbs for fat. Currently your macro breakdown is around 1400 calories per day. Fat is 9 calories per gram. Carbohydrates and protein are each 4 calories per gram. You need to eat 2 fewer grams of carbs or protein for every gram of fat you add in.
The genetic testing thing is a bunch of pseudoscience and cannot help you to determine your macro breakdown. You are better off figuring out your protein minimum and fill in the carbs and fat based on what satisfies you the most and what fuels your day the best.
6 -
fdlewenstein wrote: »Are you perscribed those macros for any specific medical reason? That's around 20% carbs, 55% fat, 25% protein. That's a pretty strange distribution in my opinion.
If you want to add fat, adding olive oil to things would be one simple way to do it. But not sure what you mean about not increasing your caloric intake? Fat has calories so any fat you add is going to increase your calories.
Yes, I'm on a specific program with a doctor. The macros distribution is specific for me (with genetic testing). I do use butter, avocado, and olive oil. I realize that fat has calories, but I don't want to consume more than my daily calories. I guess I really should say I am having trouble balancing the macros. I try to get as close as I can both macro and calories every day.
I don't understand. Did your doctor set those specific grams for your macros, but gave you a calorie totally that you can't stick to if you meet the macro goals? Or are you getting more carbs and/or protein than the doctor set? Or are you getting calories from alcohol that the doctor didn't account for?
All the macros come with calories. If the calories associated with the macros your doctor told you to have add up to more calories than the doctor told you to have, you need to go back to the doctor and point that out.8 -
I worked in a DNA testing lab.
We had oversight from the Federal Government and our company was called to Congress to testify about these, "Genetic tests that tell you what to eat," and then promise you something in return such as better faster weight loss, better health, better performance - based on a DNA test.
They are bogus, and the Federal Government shut down those claims. There is not a DNA test out there which can tell you genetically what to eat macro-wise. If you got such claims, I'd take that to your state's Attorney General.
It's possible that some day there may be such claims that can be substantiated, but we're nowhere near "some day" just yet. It's a scam.17 -
All you're getting when you get a DNA diet test or nutrition/macro suggestion test is a DNA test giving you your specific DNA markers - that part isn't bogus. It's the fact they try to interpret those markers in a way that suggests a certain way of eating is optimal based on those markers.
The science isn't there. It's just a DNA test, so if you paid more than a hundred dollars you were ripped off. That is the cost of a basic DNA Identity test. That's all you got, because anyone telling you how to eat based on your DNA is just selling you something that isn't there. But hey, you spent $100 at their company so that's something.10 -
cmriverside wrote: »I worked in a DNA testing lab.
We had oversight from the Federal Government and our company was called to Congress to testify about these, "Genetic tests that tell you what to eat," and then promise you something in return such as better faster weight loss, better health, better performance - based on a DNA test.
They are bogus, and the Federal Government shut down those claims. There is not a DNA test out there which can tell you genetically what to eat macro-wise. If you got such claims, I'd take that to your state's Attorney General.
It's possible that some day there may be such claims that can be substantiated, but we're nowhere near "some day" just yet. It's a scam.
Aside from already knowing that this particular type of DNA 'interpretation' is a scam, I did have to marvel at how wonderfully deceptive the recommended macro split is in this case.
They gave The OP an oddly specific macro split: 71 gr carbs, 88 gr of protein and 86 gr of fat. Instead of say, a more generic 70/90/85 split. Methinks this is deliberately done to give the 'client' a false sense of legitimacy surrounding this. "Oh, look, my DNA specifically indicates I need 71 gr of carbs. How wonderful that it's so accurate and tailored to me, specifically."
Smoke and expensive dirty mirrors.
8 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I worked in a DNA testing lab.
We had oversight from the Federal Government and our company was called to Congress to testify about these, "Genetic tests that tell you what to eat," and then promise you something in return such as better faster weight loss, better health, better performance - based on a DNA test.
They are bogus, and the Federal Government shut down those claims. There is not a DNA test out there which can tell you genetically what to eat macro-wise. If you got such claims, I'd take that to your state's Attorney General.
It's possible that some day there may be such claims that can be substantiated, but we're nowhere near "some day" just yet. It's a scam.
Aside from already knowing that this particular type of DNA 'interpretation' is a scam, I did have to marvel at how wonderfully deceptive the recommended macro split is in this case.
They gave The OP an oddly specific macro split: 71 gr carbs, 88 gr of protein and 86 gr of fat. Instead of say, a more generic 70/90/85 split. Methinks this is deliberately done to give the 'client' a false sense of legitimacy surrounding this. "Oh, look, my DNA specifically indicates I need 71 gr of carbs. How wonderful that it's so accurate and tailored to me, specifically."
Smoke and expensive dirty mirrors.
The tests do sometimes come with a nutritionist's recommendations. That can add $$$. I think the ones that were being sold that we were involved with were about $600. And really, the nutritionist's recommendations were perfectly reasonable and something that anyone would benefit from using. So I don't see the specific grams as being deceptive, necessarily. Whole foods, BMI based calorie levels, structured meal plans. That can be really helpful to someone who doesn't have a clue. It sounds fancy when it's a Personalized DNA Diet. A regular Dietician and a good internal medicine practitioner could do just about the same thing, along with a little LMGTFY.
Sometimes the client will disclose medical issues such as diabetes and then the "results" can be tailored to a lower carb higher fat plan because that's what has been proven to be beneficial to diabetes patients. Same with things like seizure disorders and keto-y plans. I mean, it's not necessarily bad advice, it's just that none of that generalized advice is tied in any way to DNA as linked to diet. There just isn't enough current data available to tie DNA to diet.
3 -
cmriverside wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I worked in a DNA testing lab.
We had oversight from the Federal Government and our company was called to Congress to testify about these, "Genetic tests that tell you what to eat," and then promise you something in return such as better faster weight loss, better health, better performance - based on a DNA test.
They are bogus, and the Federal Government shut down those claims. There is not a DNA test out there which can tell you genetically what to eat macro-wise. If you got such claims, I'd take that to your state's Attorney General.
It's possible that some day there may be such claims that can be substantiated, but we're nowhere near "some day" just yet. It's a scam.
Aside from already knowing that this particular type of DNA 'interpretation' is a scam, I did have to marvel at how wonderfully deceptive the recommended macro split is in this case.
They gave The OP an oddly specific macro split: 71 gr carbs, 88 gr of protein and 86 gr of fat. Instead of say, a more generic 70/90/85 split. Methinks this is deliberately done to give the 'client' a false sense of legitimacy surrounding this. "Oh, look, my DNA specifically indicates I need 71 gr of carbs. How wonderful that it's so accurate and tailored to me, specifically."
Smoke and expensive dirty mirrors.
The tests do sometimes come with a nutritionist's recommendations. That can add $$$. I think the ones that were being sold that we were involved with were about $600. And really, the nutritionist's recommendations were perfectly reasonable and something that anyone would benefit from using. So I don't see the specific grams as being deceptive, necessarily. Whole foods, BMI based calorie levels, structured meal plans. That can be really helpful to someone who doesn't have a clue. It sounds fancy when it's a Personalized DNA Diet. A regular Dietician and a good internal medicine practitioner could do just about the same thing, along with a little LMGTFY.
Sometimes the client will disclose medical issues such as diabetes and then the "results" can be tailored to a lower carb higher fat plan because that's what has been proven to be beneficial to diabetes patients. Same with things like seizure disorders and keto-y plans. I mean, it's not necessarily bad advice, it's just that none of that generalized advice is tied in any way to DNA as linked to diet. There just isn't enough current data available to tie DNA to diet.
To the bolded: Point taken.
I would, however, only back down on my observation were these very specific macro splits put forward to the client via a Registered Dietician rather than coming from a nutritionist as the result of DNA testing. And only if it were done in relation to, as you mentioned, diagnosed medical issues previously disclosed. It's the very 'personalized' macro splits based on the DNA testing that's the scammy part. Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
1 -
If you're hitting your carbs and protein and low on fat but still hitting your calories, then something is off and you either have bad entries or you are actually going over on your other macros. Your macros should add up to your calories save for rounding. 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, 4 calories per gram of protein, 9 calories per gram of fat.4
-
Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
Well that could very well be...but it's also because people have to be given specific numbers or they blow up your phone with *more* questions. "How much is 30% of 1413 calories....??? What is that in grams????"
Said from the experience of a thousand little cuts from a thousand little annoying phone calls
They (the company) probably just has an algorithm that spits the numbers out.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »If you're hitting your carbs and protein and low on fat but still hitting your calories, then something is off and you either have bad entries or you are actually going over on your other macros. Your macros should add up to your calories save for rounding. 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, 4 calories per gram of protein, 9 calories per gram of fat.
It's not that I was hitting the protein and carbs everyday, but more that I was meeting the fat less. I could get close on protein and carbs, but I was always so under on fats. I feel confident in my entries and I log everything I eat. I did not go over in calories, I'm usually under any where from 100-400 cal.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
Well that could very well be...but it's also because people have to be given specific numbers or they blow up your phone with *more* questions. "How much is 30% of 1413 calories....??? What is that in grams????"
Said from the experience of a thousand little cuts from a thousand little annoying phone calls
They (the company) probably just has an algorithm that spits the numbers out.
You are so far off it's ridiculous, but keep making your way off assumptions. It's a little humorous how you think you have figured it all out.1 -
fdlewenstein wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
Well that could very well be...but it's also because people have to be given specific numbers or they blow up your phone with *more* questions. "How much is 30% of 1413 calories....??? What is that in grams????"
Said from the experience of a thousand little cuts from a thousand little annoying phone calls
They (the company) probably just has an algorithm that spits the numbers out.
You are so far off it's ridiculous, but keep making your way off assumptions. It's a little humorous how you think you have figured it all out.
Did you see the bit where this person actually worked in a DNA lab?11
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions