dietary fat/fat stores

LoraKay131
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. :)
«1

Replies

  • deansdad101
    deansdad101 Posts: 644 Member
    edited December 2014
    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. :)
    LK;

    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.

  • LoraKay131
    LoraKay131 Posts: 58 Member
    so the excess dietary fat that isnt used for energy is not stored for later use?
  • LoraKay131
    LoraKay131 Posts: 58 Member
    ok, this has to do with insulin, correct? im doing research....:)
  • deansdad101
    deansdad101 Posts: 644 Member
    LoraKay131 wrote: »
    so the excess dietary fat that isnt used for energy is not stored for later use?
    LK;

    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.


  • deansdad101
    deansdad101 Posts: 644 Member
    LoraKay131 wrote: »
    ok, this has to do with insulin, correct? im doing research....:)
    LK;

    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).

  • LoraKay131
    LoraKay131 Posts: 58 Member
    thank you dd, i appreciate the time you take for the newbies.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,479 Member
    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.
  • LoraKay131
    LoraKay131 Posts: 58 Member
    thanks yarwell...*types "dear mr. google...* :D
  • camtosh
    camtosh Posts: 896 Member
    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.
  • LoraKay131
    LoraKay131 Posts: 58 Member
    edited December 2014
    camtosh 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.
  • deansdad101
    deansdad101 Posts: 644 Member
    camtosh wrote: »
    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.
    Cam;

    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.

  • LoraKay131
    LoraKay131 Posts: 58 Member
    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.
  • deansdad101
    deansdad101 Posts: 644 Member
    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.
    LK;

    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.

  • LoraKay131
    LoraKay131 Posts: 58 Member
    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?
  • Dragonwolf
    Dragonwolf Posts: 5,614 Member
    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).
  • deansdad101
    deansdad101 Posts: 644 Member
    edited December 2014
    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?
    LK;

    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".
  • deansdad101
    deansdad101 Posts: 644 Member
    edited December 2014
    dupe post cut
  • deansdad101
    deansdad101 Posts: 644 Member
    edited December 2014
    Dupe post, sorry about that (there really does need to be a "delete" button) - my bad.

  • LoraKay131
    LoraKay131 Posts: 58 Member
    lol. i understand. thank you. and...as we are 'friends', you should be able to see my diary...: )
  • deansdad101
    deansdad101 Posts: 644 Member
    edited December 2014
    LoraKay131 wrote: »
    lol. i understand. thank you. and...as we are 'friends', you should be able to see my diary...: )
    LK;

    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;
    1. It appears that you have adjusted total daily cal intake "target" between 1450 and 1800 (or so)
    2. Macro breakdown changed as well but currently at 5%C, 60%F, 35%P
    3. You are entering "exercise" cals and "eating them back" - sometimes, sometimes not
    4. Overall "adherence" to your targets is generally good (depending on "which" target)
    5. 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.