are good FATS good for LOSING FAT?!
Options
Replies
-
i'm at 26% now.... ideally i thinkg around 20% would be a good goal0
-
Lowering BF% is not a specific enough goal. Reread my 2nd post in this thread.0
-
both! are you saying that you can not lower BF% while gaining muscle mass?!
Lower BF% and losing fat are not the same thing. You can lower your BF% by gaining muscle.
For example, let's say I weigh 195 and carry 30 lbs of fat. My BF% is 15%.
I can now gain 10 lbs of muscle and weigh 205. My BF% is now 14.5%.
Or I can now lose 10lbs of fat and weigh 185. My BF% is now about 11%.
But yes, outside of newbie gains when you first start out, you should just consider it an impossibility to gain muscle while losing fat. The body is doing opposite things for these processes and will have mutually exclusive requirements.
pretty sure if you lower your BF% you have lost fat0 -
Except for transfats, all fats are good for you. Salmon and avocado's are just higher in calories and have sources of stuff like Omega's 3 which can improve weight loss.
Also, you can't cut body fat and gain muscle. They are different approaches. One is a calorie deficit and one is a calorie surplus.
ps- the biggest thing that will hurt your results is the alcohol that i see fairly regularly.
^^The part about the fats is true but . . . You CAN cut body fat and gain muscle at the same time, though you won't gain as much muscle as you would if you weren't focusing on cutting body fat. Don't mind the number on the scale plateau-ing though or even going up if you are trying to put on muscle, that's perfectly normal and expected.
Also you're protein levels are way too high for your caloric intake. Drop the protein, and have a little bit more carbs, the fats look fine except when you go over them! lol
Best of luck!!0 -
Ignore all the hype and misinformation. Fat doesn't make you fat, excess calories do. Drop calories until you are losing 1-2 lbs a week at most. Once your body fat is where you want it, eat at a slight calorie surplus while working hard to build the muscle.
This will minimize fat gain and put on some nice lean muscle.0 -
Outside of newbie gains, you cannot gain muscle without a caloric surplus.
Well, I disagree based primarily on the position that building muscle is one of the expenditures of energy of the body involved in the overall calculation of the calorie deficit needed to lose fat. Just my opinion (and admittedly, your side of this argument certainly seems to have greater CW support. I'm just saying that CW is wrong about this.)
Please explain yourself. First, who is CW? And second, how are you able to grow and build new tissue without energy?
We can start off with that.
CW = conventional wisdom...(which, ironically, I thought was CW itself).
The energy necessary to build the muscle comes from food and from the body's utilization of fat, which is why the body put the fat there in the first place: to meet its energy needs. In the case at hand, one of those energy demands is creation of additional muscle as a response to recurring stimulus.
Again, just my opinion based on my reading of the literature available. No qualms whatsoever if I'm eventually proven wrong, I just don't believe we've definitively reached that conclusion yet.
To have continued tissue growth other than small amounts of growth generated by being a beginner in resistance training and/or being morbidly obese to the point of where you are using excess fat stores as "energy/calories" to get some small gains, you CANNOT build continued tissue growth without a surplus of energy/calories that exceed energy output.
If you can provide peer-reviewed studies that show otherwise, please enlighten us.0 -
It is very difficult/nearly impossible to a significant gain muscle while losing fat at the same time...
key word significant. also losing fat is natural while building muscle, losing WEIGHT is not0 -
both! are you saying that you can not lower BF% while gaining muscle mass?!
Lower BF% and losing fat are not the same thing. You can lower your BF% by gaining muscle.
For example, let's say I weigh 195 and carry 30 lbs of fat. My BF% is 15%.
I can now gain 10 lbs of muscle and weigh 205. My BF% is now 14.5%.
Or I can now lose 10lbs of fat and weigh 185. My BF% is now about 11%.
But yes, outside of newbie gains when you first start out, you should just consider it an impossibility to gain muscle while losing fat. The body is doing opposite things for these processes and will have mutually exclusive requirements.
pretty sure if you lower your BF% you have lost fat
Not necessarily... re-read the post until it sinks in.0 -
not sure why this has turned into a meat head spat..... simple question. simple answers please. not looking for your theories or meathead spats.
This is certainly not a meathead spat....a threadjack, absolutely, and for that I apologize...and it is a disagreement, but not a spat.
If your goal is to reduce your body fat percentage, you need to increase lean body mass and/or decrease fat mass. One way of increasing lean body mass is by doing resistance exercises...in other words, lift relatively heavy things. Start slow, build up. Meanwhile, a common way to decrease fat mass is to consume less calories than you expend. To do this, consume fewer calories and/or burn more calories. Again, start slow, and tweak from there. The calorie counting side of MFP is an excellent tool for this.
Good luck.0 -
i would just like to know if 50 grams of fat a day is too low or too high for me to accomplish lowering BF% or if it makes a difference at all....
I don't think it matters, 50g or 450 calories is but a part of your intake, mine is higher and I lose fat. If you're fuelling systems on dietary fat they may be better at running on body fat too perhaps ? certainly that's the case for very low carb ketogenic diets.0 -
Outside of newbie gains, you cannot gain muscle without a caloric surplus.
Well, I disagree based primarily on the position that building muscle is one of the expenditures of energy of the body involved in the overall calculation of the calorie deficit needed to lose fat. Just my opinion (and admittedly, your side of this argument certainly seems to have greater CW support. I'm just saying that CW is wrong about this.)
Please explain yourself. First, who is CW? And second, how are you able to grow and build new tissue without energy?
We can start off with that.
CW = conventional wisdom...(which, ironically, I thought was CW itself).
The energy necessary to build the muscle comes from food and from the body's utilization of fat, which is why the body put the fat there in the first place: to meet its energy needs. In the case at hand, one of those energy demands is creation of additional muscle as a response to recurring stimulus.
Again, just my opinion based on my reading of the literature available. No qualms whatsoever if I'm eventually proven wrong, I just don't believe we've definitively reached that conclusion yet.
To have continued tissue growth other than small amounts of growth generated by being a beginner in resistance training and/or being morbidly obese to the point of where you are using excess fat stores as "energy/calories" to get some small gains, you CANNOT build continued tissue growth without a surplus of energy/calories that exceed energy output.
If you can provide peer-reviewed studies that show otherwise, please enlighten us.
My obligatory response is, if you can provide peer-reviewed studies that conclusively support your argument, I would love to be similarly enlightened. (And yes, I mean this sincerely.)
I still argue that all natural muscle gain is "small"...say, about 15 pounds/year at most. If a person had enough fat to lose a measurable amount of it over this same time, there is no reason (for me) to believe they would not be able to add that 15 pounds of muscle while losing X pounds of fat. That the body can do it at all (even a "small gain") shows that the fundamentals for it exist. One can not argue that my position defies natural laws of thermodynamics while acknowledging that their own position only seems to defy those natural laws a little bit.0 -
He baiting you, simply because there are no studies that show sustainable muscle growth in a deficit as you maintain and probably why your not supporting your arguement with a simple cut and paste. The BB'ing community would love your theory for sure.......gaining muscle without that pesky fat accumlation.Outside of newbie gains, you cannot gain muscle without a caloric surplus.
Well, I disagree based primarily on the position that building muscle is one of the expenditures of energy of the body involved in the overall calculation of the calorie deficit needed to lose fat. Just my opinion (and admittedly, your side of this argument certainly seems to have greater CW support. I'm just saying that CW is wrong about this.)
Please explain yourself. First, who is CW? And second, how are you able to grow and build new tissue without energy?
We can start off with that.
CW = conventional wisdom...(which, ironically, I thought was CW itself).
The energy necessary to build the muscle comes from food and from the body's utilization of fat, which is why the body put the fat there in the first place: to meet its energy needs. In the case at hand, one of those energy demands is creation of additional muscle as a response to recurring stimulus.
Again, just my opinion based on my reading of the literature available. No qualms whatsoever if I'm eventually proven wrong, I just don't believe we've definitively reached that conclusion yet.
To have continued tissue growth other than small amounts of growth generated by being a beginner in resistance training and/or being morbidly obese to the point of where you are using excess fat stores as "energy/calories" to get some small gains, you CANNOT build continued tissue growth without a surplus of energy/calories that exceed energy output.
If you can provide peer-reviewed studies that show otherwise, please enlighten us.
My obligatory response is, if you can provide peer-reviewed studies that conclusively support your argument, I would love to be similarly enlightened. (And yes, I mean this sincerely.)
I still argue that all natural muscle gain is "small"...say, about 15 pounds/year at most. If a person had enough fat to lose a measurable amount of it over this same time, there is no reason (for me) to believe they would not be able to add that 15 pounds of muscle while losing X pounds of fat. That the body can do it at all (even a "small gain") shows that the fundamentals for it exist. One can not argue that my position defies natural laws of thermodynamics while acknowledging that their own position only seems to defy those natural laws a little bit.0 -
I did not say it was an *ideal* approach for all situations. Absolutely, for an objective of maximizing muscle gain and including a period of time to calorie restrict/cut to very low bf% for a specific point in time, then yes, the traditional bulk/cut approach absolutely makes the most sense. I am simply saying that achieving these two *seemingly incompatible* goals simultaneously is not unrealistic for an average person, especially when their stated goal is just to reduce their bf %. And I would certainly argue that it is the healthier approach of the two.0
-
-
I did not say it was an *ideal* approach for all situations. Absolutely, for an objective of maximizing muscle gain and including a period of time to calorie restrict/cut to very low bf% for a specific point in time, then yes, the traditional bulk/cut approach absolutely makes the most sense. I am simply saying that achieving these two *seemingly incompatible* goals simultaneously is not unrealistic for an average person, especially when their stated goal is just to reduce their bf %. And I would certainly argue that it is the healthier approach of the two.
Your basically describing newbie gains and for someone that is obese or have a lot of body fat they may see these gains for a longer time period and I suspect the amount of deficit would also affect that timeline as well, the higher a deficit the more stress and less fat is going to muscle gain and more to function. The adaption period (timeline/newbie gains) is based on our fight or flight response and the basic need for survival, when one becomes more vital it take priority.
The average person introduces weight training and starts to diet or introduces weight training while dieting is seen by the body as a threat....will the body life longer building muscle or burning fat for energy. This threat is real and starts building muscle so it can cope better to this threat and survive another day, while still burning body fat. Eventually after a time the threat diminishes or the priority has shifted and in the case of low body fat, protein is used for energy and we lose muscle in that deficit. Otherwise with higher body fat that threat simply through survival from building muscle calculates the timeline and I suggest that the overall threat was/has been substained successfully now appears less of a threat, or, the body decides that less energy will go to muscle building and more to function, so muscle building slows and reserves go to the timeline to extend life. Eventually energy to survival outweighs muscle building and eventually muscle building stops. Of course how much fat someone has and how much of a deficit someone is in all effect how this timeline unfolds, but there's no doubt that muscle building stops.
What your saying is someone with enough body fat regarless of whether their new to body building can gain up to 15 lbs a year. I have my doubts, I've never seen a study to come close and I've looked. Your theory I believe is piggybacking on the newbie gain theory and your extrapolating a theory from that, until I see proof I think 15 lbs in 1 year is a stretch, but I'm not discounting that in the right conditions, it could be more than a couple of lbs.0 -
i would just like to know if 50 grams of fat a day is too low or too high for me to accomplish lowering BF% or if it makes a difference at all....
It doesn't make a difference. The fat you eat is not the same fat that gets stored.
It's all about energy. If you eat below your TDEE you will lose bodyfat.0 -
To answer your original question, you are eating good fats and thier proportion in you eating plan is fine. they are neither good or badd for fat loss. It won't cause you to lose fat and it will only cause you to gain fat if you are eating in a surplus so you are good! You protein intake is good for your weight. Wouldn't hurt anything for it to be a little higher. Wouldn't hurt anything if you left it the same.0
-
LOL..quoted for truth.Do yourself a favor and don't PM him.
:laugh:0 -
tyring to figure this one out....
most of my fat comes from avacados, salmon, nuts, coconut oil and sometimes bacon
etc
i'm trying to build muscle and lower BF%
how many grams are ideal for 24 y/o F, 5'7", 130 lbs?!
am i consuming too much? too little?
open diary
Not really gonna help with losing fat... at least not on its own.
But fat makes you feel more satisfied, so good fats might make it easier for you to stay on your diet, otherwise known as eating at a calorie deficit.0 -
So lets start with clarification. Technically, athletes have some the ability to gain lean muscle mass while on a caloric deficit as noted by the thread below. The key word is Athlete
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet
OP, to figure out your fat content, it's not too hard. You generally want .8 g of protein per lb of weight, .35 g of fats per lb and the rest carbs.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions