# eating copious amounts of fat...



## kcoleman (Jul 1, 2008)

Ok so I want to get back into working out and gaining mass. I'm pretty sure my body responds better to a high fat / moderate protein / lower carb diet. Right now I weigh 165.

I'm just going to throw these numbers out there, but let's say I base a diet around a 40/40/20 protein/fat/carb ratio, and I want to get in at least 3000 calories (to start). That would mean eating 300g protein, 130g fat, and 150g carbs. I'm thinking I could use even less carbs than that.

Now as I progressed I'd of course need to ramp up the calories, the required fat could enter the 150g+ range... so my question is, what are some fats that would be healthy to eat in large amounts to meet that quota?


----------



## Built (Jul 1, 2008)

Please get away from ratios. Think "LBM-targeted doses"

In answer to your question, yes. 

Olive oil, avocados, natural peanut butter, raw nuts, egg yolks, meat, fish oil, butter, coconut milk and fat... any natural fats.

A rule I like to use for fat is "no lower than half a gram per pound lean mass"
So, if you have 150 lbs of lean mass (it's an easy number), you'd get in no less than 75g of fat - divide it evenly amongst mono, poly and saturates. 

My feeling is that if you go higher than this (I do to, I don't do well on high carbs but my body LOVES fats), lean on the monos.


----------



## VanessaNicole (Jul 2, 2008)

She's right. Ratios have nothing to do with anything.

Aside from that, there is absolutely no benefit to consuming any more than adequate dietary fats. (Although I will say that in my experience most diets suffer from an inadequate intake of healthful dietary fats and an excess of animal and man-made fats).

There is no proven benefit (or even convincing evidence, in my opinion) associated with consuming fats beyond your body's needs and at the expense of other nutrients.

Everyone's body is a little different, but unless you're an eskimo you're better off with more protein and carbohydrates in your diet.

But good luck, whatever you decide to do.


----------



## Built (Jul 3, 2008)

I must be Inuit. I feel like garbage unless I eat high protein and fat. Every time I go higher in the carbs for extended periods of time I feel like death. Fats are satiating. That's a good enough reason for me.


----------



## Witchblade (Jul 3, 2008)

Assuming nutrient requirements are met, I prefer fats over carbs. Slow digestion.


----------



## Built (Jul 3, 2008)

Another Inuit! We're everywhere! 

I'm so glad the anti-fat hype is sloooowly settling down. There is simply no way I could ever have felt comfortable on the standard "55% of your cals from carbs, 15% from protein, 30% from fat" Canada Food Guide/American Food Pyramid nonsense.


----------



## Biggly (Jul 3, 2008)

This "ratios don't mean anything" stuff makes me grind my teeth...

If ratios don't mean anything then I can eat 100% carbs, as long as I'm within my calorie limit, yes?

No, I need protein.

OK, so I can eat 100% protein then?

No, I need carbs and fats.


Now if there was no limit to my calories then sure, I could eat "enough" protein, "enough" fats and "enough" carbs - but how do you do that within a maximum calorie limit?

"55% of your cals from carbs, 15% from protein, 30% from fat" may not be a ratio that works for you (and it doesn't work for me either) but whatever ratio DOES work for you...

is. a. ratio.


Suppose you do best with 50% protein, 40% fat and only 10% carbs. OK, but that's not a plastic spoon, it's a _ratio_.

hmph.



B.


----------



## Built (Jul 3, 2008)

For ease of communication, let's establish some parameters here. When people in this lifestyle refer to macronutrient ratios, they mean calories from protein, carb and fat relative to total calories. 30-30-40, for example.

A more appropriate way to set up a diet is to fix the proportions, or ratios, on lean mass, something that isn't as variable as total calories. This accomplishes several objectives at once:


It ensures protein INCREASES while cutting, something that becomes increasingly important as a cut deepens, to spare muscle by keeping the body in a nitrogen-positive state.

It ensures adequate fat during a cut, where it is needed for endocrine support and satiety.

It means you don't need to go *ridiculously *overboard with protein consumption while bulking.

It gives an adequate starting point for anyone trying to find comfort in his or her dieting plan: set protein and fat minimums as defined by a LBM-defined ratio (there's that word, didn't hurt a bit) or target, make sure you get in adequate fibre, set a calorie maximum... now find the foods that make this work for you.
None of these objectives is adequately met by the above-mentioned "ratio" approach, unless your calories never ever change.

In this case, hell, use the length of your nose as an anchor for whatever ratio paradigm you like! For the rest of the humans, stick with LBM-based targets. 

My .02



Biggly said:


> This "ratios don't mean anything" stuff makes me grind my teeth...
> 
> If ratios don't mean anything then I can eat 100% carbs, as long as I'm within my calorie limit, yes?
> 
> ...


----------



## Biggly (Jul 3, 2008)

If you're heavily overweight and base your cals on your LBM you won't have the energy to get out of bed but yes, generally LBM is the way to go.



> set protein and fat minimums as defined by a LBM-defined ratio (there's that word, didn't hurt a bit)






Warm fuzzies!



B.


----------



## Built (Jul 3, 2008)

Biggly said:


> If you're heavily overweight and base your cals on your LBM you won't have the energy to get out of bed...


Now this brings up a WHOLE 'nother ball game. 

We were talking about macronutrient grams in the earlier discussion, not energy requirements. 

Maintenance calories are best discovered by direct measurement, not by calculation. Track what you eat. If you neither gain nor lose, this is YOUR maintenance. 

 Using a tool to _estimate _your maintenace - based on parameters such as weight, bodyfat, age, sex and height - will produce a value that works well on population averages, which is what they are designed to _predict_. Individuals...  well, something to keep in mind is the old George Box standard "all models are wrong, some are useful". Just because you can make a calculation doesn't mean it will be relevant. Simply put, these regression formulas produce a value that represents the predicted average of all (imaginary) individuals with these same metrics. They don't predict YOUR maintenance calories. 

That being said - there IS room in my heart for such calculations: if, after _careful _tracking, you discover your actual maintenance is dramaticaly lower (or higher, for that matter) than the calculated norm for your parameters, you might want to follow up with an endocrinologist, or a the very least, get your thyroid checked.


----------



## VanessaNicole (Jul 3, 2008)

Biggly said:


> This "ratios don't mean anything" stuff makes me grind my teeth...
> 
> If ratios don't mean anything then I can eat 100% carbs, as long as I'm within my calorie limit, yes?
> 
> ...



No, that's a complete misunderstanding on your part.

If you ate 100% carbohydrates, you would not be meeting your dietary requirements for fats or proteins.

So as long as you meet your body's requirement for each nutrient and maintain an appropriate caloric intake, ratios are a non issue.

You can easily consume entirely different macronutrient ratios from one day to the next while still meeting all of your nutritional needs.

As long as you get enough protein, fat and carbohydrates, for example, it doesn't matter weither protein makes up 35 or 50 percent of your total calories.


----------



## VanessaNicole (Jul 3, 2008)

Built said:


> Now this brings up a WHOLE 'nother ball game.
> 
> We were talking about macronutrient grams in the earlier discussion, not energy requirements.
> 
> ...




Absolutely perfectly put.

That said, even the standard formulas used in practice do not apply to the obese. Their application was never intended for those who are clinically obese (and clinically obese is what most people would only consider to be overweight in my experience).

Formulas are used to find a starting caloric intake within a safe range and then trial and error as explained above is the only effective way of finding the appropriate caloric intake for an obese individual.

However, it's true that obese people need more calories than a non obese person with the same LBM would need.

But obese people are often tired and have no energy and also accustomed to eating large numbers of calories at a given sitting, so even if their caloric intake is spot one they are still often more tired and hungry than a non obese person on an appropriate calorie restricted diet.

I also want to add that while less than 2 percent of overweight and obese individuals have any endrocrinopathy (let alone a type which would result in weight gain), a majority of them will insist that they do and react angrily when full blood work turns up nothing.


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

IMO most people (ahem newbies) that are trying to establish a good diet but have never been successful are better off using a ratio type program.  It's a base, a starting point.  Then as they learn their body and how they do on different macronutrients they are more likely to come out of the "ratio comfort zone" and adjust as their body needs.  In other words, I feel ratios are the best way for a person to establish their new healthy lifestyle.


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

Jodi said:


> IMO most people (ahem newbies) that are trying to establish a good diet but have never been successful are better off using a ratio type program.  It's a base, a starting point.  Then as they learn their body and how they do on different macronutrients they are more likely to come out of the "ratio comfort zone" and adjust as their body needs.  In other words, I feel ratios are the best way for a person to establish their new healthy lifestyle.



I agree completely on giving newbs simple advise to get 'em started. That's why it is so important to give them correct information right up front - and why I suggest a very simple starting point, based on some easy-to set principals. 


Figure out maintenance. Track on fitday or some other way, but track for a few days without changing anything. 
Figure out lean mass. A good ballpark for over-fat people is 80% of goal weight for females, and 90% for males. For the purpose of protein "dosing" this will be more than sufficient. 
Using familiar foods and this information, and without changing calories, set up a day with at least a gram of protein and at least a half a gram of fat per pound lean mass (or estimate as found above), and at least 25g fibre. No need to preplan individual meals, just the total for the day. I like fitday for this because it's easy to manipulate the amounts. 
Once you find a comfortable mix, drop the calories back. The guidelines ensure protein and fat intake will be adequate, so it's a safer way to set up a diet.
Because calories will necessarily drop while cutting, it's important to do something that ensures protein will not. This simple model accomplishes this directive. A ratio approach lowers the essential macronutrients - protein and fat - at a time when your body needs them the most.

I'm a big fan of teaching people the right information right up front. Saves them from having to unlearn it once they know better.

Cheers.


----------



## Nurse_Pup (Jul 7, 2008)

Jodi said:


> IMO most people (ahem newbies) that are trying to establish a good diet but have never been successful are better off using a ratio type program.  It's a base, a starting point.  Then as they learn their body and how they do on different macronutrients they are more likely to come out of the "ratio comfort zone" and adjust as their body needs.  In other words, I feel ratios are the best way for a person to establish their new healthy lifestyle.



This is where newbies typically say screw it because its too much math. If you set constrained parameters, you generally see a deficit in micronutrient intake because they decide the only thing in their diet that hits their "mystical ratio paradigm" is plain chicken, brown rice, yams and salad. Instead of telling them to eat at a specific ratio, why not tell them to eat 1g/lb of bodyweight in protein, .5g/lb in fat (with constraints on sat. fat) and the rest of their calorie allotment coming from clean carb sources. 

Your average person who is just getting into the fitness lifestyle doesn't want to have a calculator next to them everytime they pick up a fork. There are some who do, but from the people i train, they typically want me to tell them what to eat and when to eat it and the less math they have to do the better.


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

Built said:


> I agree completely on giving newbs simple advise to get 'em started. That's why it is so important to give them correct information right up front - and why I suggest a very simple starting point, based on some easy-to set principals.
> 
> 
> Figure out maintenance. Track on fitday or some other way, but track for a few days without changing anything.
> ...


Agreed.  The only problem I find with doing it by LBM at first though is most newbies don't know their LBM.  So they use those bioimpedence scales or to a personal trainer (99% of them don't do it right) and then they have an inaccurate number.  I did hydrostatic once and got a number which I agreed with at 17% before, then went to the gym and had 2 different trainers do my BF%.  One came back with 21% and the other came back at 12%   That's why I really like the ratio method.  

Figure out maintenance - Do a 3-7 days without changing (as you said above)
Deduct 200 cals from maintenance 
Figure out ratio accordingly

Its sounds like we both agree on the "best" method but IMO unfortunately its not always the most accurate method for newbie.  JMHO


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

Nurse_Pup said:


> This is where newbies typically say screw it because its too much math. If you set constrained parameters, you generally see a deficit in micronutrient intake because they decide the only thing in their diet that hits their "mystical ratio paradigm" is plain chicken, brown rice, yams and salad. Instead of telling them to eat at a specific ratio, why not tell them to eat 1g/lb of bodyweight in protein, .5g/lb in fat (with constraints on sat. fat) and the rest of their calorie allotment coming from clean carb sources.
> 
> Your average person who is just getting into the fitness lifestyle doesn't want to have a calculator next to them everytime they pick up a fork. There are some who do, but from the people i train, they typically want me to tell them what to eat and when to eat it and the less math they have to do the better.


My apologies but I'm not understanding your point regarding the math.

How is figuring out 1g or .5g of protein and fat respectively is any different than figuring out ratios?  Math is math and math needs to be done either way.

Just as your way, with a ratio its figuring how many grams of a specific macro a person needs.  You figure it out once and follow it for 6 weeks.

I agree with minimum of 1G of protein per lb of bodyweight but it also depends on the persons current condition.  Say an obese women is 300lbs.  There is no way I would ever suggest ANY woman eating 300g of protein on a newbie diet.....

I do understand where you are coming from but I truly feel doing a ratio is by far the simplest method for newbies.


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

Jodi said:


> Agreed.  The only problem I find with doing it by LBM at first though is most newbies don't know their LBM.  So they use those bioimpedence scales or to a personal trainer (99% of them don't do it right) and then they have an inaccurate number.  I did hydrostatic once and got a number which I agreed with at 17% before, then went to the gym and had 2 different trainers do my BF%.  One came back with 21% and the other came back at 12% :hmm:  That's why I really like the ratio method.
> 
> Figure out maintenance - Do a 3-7 days without changing (as you said above)
> Deduct 200 cals from maintenance
> ...



Now let's look at something here.

Suppose we look at the estimated lean mass based on either 17% or 21%.

Suppose this was a 200 lb man. So he either has 158 lbs of lean mass or 166 lbs of lean mass. If we're using this to "dose" protein and fat, buddy here is going to get in about 160g of protein and about 80g of fat at minimum either way. Thank you for proving my point. 

With percentages, well, which one is good? 40-40-20? 33-33-33? 30-30-40? How come? Will it change if he's dieting? Bulking? How come? And how many calories will he be eating? Because these ratios are fixed on a moving target - total calories - we have a real problem here, particularly since this newb won't know what to do and when. 

I suppose if your goal is to get the client dependent on you then sure, it's worth obfuscating the directions. Me, I like it to make sense so I can spend my time explaining way cooler things.


----------



## Nurse_Pup (Jul 7, 2008)

Jodi said:


> My apologies but I'm not understanding your point.
> 
> How is figuring out 1g or .5g of protein and fat respectively is any different than figuring out ratios?  Math is math and math needs to be done either way.
> 
> ...



Let me elaborate...when people see ratios, they are more concerned that they hit the number than they are that they get in quality food. Say for instance that you have to have one meal left in the day and you've used up most of your carbs. So instead of the person having say a shake with some blueberries or strawberries in it, they'll forgo the fruit because it throws off their ratio. If this is occassional its not a big deal, but over the years i've seen this is a pattern. You end up with people decreasing various micronutrients from their diet on account of some number that means very little. Does 30% carbs differ that much from 32.5% carbs, not really. 

While you are right that math is math, people can more easily remember that x ounces of meat equals so many grams of protein than how a day of food fits into their ratios. With the beginner i'd err on the side of simplicity over the ratios, but that's just me. I would prefer your method for someone who is just past the beginner level who wants to begin to fine tune their diet.


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 7, 2008)

Y'all just made this way to complicated for a newb


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

Built said:


> Now let's look at something here.
> 
> Suppose we look at the estimated lean mass based on either 17% or 21%.
> 
> ...


I don't work in the field so getting a client is not my goal.  The only people I've ever helped are people here, other boards, friends and family.  I'm not trying to get anyone dependent upon me thats for sure.  I want the people I help to understand from the start so I don't get too many questions 

I tell people to "pick" a percentage.  One way means more carbs less fat, another opposite and the other all equal.  I feel it depends on what this newbie is more comfortable with.  Some people want more carbs than fat and protein so ok 30-50-20.  Others, like me, prefer more fat than carbs 40-30-30.  Some want equal - go iso.  Then as time goes on they adjust and usually after 6-8 weeks they are in tune (mostly) with what works better for them and what foods make them feel better.  We are all different and in the end a healthy calorie is still a healthy calorie


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

Jodi said:


> My apologies but I'm not understanding your point regarding the math.
> 
> How is figuring out 1g or .5g of protein and fat respectively is any different than figuring out ratios?  Math is math and math needs to be done either way.
> 
> ...



Ah, you misunderstand because you misinterpreted. I didn't say "per pound bodyweight", I said "per pound lean mass". For people who don't know this figure, I have them ballpark. For example, suppose this woman has a "goal weight" of 150 lbs. For most women, healthy-lean is what they are after, and in their mind's eye, is likely around 20% bodyfat. So I'd use 80% of 150 lbs as an LBM estimate - here, this is 120lbs.

The beauty of the LBM-approach is that the "doses" of protein and fat are minimums. You can go OVER - provided calories don't go over whatever limit you set for yourself - you just can't go under. It prevents protein and fat from going too low while dieting. 

In this case, for this woman, she wants to lose weight, that's great. Fix calories through tracking (ideally) or just by setting a not-too-stupid ballpark to get things started, like say 2000 a day.

Make sure 120g or more come from protein
Make sure 60g or more come from fat
Make sure 25g or more come from fiber
Make sure calories don't go over 2000

Simple. She can eat 120g of protein, or 200g of protein. Won't matter. 

A ratio approach says it will.


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

Jodi said:


> I don't work in the field so getting a client is not my goal.  The only people I've ever helped are people here, other boards, friends and family.  I'm not trying to get anyone dependent upon me thats for sure.  I want the people I help to understand from the start so I don't get too many questions
> 
> I tell people to "pick" a percentage.  One way means more carbs less fat, another opposite and the other all equal.  I feel it depends on what this newbie is more comfortable with.  Some people want more carbs than fat and protein so ok 30-50-20.  Others, like me, prefer more fat than carbs 40-30-30.  Some want equal - go iso.  Then as time goes on they adjust and usually after 6-8 weeks they are in tune (mostly) with what works better for them and what foods make them feel better.  We are all different and in the end a healthy calorie is still a healthy calorie



What's a healthy calorie?


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

Nurse_Pup said:


> Let me elaborate...when people see ratios, they are more concerned that they hit the number than they are that they get in quality food. Say for instance that you have to have one meal left in the day and you've used up most of your carbs. So instead of the person having say a shake with some blueberries or strawberries in it, they'll forgo the fruit because it throws off their ratio. If this is occassional its not a big deal, but over the years i've seen this is a pattern. You end up with people decreasing various micronutrients from their diet on account of some number that means very little. Does 30% carbs differ that much from 32.5% carbs, not really.
> 
> While you are right that math is math, people can more easily remember that x ounces of meat equals so many grams of protein than how a day of food fits into their ratios. With the beginner i'd err on the side of simplicity over the ratios, but that's just me. I would prefer your method for someone who is just past the beginner level who wants to begin to fine tune their diet.


Ok so the way I have always done this is that the ratios are made and then there are planned out meals.  A newbie can go fly by night.  They need to know what they are eating that day.  So when you create the ratios. You know that every day this person needs this amount of P,C,F.  Then its explained that Meals 1-6 have this much P,C,F.  No 32.5G carbs is no diff than 30 but I wouldn't expect a person to go around with a calculator figuring out % every meal.  Thats just silly....


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

Built said:


> What's a healthy calorie?


10 calories from potato chips is different than 10 calories from oatmeal.


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Y'all just made this way to complicated for a newb



I didn't.

I have it all written out, nice and simple: Got Built? » How to set up a diet - basic carb cycling

The ratio approach, like the glycemic index, "six meals a day to stimulate metabolism", and "high reps for cutting" has gone the way of the dodo bird. These were attempts at the right idea, steps in the right direction, but utterly flawed. That's the beauty of the scientific method - it evolves.


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

Jodi said:


> 10 calories from potato chips is different than 10 calories from oatmeal.



Okay, but if you have hit your calorie target, your protein target and your fat target, why does it matter?


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

Built said:


> Ah, you misunderstand because you misinterpreted. I didn't say "per pound bodyweight", I said "per pound lean mass". For people who don't know this figure, I have them ballpark. For example, suppose this woman has a "goal weight" of 150 lbs. For most women, healthy-lean is what they are after, and in their mind's eye, is likely around 20% bodyfat. So I'd use 80% of 150 lbs as an LBM estimate - here, this is 120lbs.
> 
> The beauty of the LBM-approach is that the "doses" of protein and fat are minimums. You can go OVER - provided calories don't go over whatever limit you set for yourself - you just can't go under. It prevents protein and fat from going too low while dieting.
> 
> ...


Actually I was quoting someone else on that. 

I understood what you meant on LBM which is why I mentioned LBM not being as accurate for newbies and feel bodyweight is the best place to start.

I believe we have the same exact idea but we just go about different ways of doing it.  I have just always found that its easier for a person figure out a ratio based on bodyweight than trying to figure exact macros through LBM at first.  Then, overtime I don't feel either are important.  I just like to use it as a baseline and on this board in the past its been easier explaining how ratios work than them trying to figure out their LBM.


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

Built said:


> Okay, but if you have hit your calorie target, your protein target and your fat target, why does it matter?


Because the nutritional value of potato chips is way different than nutritional value of oatmeal.  Which is the healthier option and which ones going to provide better nutrients for the body?  A calorie is a calorie either way but you are going to be healthier eating the oatmeal than the chips.  This is why I feel like weight watchers point system is a joke.


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Y'all just made this way to complicated for a newb


YOU shut up


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

Jodi said:


> Because the nutritional value of potato chips is way different than nutritional value of oatmeal.  Which is the healthier option and which ones going to provide better nutrients for the body?  A calorie is a calorie either way but you are going to be healthier eating the oatmeal than the chips.  This is why I feel like weight watchers point system is a joke.




I could not agree more on the ww front. But then, they donâ??????t ensure adequate protein and fat.
I did the ratio thing for a long time and it really didn't help me understand what was going on (much less successfully diet and keep the weight off like I have these last seven years), but once I read about the LBM-targeted "dosings" paradigm, the whole picture just jumped right out at me. SO MUCH EASIER - and a LOT more flexible!

Listen, try this sometime. Humour me. Pop into fitday or whatever plan you use, and set up a day for yourself or anybody with the guidelines I offered. Set it up at a small deficit, say 15% below maintenance. 

Set for this imaginary client amounts that total up to whatever this calorie level is, but with at LEAST the protein and fat minimums (I strongly recommend 10g of fish oil, but I'll leave this to your discretion), at least 25g of fibre, and you can't use fibre supps for it - it HAS to come from food.

No matter what you come up with, you are almost certain to be more than adequately nourished. And from this baseline, it's very easy to fiddle with increases in protein and or fat to come up with a comfortable diet. For example, many overweight people, particularly women, would NOT do well on 30% or 40% of their diet coming from carbs. This way, they don't have to.


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

Jodi said:


> Actually I was quoting someone else on that.



Ah, sorry. My bad. 

I get all newbies to estimate their own lean mass the way I described. The beauty of the approach is they usually set far too modest goals for themselves, so they slightly overestimate their lean mass - and they eat more protein because of it. It's all good.


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

I haven't used fitday in a long time.  I actually don't count anymore.  I eat what I know is healthy.  If I'm not hungry I will skip a meal.  I probably eat 4 times a day now.  I have been down the road of ratios years ago just to be healthy.  Then decided to compete and when I did that I became addicted and so I cut more and more and more.  Totally screwed up my body from the constant dieting...thyroid, adrenals, digestion etc.  Lots of fun, let me tell ya lol.  I've been the excessive compulsive dieter and it nearly killed me (figuratively of course).  

I know exactly where you are coming from and exactly how you figure it out and I DO agree (especially with the obese on lots of carbs).  Very much so.  I just still find it too complicated for a newbie because of the inaccurate LBM testing.  I also find telling a person they can only have THIS number of G of carbs is a setup for failure.  Most people that are trying to lose weight are not comfortable when you say THIS is it and you can't adjust where a ratio it gives a _little _more freedom to adjust on how they feel.  

Women losing energy with lack of carbs - lower the fat add more carbs.. etc.....they may not lose as much as fast but there will still be progress.


----------



## danzik17 (Jul 7, 2008)

Sweet jesus Jodi is back.

Let the female nutrition expert battle begin (with possible mud wrestling?  )

Anyway so where have you been?


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

Jodi said:


> I haven't used fitday in a long time.  I actually don't count anymore.  I eat what I know is healthy.  If I'm not hungry I will skip a meal.  I probably eat 4 times a day now.  I have been down the road of ratios years ago and then decided to compete and when I did that I became addicted and so I cut more and more and more.  Totally screwed up my body from the constant dieting...thyroid, adrenals, digestion etc.  Lots of fun, let me tell ya lol.  I've been the excessive compulsive and it nearly killed me (figuratively of course).
> 
> I know exactly where you are coming from and exactly how you figure it out and I DO agree (especially with the obese on lots of carbs).  Very much so.  I just still find it too complicated for a newbie because of the inaccurate LBM testing.  I also find telling a person they can only have THIS number of G of carbs is a setup for failure.  Most people that are trying to lose weight are not comfortable when you say THIS is it and you can't adjust where a ratio it gives a _little _more freedom to adjust on how they feel.
> 
> Women losing energy with lack of carbs - lower the fat add more carbs.. etc.....



Jodi, I know it has long been done this way. But I have a whole board full of women who have converted, and they love how much clearer the process is for them, how much more control it gives them over their actual intake AND their comfort

Now, I know, I know, it's change, change is bad because it's changeâ???¦ <c'mon, drink the kool aid, drink the kool aidâ???¦> 

I'm delighted you can do this by feel - especially from what you have overcome. I am SO sorry you went through this. It sounds GHASTLY.

I can almost maintain by feel, but I gain, slowly. I do this from time to time, to test it, but I know how to get it back under control when I've slowly gained the 5-10 lbs. I was fat for twenty years and if I don't track and preplan, I can't maintain my weight. Lots of us former-fatties are like this. The damned fat cells are all like "Feed me, Seymourâ???¦ ". Bastards. 

Oh, and for what it's worth - when I was at the end of my rope, jogging 10k 3x a week on my low-fat ratio diet, the ONLY thing that worked for me was "you can only have this many g of carb". Atkins diet gave me my life back. It got me from obese to normal weight without hunger. I got off Metormin and avoided lipitor. It just didn't get me down to ripped. So I kept readingâ???¦


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Sweet jesus Jodi is back.
> 
> Let the female nutrition expert battle begin (with possible mud wrestling?  )
> 
> Anyway so where have you been?


Hey there!

No battle.  I believe we agree on the same thing just different approaches.  This is a good discussion!  

I've been away because I've been extremely busy, but good.  How are you?


----------



## danzik17 (Jul 7, 2008)

Jodi said:


> Hey there!
> 
> No battle.  I believe we agree on the same thing just different approaches.  This is a good discussion!
> 
> I've been away because I've been extremely busy, but good.  How are you?



Pretty good.  Finally graduated and got a job, so now my schedule is normal enough where I can consistently hit the gym and have a decent diet.

Making more gains in the gym than I ever have thanks to a program that Gazhole and goob have been using, seems like I'm just consistently adding more and more weight to my lifts every time I go.

Other than that I'm working on a couple of small side projects (one of which you may be interested in helping out with!)


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

Built said:


> Jodi, I know it has long been done this way. But I have a whole board full of women who have converted, and they love how much clearer the process is for them, how much more control it gives them over their actual intake AND their comfort
> 
> Now, I know, I know, it's change, change is bad because it's changeâ???¦ <c'mon, drink the kool aid, drink the kool aidâ???¦>
> 
> ...



No need to be sorry, it was a lesson well learned!  My goal is to no longer be ripped but be healthy which took some time to achieve after my screw up and I don't plan on doing anything different now.  So each of us having different goals is what makes us try different approaches.  

I too was a chubster at one point and it was actually the ratios (lol) that got me to where I wanted to be.  Then my goals changed and I tried different approaches to achieve the next level of leanness.  We have to do and try new things or it becomes stale and old and monotonous. 

I've been lucky to FINALLY find that happy medium and to finally be where I want to be.  Its not not having to plan out meals and packing tons of food everyday.  Granted if I was trying to lose weight I would do this but I'm not.


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

Oh hey, I didn't say it wasn't possible to get your diet working with ratios - clearly, it is. Lots of people do it. But this is how I look at it - lots of things turn out to produce the right results, but for the wrong reasons. 

I'm an old woman with various metabolic problems and a desire for simplicity. Please believe me that the moment someone comes up with something simpler than what I propose that works, I'll happily toss aside everything I've written. 

While I'm putting in requests, I'd like it to work while eating nothing but donuts. If it's not too much trouble.

<I freaking LOVE donuts. God's perfect food - just as long as they're not Krispy Kreme>


----------



## Jodi (Jul 7, 2008)

Built said:


> Oh hey, I didn't say it wasn't possible to get your diet working with ratios - clearly, it is. Lots of people do it. But this is how I look at it - lots of things turn out to produce the right results, but for the wrong reasons.
> 
> I'm an old woman with various metabolic problems and a desire for simplicity. Please believe me that the moment someone comes up with something simpler than what I propose that works, I'll happily toss aside everything I've written.
> 
> ...


 Your donuts is my beer


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

Mmmm, the beer and pizza diet. 

I can see the headlines now:

"Two TITANS (you like that? Titans! Makes us seem important!) of the fitness industry join forces to bring you what the world has been waiting for: the donuts and beer diet-diet-diet-diet...!"


----------



## Biggly (Jul 7, 2008)

> Make sure 120g or more come from protein
> Make sure 60g or more come from fat
> Make sure 25g or more come from fiber
> Make sure calories don't go over 2000



120g protein - 480c
60g fat - 540c
= 1020

To reach 2000 means around 250 grams of carbs, ie around 50% of calore intake would be carbohydrates. For bulking or even maintenance that's fine, for cutting not so good.

Anyway, point is, 480, call it 500, IS a ratio of 25% of daily calories if calories are 2000.

So the ratio described here is around 25/25/50

All you've done is make the carb figure variable, saying it doesn't matter if its 25/30/45 or 30/30/30 or anything as long as you get the 25/25 bit. 

Seems to me that's still using ratios, just throwing carbs to chance. However for most people carbs are the No1 thing that affects their weight - and as both Built and Jodi have pointed out, track over time and tune the result, meaning there IS going to be a difference between 25/25/50 and 30/30/30 or whatever.

Also if you say "eat at least 25g of protein" people will take that as "well 20g is OK.."

A ratio is as much about not eating too much of any one food group as it is about eating enough of the others.

Which is more important, protein or calories? Arguably they are as important as each other, because you DO need a minimum of protein and you DO need to restrict your calories (or bump them up or whatever, point is there is a limit).


B.


----------



## Built (Jul 7, 2008)

Biggly said:


> 120g protein - 480c
> 60g fat - 540c
> = 1020
> 
> To reach 2000 means around 250 grams of carbs, ie around 50% of calore intake would be carbohydrates. For bulking or even maintenance that's fine, for cutting not so good.


Not a problem for cutting or bulking. You can get ripped to shreds on sugar. You can get morbidly obese on "clean eats". 


> Anyway, point is, 480, call it 500, IS a ratio of 25% of daily calories if calories are 2000.
> 
> So the ratio described here is around 25/25/50


Yep. That's the beauty of math. If it's a number, you can toss it into an equation.

Doesn't mean it's meaningful. 

Trust me, I have two math-based degrees, and I've marked calculus exams. I've seen plenty of meaningless calculations! 


> All you've done is make the carb figure variable, saying it doesn't matter if its 25/30/45 or 30/30/30 or anything as long as you get the 25/25 bit.
> 
> Seems to me that's still using ratios, just throwing carbs to chance. However for most people carbs are the No1 thing that affects their weight -


For all people, calorie balace is the only thing that affects their weight. 

Short of amputation. 


> and as both Built and Jodi have pointed out, track over time and tune the result, meaning there IS going to be a difference between 25/25/50 and 30/30/30 or whatever.
> 
> Also if you say "eat at least 25g of protein" people will take that as "well 20g is OK.."


Only if they don't understand English. 

Seriously, if you want to calculate your intake as a proportion of your IQ, you go for it. 

[/quote]

A ratio is as much about not eating too much of any one food group as it is about eating enough of the others.

Which is more important, protein or calories? [/quote]
No brainer: calories. 
[/quote]Arguably they are as important as each other, because you DO need a minimum of protein and you DO need to restrict your calories (or bump them up or whatever, point is there is a limit).


B.[/QUOTE]
Yes. You need a minimum of protein. Not a minimum PERCENTAGE of protein.


----------



## Biggly (Jul 7, 2008)

But it IS a percentage if your calorie intake is limited, _which it is._



> You can get ripped to shreds on sugar.



Give that a try some time?



> Which is more important, protein or calories?
> No brainer: calories.



So your donut diet would work then? You don't really need protein, it's kindda optional, as long as you get the calories? We both know that's not the case, you do need your protein, you do need to restrict your calories so protein DOES need to be a certain percentage of your diet.

You can call it a ratio, a percentage, your macro balance or whatever but it's the same thing. 

You can't say you need X amount of protein, Y amount of fats and Z amount of carbs while restricting the total calories to some figure - but ratios don't matter. 

That IS a ratio.


Ok let me make this very simple - if you need 22.5 grams of protein (90 calories) and your calorie limit, for silly example only, is 100, then by definition 90% of your calories must be protein.

If you're not restricted by total calories then sure, to hell with ratios but if you are and you indee ARE, then whatever you eat will be a ratio.

Now you can either eat whatever you like and then count the calories and work out the ratio later, just for giggles - or you can set the calories and ratios as a goal. 

Simply saying "X amount of calories" doesn't cut it if all your calories come from donuts.

To use an old fashioned expression, you need a "balanced" diet and it's not 50/50 because you need fats, carbs, protein and fiber. Fiber is not so much an issue as long as you get enough but the other 3 contain calories - you have a calorie limit so there has to be a balance.

You know, like a ratio?



B.


----------



## Built (Jul 8, 2008)

Honey, I GET ratios. I can calculate them. 

It's just that they are at best an indirect measure of what is going on.

You can take the sugar argument up with Lyle McDonald. I became obese eating clean. 

I'll leave you with this: a recipe for my favourite cake.

White cake with walnut icing	
Total calories:	5729
14% from butter	
14% from sugar	
16% from flour	
1% from eggs	
0% from Baking powder	
2% from skim milk	

Directions
Beat the butter and sugar with the eggs until fluffy. 
In another bown, combine flour and baking powder. I'll be sporting and tell you it's a level tablespoon.

Dump the flour mixture into the butter-sugar-eggs and add the milk all at once. Stir until just mixed, then bake in an oblong pan for 20 minutes at 350 degrees.

Meanwhile, make the icing.
Ingredients:
1% from Vanilla extract 	
14% from brown sugar	
8% from Icing sugar	
14% from walnuts	
9% from butter
7% from whipping cream

Nuke the butter, whipping cream and brown sugar until bubbly. Add the vanilla and beat in the icing sugar. Add chopped walnuts and pour over still-warm cake.


----------



## VanessaNicole (Jul 8, 2008)

Nurse_Pup said:


> This is where newbies typically say screw it because its too much math. If you set constrained parameters, you generally see a deficit in micronutrient intake because they decide the only thing in their diet that hits their "mystical ratio paradigm" is plain chicken, brown rice, yams and salad. Instead of telling them to eat at a specific ratio, why not tell them to eat 1g/lb of bodyweight in protein, .5g/lb in fat (with constraints on sat. fat) and the rest of their calorie allotment coming from clean carb sources.
> 
> Your average person who is just getting into the fitness lifestyle doesn't want to have a calculator next to them everytime they pick up a fork. There are some who do, but from the people i train, they typically want me to tell them what to eat and when to eat it and the less math they have to do the better.



I completely agree.

Any way, highly regimented or complicated programs are statistically less successful over long periods of time.


----------



## Built (Jul 8, 2008)

Agreed.

That's why I like a "feedbag" approach:

Preplan a day with the right calories and with protein, fat and fibre minimums hit or exceeded.

That's it. Eat whatever you want whenever you want it. 

When it's gone, it's gone. Completely brainless.


----------



## danzik17 (Jul 8, 2008)

Nurse_Pup said:


> This is where newbies typically say screw it because its too much math. If you set constrained parameters, you generally see a deficit in micronutrient intake because they decide the only thing in their diet that hits their "mystical ratio paradigm" is plain chicken, brown rice, yams and salad. Instead of telling them to eat at a specific ratio, why not tell them to eat 1g/lb of bodyweight in protein, .5g/lb in fat (with constraints on sat. fat) and the rest of their calorie allotment coming from clean carb sources.
> 
> Your average person who is just getting into the fitness lifestyle doesn't want to have a calculator next to them everytime they pick up a fork. There are some who do, but from the people i train, they typically want me to tell them what to eat and when to eat it and the less math they have to do the better.



Pfft, some of us actually enjoy the plain chicken diet 

Easy to plan and cook, nothing ridiculous.  Throw some mustard on and we have a meal.

I do make sure to take a high quality multi-vit though, and this diet is only until September when I will rotate back to more fruit/carbs for the winter bulk.


----------



## FitChickett (Jul 8, 2008)

Built said:


> Another Inuit! We're everywhere!
> 
> I'm so glad the anti-fat hype is sloooowly settling down.



Im a newbe too (to forums) and you just made my day! The amount of people who STILL believe fat is bad for you tell me constantly that Im mad and slowly killing myself. Its SO nice seeing that Im not alone!!!


----------



## Jodi (Jul 8, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Pretty good.  Finally graduated and got a job, so now my schedule is normal enough where I can consistently hit the gym and have a decent diet.
> 
> Making more gains in the gym than I ever have thanks to a program that Gazhole and goob have been using, seems like I'm just consistently adding more and more weight to my lifts every time I go.
> 
> Other than that I'm working on a couple of small side projects (one of which you may be interested in helping out with!)


That is awesome!  I'm so happy for you.  Glad to see you are still here and reading.  Gazhole and Goob are great resources for training. Its great to see you are making gains.

I may not always be around but if you ever have any question or want to chat about something I think you know how to reach me.  If not PM me and I'll give you the info.

Again.  Congrat!  Good Job!


----------



## Built (Jul 9, 2008)

FitChickett said:


> Im a newbe too (to forums) and you just made my day! The amount of people who STILL believe fat is bad for you tell me constantly that Im mad and slowly killing myself. Its SO nice seeing that Im not alone!!!



You're most certainly not alone. Particularly for women, leaning on fats and away from carbs just makes a LOT more sense: we're so much more insulin-resistant than men. Fat-and-protein meals are satiating. I eat my cottage cheese, avocado and eggs for breakfast and I feel fed until the afternoon! A lowfat bagel and scrambled egg whites and I'm chewing my ARM off within an hour!


----------



## B-Cubed (Jul 9, 2008)

All I track any longer are grams of protein.  Almost everything else is fat.  I'm almost never hungry.  Really, the only time I get hungry is when I've been too long without eating.  Dump some protein and fat on it and it's gone.  Carbs?  What are carbs?

Let me tell you, ratios and lbm dosing are VERY VERY different.

LBM dosing says you need this much protein and this much fat...minimum.  It doesn't say from where the rest of your calories need to come.  It can be more protein, more fat, or carbs...if you like.  But it doesn't HAVE TO come from any particular place.  You eat to make yourself COMFORTABLE.


Ratio dosing says that you MUST get a certain percentage of your total calories from protein, fat, and carbs.

Let compare these two approaches with ME as an example.  I'm 148 lbs and I have about 115 lbs of LBM.  In reality I may have a little more or a little less, but for our purposes, a lb or two won't make much of a difference.

I know from lots of calorie tracking that my maintenance calories are around 2000 calories per day.  Let's suppose I cut only 10% of my calories per day.  That makes 1800 calories a day to cut.

Percentages:  30% fat, 30% carbs, 40% protein is a fairly common recommendation.  So, 60 grams fat, 135 g carbs, and 180 grams protein.  This SEEMS reasonable.  But I can tell you, from experience, that 60 grams of fat a day would leave me wanting to chew my arm off.  If I don't get 80-120 grams of fat a day, I feel like I've been on a ship lost at sea without food for 30 days and I'm considering eating my shipmates.  It makes me 'effing crazy.  No joke.

Targeted to LBM:  57.5 grams fat minimum, 115 grams of protein minimum; the rest is left up to me.  Well, this is less fat and protein than required by the percentages method.  But the important thing to note is that these are MINIMUMS.  I can eat more fat or protein if I so desire.  These minimums total 997.5 calories.  That leaves me 802.5 calories to spend AS I PLEASE.  I can spend them on fat, protein, or carbs, without restriction.  I don't even f**k with worrying about fiber. I've never had a digestive problem as long as I've gotten enough fat.  But I've been on a 30/30/40 getting 30 grams of fiber a day and been stopped the 'eff up.  *I NEED* lots of fat to not feel hungry, so I spend my calories there primarily.  Someone else who needs more carbs than I do, can spend them there.  Someone who wants more protein, can eat more protein if they want.  That is A LOT of flexibility.  It can be COMPLETELY individualized without changing ANYTHING.

Try and tell me percentages are still just as easy.  Tell me to get 35% from fat and 25% from carbs instead of 30/30.  F**K YOU!  70 grams of fat is not enough!  Tell me to get 40% from fat and that BARELY does it at 80 grams of fat for the day.  (I usually get 100 grams or more a day).  And what have we learned from this?  That a recommendation based on percentages of fat/carbs/protein needs to change to suit the particular individual.    That's right, it CANNOT be applied universally.  Any recommendation based on percentages HAS to be adjusted WRT goals, metabolism, IR, etc...

One method is simple, and works for EVERYBODY, is easy to calculate, and works regardless of goals.  The other needs to be adjusted on a case by case basis.  All one method requires is counting.  In the other, the user needs to use basic Algebra.  Take it from a math Professor, this means that MOST people can't do it.

Tell me again how these methods are the same/equivalent/equally as good?


----------



## Biggly (Jul 9, 2008)

I think you misunderstand the general concept of both, or are at least dumping all you dislike on one method.



> I know from lots of calorie tracking that my maintenance calories are around 2000 calories per day



Right, so you agree that tracking and monitoring your calories worked for you, yes? Later you talk of just eating whatever makes you 'comfortable', which is exactly how most people get fat in the first place.

What you mean is what makes you comfortable _within 2000 calories_, or 1800 when cutting.



> I NEED lots of fat to not feel hungry, so I spend my calories there primarily. Someone else who needs more carbs than I do, can spend them there. Someone who wants more protein, can eat more protein if they want. That is A LOT of flexibility. It can be COMPLETELY individualized without changing ANYTHING.



I agree, for a simple plan to throw out there it works but to me the use of ratios is NOT a matter of "Thou shalt eat X% of carbs, Y% of protein and Z% of fat".

That makes no more sense than saying "Thou shalt eat X number of calories".

Doesn't work does it?

Instead you should track and monitor your calories AND track and monitor your macro food groups because as you have so clearly stated, the common ratios that work great for most people leave YOU wanting to chew your arm off, right?

Just like calories, knowing what you thrive on and then setting that as a target can help a great deal with food groups too. 

It's not a matter of "These are the magical numbers that work for everybody", more a matter of track what you actually consume for a couple of weeks, make adjustments and monitor the results, find your ideal then set those ideal figures as targets, adjusting as goals are met.

You want to cut? Reduce calories and adjust your ratios. You wanna bulk? Increase calories and adjust your ratios.

If you just ramp up the calories without regard to your macros you can gain as much or more flab than fab.

If you just decrease your calories without regard to your macros you can lose as much muscle as fat.

As someone who actually sells calorie-counting software for a living I'm the first to say that calories are very important - but they are not the only thing that matters. The quality of what you eat, the ratio of food groups, your training, your sleeping habits, water intake and other such stuff ALSO make a difference. 

Some people, genetically gifted or just plain lucky, do great without ever counting or even considering calories let alone macros, while for many others adjusting their macros rather than just calories has made the difference between "Diets don't work" and "Hey! Look at me!"

Essentially the difference in approach is the LBM method is great for advising a newby as guidlines to get started, while the monitoring and control of both macro ratios and calories is a technique to fine-tune for maximum results.

Yes, maximum in terms of both results and comfort, because if it's not comfortable you just won't do it.

As an aside, someone mentioned the idea that strict regimes don't work long term. I'd agree but totally lax regimes don't work either, be it long term or short term. I should also point out that monitoring and measuring what you actually eat is considered one of the most effective methods there is - and is the first thing your doctor will tell you to do.

Amazon.com: Get Fit with Technology: How to Lose Weight Using Your PC: Jordan Gold: Books

"The Journal of the American Medical Association has found that people who use their PCs in conjunction with weight loss programs lose three times more weight than people who don't."

There's a difference between a strict regime and sticking strictly to a regime that works for you - controlling your macros doesn't mean blindly following someone else's figures - it means strictly doing what works for you.



B.


----------



## Built (Jul 10, 2008)

Biggly said:


> I think you misunderstand the general concept of both, or are at least dumping all you dislike on one method.



I doubt it. You are telling a professor of mathmatics who has published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals that she doesn't understand the general concept of a mathematical ratio.


> Instead you should track and monitor your calories AND track and monitor your macro food groups because as you have so clearly stated, the common ratios that work great for most people leave YOU wanting to chew your arm off, right?


No, she's saying the ratios don't ensure steady dosing of the satiating macronutrients. If she chose a ratio approach, she wouldn't know that it might be "120g of fat" for cutting OR bulking. The grams might not change for one of the macronutrients. 

A ratio approach obfuscates this simple fact. 



> You want to cut? Reduce calories and adjust your ratios. You wanna bulk? Increase calories and adjust your ratios.



Why adjust the ratios when the only thing you might need to drop is the carbs? If you measure directly, using grams, you know what it is that gives comfort. If you do everything through ratios, it's like driving down the road by backing up and looking through the rear-view mirror. 



> If you just ramp up the calories without regard to your macros you can gain as much or more flab than fab.



Really! 

So, let's set the scene here. 

Suppose I maintain on 2000 calories a day and I am consuming 180g protein, 90g fat and 118 g carbohydrate on average to do so. 

I now decide to bulk and increase my calories to 2250 a day - reasonable for a female since our ability to gain muscle is less than a pound a month. At 2250, the most fat I'll gain is 2 lbs in a month, so I accept this as a possibility in the worst-case and proceed.

I can increase carbs, fat or protein, or of course, all three. Let's make the bold assumption that I don't lower any of them from what I maintained at. 

Which combination of additional calories will make me flabby?



> *As someone who actually sells calorie-counting software for a living*



And that system uses ... wait for it ... ratios!


----------



## Biggly (Jul 10, 2008)

And that system also uses LBM calculations and protein per lb, calculated both by the US Navy formula or via skinfold measurements, as you'd know if you actually downloaded the demo and gave feedback for the current version while I'm working on version 2.3, as I asked you to about 2 weeks ago.

It also allows you to enter both calories and ratios manually, plus you're free to ignore the ratio graphs if you wish and just track your physique, mood and calories - or do as most peeps do and look at the graphs, see if you learn anything about yourself. It's measuring and monitoring, not "Thou shalt" - or it wouldn't have the option of manually changing the ratio targets would it?

The invite for feedback still stands and if you feel it could do with more on the 'per lb of lean mass' stuff then sure, I can do that too. Right now it only does that with protein.

What specific minimums do you think are best and on what basis?



> Which combination of additional calories will make me flabby?



Well if you accept adding another 4lb of flab, who cares?

What you describe is around 36% protein, 40% fat and 23% carbs. If you're bulking my suggestion, but it's just a suggestion as it wouldn't work for everybody, would be to increase the carbs. You don't need any extra protein, as long as you're getting your EFAs you don't need any extra fat, while the extra carbs would provide the energy for growth and training.

Simply adding extra fat on a maintenance calorie level would just lead to fat storage and if that is indeed your maintenance (2000) then you're not very large and certainly don't need any extra protein. If you want more calories I'd go for carbs. If you simply ramped up the calories on the exact same ratio you're just wasting protein, adding fat AND adding carbs - why?

But like I say, what works for you may be different for someone else. For some people 23% carbs would leave them in a semi-coma and kill their enthusiasm for training in the first place. Whatever.

So if I were to use 'dosage' what would you recommend for what food groups? At present it uses 1.5 grams of protein per lb of lean body mass. 

Would you set a minimum of carbs or do you think carbs are unnecessary or what?


B.


----------



## Built (Jul 10, 2008)

I don't _think _carbs are unnecessary. This is not my _opinion_. The body is capable of making all the glucose it needs, therefore there can be no minimum requirement for carbohydrate. They are, quite simply, not necessary for survival. Not saying they can't have ergogenic or flavour qualities, just that they're not _essential_, going by the definition of the word "essential" in this context. 

Why would one "ratio" make me fatter than another? Can the body somehow calculate these ratios?

PS I apologize, I misspoke myself earlier. 250 cals a day over maintenance is 2 lbs a month, not four. I'm used to working these out for men, their gains can easily be double ours. Gaining muscle has a cost, and that cost is fat-gain. We all try to keep this down to a dull roar, but once newbie gains are over, alas, recomposition isn't much of an option. 

Getting back to my question though, why would more carb make me gain muscle, but more fat make me gain fat?


----------



## Biggly (Jul 10, 2008)

Fat, when the body is sated, is not going to be used for anything, it's just going to be stored as what it already is, with zero thermal cost or hesitation.

Carbs, to be converted into fat, costs calories, albeit a tiny amount barely worth mentioning but you did ask. It's enough for the body to USE those calories by preference while triggering hormonal responses that it's well fed. That in turn is anabolic, whilst excess fat isn't. It's true you need enough fat to trigger testosterone production and so on but beyond that point it serves no purposes and just gets stored. The same applies to carbs but at least the body tries to use them if it can - in fact can come to rely on carbs to the point that most people on a high carb diet suffer greatly when you take carbs away.

Both carbs and protein will be converted to fat in excess but generally the body will try to use protein, burn carbs and store fat. That's what they are, building blocks, energy and stored energy. 

If you go really low carbs, effectively zero carbs then the body will happily burn fat instead but what were we saying about strict regimes?


So, you don't think carbs are necessary, so what would you recommend as minimum 'doses' of fats and protein, per lb LBM?



B.


----------



## Built (Jul 10, 2008)

You did not read the italics. I will re-state. It isn't my OPINION that carb is not an essential macronutrient. It is a simple case of human physiology. We never require a single gram. Therefore, there is no minimum. It is not an essential macronutrient. 

So - on the same calories,  I'll get fatter on more fat, but on more carbs I won't. Got any proof?


----------



## Biggly (Jul 10, 2008)

No, no proof whatsoever beyond the experience of others and myself.

Would you answer my question please, what minimums do you recommend?



B.


----------



## Biggly (Jul 10, 2008)

you know B, the thing that always makes me smile at the irony is that most places I go it's me arguing that fat isn't bad, carbs are evil, cardio is hopeless by itself, calories are king and weight training is the ultimate fat burner.

We're singing from the same hymn book, just different pages. 

I often hear peeps saying "it doesn't matter what you eat as long as your calories are OK" - I know we'd both disagree, you need a certain amount of protein and essential fats etc. We both agree things should be as easy as possible - which realistically means peeps will indeed eat carbs, which to me means restricting fat, especially if eaten at the same time. You'd rather just ditch the carbs and eat the fat, OK, we agree, just a different approach.

I'm serious regarding what you consider minimums, if you've already done the research what's the latest? How many grams of fat and protein, ignoring the different types of fat for now and just using a total, per lb or kg of lean mass would you consider minimum for using 'dosing' per se?

Or anyone else, does anyone have any hard figures on this?

I just tend to follow the 1gram per lb or better still 1.5g per lb LBM but if there's a recognised minimum that has worked in the real world then I and other enquiring minds would like to know?


B.


----------



## Jodi (Jul 10, 2008)

B-Cubed said:


> Tell me again how these methods are the same/equivalent/equally as good?


Most of us don't eat low carb or zero carb diets


----------



## Built (Jul 11, 2008)

Jodi said:


> Most of us don't eat low carb or zero carb diets



A lot of us do, though. And likely a lot more of us should, in light of the current obesity and type II diabetes epidemic.  Lower carb diets can be a Godsend to anyone with these problems. 


*Biggly*, the guideline for protein I like to use is pretty much what you are recommending - and seems fairly standard among athletes and strength-coaches I respect (Berardi, McDonald, Thibaudeau and many, many others...): set protein at no lower than a gram per pound lean mass. I further suggest setting a fat minimum at half a gram per pound lean mass.

The small problem here is that most folks don't walk around knowing their body composition. That part's easy to ballpark though - experience has shown me that most people have a pretty good idea in their mind's eye of what weight they'd have to be at in order to see abs. 

I call this the "pipe-dream" weight. 

For most folks, this looks roughly like 10% bodyfat for men, and roughly like 20% bodyfat for women, so that's what I suggest as a ballpark. Generally, people overshoot this weight, but really, it'll be close enough for our purpose - this is just to set a protein minimum anyway. 

Unless you're in a renal unit getting kidney dialysis, under or overshooting even 20 or so grams of protein isn't going to do you any harm at all. 

Armed with this guesstimated LBM and average calories, the rest is pretty mechanical. For more detail, I have a few posts on this in my blog:
Got Built? » Eat less and move more
Got Built? » How to set up a diet - basic carb cycling


----------



## Biggly (Jul 11, 2008)

OK, thank you. Will read your blog posts in a minute.

Biggly has a "Biggly Body Index" score, from 0 to "100% Biggly", which uses a complicated formula but for body fat targets it's set as 9% for men, 12% for women. It uses other factors to figure out if you're just very skinny or actually ripped. For example you won't score 100% if you're a male at 9% but a low BMI and hips much wider than your waist, as that's just scrawny (for a male).

Basically I just wanted something more useful and informative than the BMI scale, which is pretty useless or misleading by itself. I probably will change the woman's figure though, as I think 12% is perhaps asking too much, even at body building levels. I'll meet you in the middle at 16% 

Anyway for calculating body fat levels it already does that, with multiple methods, though this version will have target figures and I could incorporate your figures in there with that, somehow. I'll figure it out. 

Silly question alert - is there any recognised name for this method? I was thinking of calling it "Flexible with Minimums" but is there a well-known widely-used term I'm missing somewhere?

The sw is already a lot more sophisticated than v1.0 but I still have about 3 pages of notes for future enhancements (including a free online version that can sync with the paid desktop product). Carb cycling is detailed in the accompanying book but I'm not sure how to incorporate it into the sw. It's easy enough to figure out what you're doing cos the info is in front of you but I'd like to figure out an automated method. I suspect though it varies too much with individuals - I don't think there's a formula per se but any ideas are welcome.

Off to read your blogs.. thanks again


B.


----------



## Built (Jul 11, 2008)

I don't consider bodybuilding standards for "normal" folks. Most bb have a pretty good idea of their bodyfat percentage and LBM - my guesstimate is close enough for those who have NO clue. 

12% is very lean for a woman - bodybuilders typically compete at 9-11%, figure at 10-12% (although they'll generally be morons and say they're leaner than this because some idiot trainer calipered them at 7% and they believe it). I'm 14% (confirmed by DEXA) in my avatar here and I had veins in my abs. 

By contrast, 9% is nice and lean for a man, but not diced. I'd say 16-18% is a nice "athletic lean" for a woman.


----------



## B-Cubed (Jul 12, 2008)

Biggly said:


> I often hear peeps saying "it doesn't matter what you eat as long as your calories are OK" - I know we'd both disagree, you need a certain amount of protein and essential fats etc. *We both agree things should be as easy as possible* - which realistically means peeps will indeed eat carbs, which to me means restricting fat, especially if eaten at the same time. You'd rather just ditch the carbs and eat the fat, OK, we agree, just a different approach.



Then why do you insist on touting a method that isn't?

I'm all about simplicity.



Biggly said:


> I just tend to follow the 1gram per lb or better still 1.5g per lb LBM but if there's a recognised minimum that has worked in the real world then I and other enquiring minds would like to know?



Any amount of protein above and beyond what the body needs is really just an expensive form of carbohydrate.  Expensive as in protein costs quite a bit more than carbs do.


I guess on of the major questions is this:
When cutting calories to get lean, do we cut fat or do we cut carbs?  Fat is an _essential_ nutrient.  Fat gives flavor and texture to food and is _satiating_.  On the other hand, carbohydrates are _non-essential_.  And, because of the insulinogenic response that many people (particularly women or anyone who is the least bit IR) have to them, they make people more hungry instead of less hungry.  Not exactly ideal when you've reduced your caloric intake and trying to stay compliant on a diet.

So, why do many people have such a hard time low-carbing it?
Part of the problem I see, and had myself when I first went low carb, was that when I first reduced my carb intake I felt sluggish and out of it.  Many people report feeling this way when starting a low carb diet.  But as time goes on our bodies adapt to using fat as fuel, and when that happens the sluggishness disappears.

From an evolutionary perspective, eating primarily meat (poultry, lamb, bison, cow, fish, etc.), fat (nuts, olives, meat fat), and fruit makes total sense.  And even then, fruits and such were only available to us on a seasonal basis.  Before the advent of modern day farming (relatively recently in human history), grains weren't a major part of the human diet.  Our bodies aren't designed to process grains.  We didn't evolve that way.

But this is quite off topic now, eh?
LBM dosing method:  Direct, simple and universally applicable.  (This is the sort of simplicity that we strive for in mathematics.)

Ratio dosing method: Indirect, more complicated, and not universally applicable.  (This is like a proof by exhaustion and starting with Case 1:... when there are infinitely many cases.)


----------



## Biggly (Jul 12, 2008)

> Then why do you insist on touting a method that isn't?



It's hardly complicated when A. you have software in front of you doing the calculating and B. you're a dedicated bodybuilder. Carb cycling is complicated, heck I recall trying to explain it to my brother in law once, should have seen his face. He thought it was the most complicated and ludicrous thing he ever heard.

Bodybuilders do it all the time and often try to find the _best _of various carb cycling methods, so horses for courses I guess.

Heck, try explaining to the average couch spud the fun of lifting weights? To some the very idea of "reps and sets" is complicated, throw in rest period, tempo, reverse reps.. "Can't I just go jogging? This is all hard work and complicated.."

Too much like work, they'd rather watch TV on their treadmill. For an awful lot of people getting their arse off the sofa is "too much effort".

Some tell me Biggly software is too complicated and too much hassle - and some write and ask if I have a more sophisticated pro version that doesn't just track thigh and calf, upper and fore-arms, chest etc. No, they want to track different specific muscles, the _shape _of different muscles, not to attempt to shape them but to match left and right... 

At competition level few would consider such things complicated yet to the average bod on the street just counting calories in the 1st place is "Way too complicated for me!"

Again it's a comfort level thing. 

Yes fat is good for satisfying an appetite - during the day. While eating it, it does nothing much, whereas carbs give a direct feedback. You can sit and much your way through a whole tube of Pringles no problem but near halfway of a large bar of chocolate and you feel sick and 'couldn't eat another thing'.

Likewse the body can cope with mild increases in carbs, using it as extra energy there and then or burning it off with a temperature increase and so on, not to mention the calories burnt to digest it. With fat the slightest excess is stored, with no effort whatsoever, especially if there are ANY carbs in the picture.

Yes, you can convert your body to fat burning, what I refer to as a "happy candle burner", IF you go really low or zero carb for extended periods. For some the sheer simplicity of really low carbs is good, for others it's a nightmare because they'll never resist a few carbs here and there - and invariably consume carbs and fat at the same time.

Really low carb - nice and simple
Really low carb - too complicated and impractical

Both are correct, pick one?

Me, I like carb cycling, best of both worlds, for some it's the worst of both worlds - who's right?

That's why I developed the software in the first place. As Built puts in her blog and I've been there, dozens of books, different approaches and the only person you know it works for is the author. My software's flexible, you can use ratios or ignore them, use per lb of lean mass, base calories on lean or gross weight - but ultimately it's about tracking over time and seeing what works for you. Experiment and take everything with a pinch of salt.

Are ratios complicated? If too complicated for you then sure, too complicated. For others it's exactly the guidance they're looking for.

Again the irony, I try to learn more of a solid foundation on this basic method and get jumped on... 

I just pointed out ratios matter, if only in response to the idea they don't matter a damn. If you have a max' number of calories and X amount must come from this, Y amount from that, it's a ratio. Whether you use it as a method of calculating or not, the ratio is there. 


My final word before I shut up, if there were perfect methods that work for everyone, regardless of their committment, comfort zone, genetics, lifestyle, etc etc, why do we even have this forum in the first place? Seems to me it's a place to bounce ideas and methods off each other, see what sticks, while helping out newbies and getting mutual support while also a learning process.

Lately it seems more like an octagon...





B.


----------



## danzik17 (Jul 12, 2008)

Well the only input I have on this is the concern for the balance between Omega 3/6/9 fats.  On a high fat diet, it's near impossible to have the correct ratio of those fats, that's why I have no problem using this diet to lean out for a few months but would not consider it at all for a lifestyle diet.  

Although I wasn't lean on my old diet, the "beastly" amount of o3 fats and healthy fiber I was taking in had my cholesterol ratios at an incredibly good level and also far below the "average" for my age.  On this diet, I'm leaning out but honestly have not had any blood tests done, but I'm sure that the ratio of fats I'm eating is off because quite frankly I can't afford to eat salmon over chicken at every meal


----------



## Built (Jul 13, 2008)

danzik, I just take fish oil. Cheap and effective. My diet is fairly high-fat and my lipid profile is now enviable. Note that this was not always the case: on my former low-fat diet, it was terrible. Mind you, this is hardly unexpected. Sadly, medical practice has not kept up with the research in this regard. But I digress.

Getting back to fat metabolism, I think to my own experience with higher carbs and all that ever happened to me on them was:

Increased hunger -> increased caloric intake (unless Iâ??????m deliberately restricting and just put up with the â?????chewing my arm offâ??? feeling â?????? yeah right!) 

 â?????? and subsequent weight gain (read: fat gain). 

Increased fats on the other hand just make me more comfortable â?????? and seem to have health-giving benefits that have not been afforded to me by increasing carbs (joints feel better, no migraines, skin is better and never dry, energy and mental clarity are better, and of course appetite control is much, MUCH improved). I realize some folks experience the exact same phenomenon with higher carb diets on comparably high levels of protein; Iâ??????m just relaying my own experience.

Thing is, regardless of dietary composition, we all get improved insulin sensitivity after heavy resistance training, something I take advantage of by carb-cycling and nutrient-timing my carb intake around this window. 

Lyle McDonald takes this to extremes with UD2.0 of course, and I had a conversation with him a while back about a low-carb bulk, where protein and fat are high through the day other than post-workout:



			
				Teh Lyle said:
			
		

> â???¦basically 100 g/carbs per day (split up across other meals) PLUS carbs around training (amount depending on volume).  Lots o' protein and fat making up the balance of daily calories.
> 
> The idea is to attempt to induce full body insulin resistance (especially at fat cells) but let training improve muscular insulin sensitivity/nutrient uptake.
> 
> Voila: partitioning



In light of my personal experience, and this conversation with one of the top nutrition experts of our time, I decided to revisit the topic of fat consumption. 

Biggly, this post of yours echoed a line I feel we've all been fed for years - but like others, when pressed for backup, you really couldn't point to any real evidence.



Biggly said:


> Fat, when the body is sated, is not going to be used for anything, it's just going to be stored as what it already is, with zero thermal cost or hesitation.
> 
> Carbs, to be converted into fat, costs calories, albeit a tiny amount barely worth mentioning but you did ask. It's enough for the body to USE those calories by preference while triggering hormonal responses that it's well fed. That in turn is anabolic, whilst excess fat isn't.



I decided to bring this to my good friend Jeff Schaedle, since I have consulted with him before on writing projects for expert nutrition information - and I trust his combined personal experience with bodybuilding nutrition and his formal science education in dietetics. 

This was his response:



			
				Jeff Schaedle said:
			
		

> I briefly touched on digestion in an earlier conversation, but I will point out that the metabolism gets pretty intense.  I can go into this if you wish, but it would be a few pages of conversion and pathways that gets confusing.  It was a bitch to memorize for advanced nutrition 2 years ago.
> 
> But, the uses of fats are anything from phospholipids -> glycerophosphatides used for cell membranes, phosphatidylinositol for cell functions such as anchoring membrane proteins, functions as second messengers in cell signalling, triggers for activation of enzymes and hormone responses, Sphingomyelins which occur in plasma membranes and are found in myelin sheaths of nerve tissue, glycolipids in brain and nerve tissue,
> 
> ...


----------



## SlimS (Jul 13, 2008)

MA beat me to it, lol.

Excuse any spelling mistakes in there.

Also keep in mind that the outline of "fat usage" is pretty much the Cliff Notes of the Cliff Notes of the Cliff Notes.


----------



## Biggly (Jul 13, 2008)

Hi B, that's all manner of interesting but I don't see how he's saying anything different from what I've said?



> Biggly, this post of yours echoed a line I feel we've all been fed for years - but like others, when pressed for backup, you really couldn't point to any real evidence.



No, not without getting into a Latin-fest like this, which is why I declined the challenge.



> Triacylglycerols, which account for 95% of dietary fat, are a highly concentrated source of energy, and are oxidized after leaving adipose cells as free fatty acids and then carried by albumin to various tissues.



Yes but _when _does fat leave the fat cells?

When there's a significant calorie deficit or when you've gone low carb long and hard enough and the body has no choice and switches to "happy candle burning", like I said earlier.

You present partitioning as a backup to your point, when you know I describe partitioning in my book? So which is it, are we keeping things simple or expecting people to follow Ultimate Diet 2? It's on my other computer but if you like I can paste some Latin from it but why argue the point?

As your own quote sez:



> ** In the "fed" state, metabolic pathways in adipose tissue cells favor triacyglycerol storage (ya get fatter)
> 
> However, insulin inhibits intracellular lipase, which hydrolyzes stored triacyglycerols.... which is exactly why a bulking diet of high fat would call for a low amount of carbohydrate.



Put simply, 95% of dietary fat, in the presence of pretty much _any _signficant carbs, gets stored and stays there. To use the energy from fat you have to force your body to convert it to sugar, which it won't do if you're _eating _sugar.

As I said, IF you go extemely low carbs this works, for most people. However most people cannot maintain such low carbs for low, hence cycling and partitioning.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that extremely low carb or partitioning is what some would find "complicated" or "impractical".



B.


----------



## Built (Jul 13, 2008)

I just wanted to offer up that it's more complicated than you made it seem from your post - that the fat is literally just pouring into the fat cells. I'll wait for people who are far more schooled in these things to step up to the plate with more.


----------



## SlimS (Jul 13, 2008)

It doesn't *have* to be a very low carbohydrate diet.

lipolytic activity is decreased in the presence of high blood glucose and insulin.

Is your blood glucose and insulin ALWAYS high on a diet over 100g carbs?

No.

While adipocytes are the major storage site for triglycerides, they are in a constant state of turnover involving lipolysis and reesterfication.   Control the balance of this and win the war on bodyfat.

Technically, fat is not converted to glucose for energy.

A triglyceride can undergo hydrolysis in which the glycerol molecule is used by the liver to produce glycerol phosphate and then enter energy oxidation or gluconeogenesis.

The fatty acids from that triglyceride would undergo beta-oxidation in which the fatty acids gets converted to a saturated CoA-activated faty acid and enters the Krebs Cycle.


As personal evidence, in 2003, I got the leanest I ever have been at 185 lbs eating 500g carbs/day, with over 100g dextrose pre and post workout, wih the rest oy my carbs being processed bagels.  This was free of any tricks or supplements designed to enhance fat burning, partitioning, etc.  My fat intake was 50-100g/day

Without scientific explanation, that pretty much rules out that fat in the presence of carbohydrate HAS to be stored, or that if if it is stored, it can't come back out and be used in the methods above.

So basically someone has to determine the right amount of carbs for them and what they can get away with.  

Or the simple massive reduction is carbs to 50-100g/day with either ephedrine (etc) to blunt appetite, or enough fat to do the same job.


----------



## SlimS (Jul 13, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Put simply, 95% of dietary fat, in the presence of pretty much _any _signficant carbs, gets stored and stays there.



Read back to what I said about Triacyglerols.

Although 95% of dietary is IS triglycerides, that does not mean the end result of those is going to be the same form once digested, etc.

These triglycerides release free fatty acids  that can be used for numerous other products briefly described earlier.

It is true that triglycerides can be reformed in the bloodstream as well.  

To say that 95% of the fat you eat is ending up in your adipocytes in incorrect.


It's kind of like protein.....you may eat a particular kind of protein, but once those AA's are free from the peptide, they do not get lined up in the exact same sequence they were when they went into your mouth.


----------



## Biggly (Jul 13, 2008)

> My fat intake was 50-100g/day



Right, which is low fat for some people, depending on calorie intake. If you were on 4000 cals a day the 100 grams of fat is less than 25% of calories, in other words the classic low fat diet or fat restricted diet.

I don't see how that proves the benefits of a high fat diet?

Sure, you were eating plenty of carbs - in fact most of your calories were coming from carbs and if you were lean at 185ln you would be sucking up a lot of calories from that muscle mass, so 100 grams of fat would be just enough to top up and blunt your appetite, not your main calorie source.

OR, as you say, a massive reduction in carbs; both will work as you're triggering your body to use one or the other but what you can't do is combine both (the donut diet).

Hence some people swear by the low fat diet, some by the low carb diet, as long as you A. really stick to it at the time and B. change it around now and then, hence the confusion!

I don't think there's any disagreement here, asides from subjective terms such as "low". If you want to get stored energy (fat) out of storage you need to give your body a reason, as it'll always prefer readily available carbs, so you give it a reason: low carbs. Go low carb for too long you hit a brick wall, hence cycling. 

Or find a happy ratio that works for you - me I prefer cycling, some people hate it.

Some peeps like the complexities, as it keeps them in control and with confidence, some like the simple approach and many disagree on what's "simple"!

If my crime was making fat storage sound overly simple, well as I recall Built when you first came here I jumped on you for making things overly simple for a newby by telling them that cardiovascular exercise doesn't burn calories... 

Now we're quits!




Peace


B.


----------



## SlimS (Jul 13, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Right, which is low fat for some people, depending on calorie intake. If you were on 4000 cals a day the 100 grams of fat is less than 25% of calories, in other words the classic low fat diet or fat restricted diet.
> 
> I don't see how that proves the benefits of a high fat diet?
> 
> ...



The 4,000 calorie example comes from my current diet which I am  500 cals under maintenance from Monday to Thursday with 7,000 calories/day for the weekend.

I am currently 225 around 10% BF +/-  with up to 300g fat/day and up to 200-300g carbs/day.

The point of me making mention of 50-100g carbs is that even if it is a low amount for some, for my bodyweight at the time it was not, and despite my large intake of carbohydrate and raised insulin, that fat did not go straight to my fat stores at stay there, doing nothing else.  If that was the case, I would have gained fat, not lost it.

It's not that you were making the concept of fat storage overly simplified, it's just that to say fat goes straight to adipose tissue and gets used for nothing when the body is sated is completely false.




Biggly said:


> I don't see how that proves the benefits of a high fat diet?




None of my posts were meant to be efforts to prove the benefits of high fat.

Built quoted me as a response to just one of the issues you are her were discussing.


----------



## Built (Jul 13, 2008)

Biggly, you seem to have a very hard time staying with a topic. I can't help but think you do this on purpose, and I'd like you to stop this style of posting. It impresses no one. 

You said 





			
				biggly said:
			
		

> 95% of dietary fat, in the presence of pretty much any signficant carbs, gets stored and stays there.



Slim just said that it didn't - and he explained why by means of two dietary setups - one with low fat and high carbs, one with high fat and high carbs. 

They both worked. 

PS: Your "ratio" approach falls apart in the advent of nutrient timing.


----------



## Biggly (Jul 14, 2008)

> Biggly, you seem to have a very hard time staying with a topic. I can't help but think you do this on purpose, and I'd like you to stop this style of posting. It impresses no one.



I'd like YOU to quit turning everything I post into an argument.



> The point of me making mention of 50-100g carbs is that even if it is a low amount for some, for my bodyweight at the time it was not, and despite my large intake of carbohydrate and raised insulin, that fat did not go straight to my fat stores at stay there, doing nothing else.



Sorry but 25% or less of your calories from fat, bearing in mind fat is more than twice the calories by weight compared to the other 2 food groups, is not "high fat", compared to the average diet that's low fat.

You say that _now _you're taking a lot more fat - so why talk about what you did when you got lean? 

Bottom line without going into personal experience which can vary wildy, which source of energy does the body use when sugar is available, sugars or fats?


B.


----------



## Witchblade (Jul 14, 2008)

I'm going to take a middle road side on this subject. Not fat, not carbs, but calories. 

Numerous overfeeding and weight loss studies have shown that both nutrient timing and macro nutrient ratios are largely irrelevant. The change in weight is identical. This is hard to accept for some people who falsely conclude from this that it doesn't matter what they eat or when, but the data is clear on this.

Note that this concerns weight, not muscle or fat. Keeping your muscle on when dieting is a different subject.


----------



## Built (Jul 14, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Sorry but 25% or less of your calories from fat, bearing in mind fat is more than twice the calories by weight compared to the other 2 food groups, is not "high fat", compared to the average diet that's low fat.



See, that's the problem with a ratio approach.
If my maintenance is 2000 calories a day and I eat 55g of fat per day, that's 25% of calories from fat - a "low fat" diet, right?

What happens when I double my calories? Now I'm eating 110g of fat and 4000 calories a day. Good thing it's a low-fat diet. Otherwise I'd get fat!
[/quote]


----------



## SlimS (Jul 14, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Sorry but 25% or less of your calories from fat, bearing in mind fat is more than twice the calories by weight compared to the other 2 food groups, is not "high fat", compared to the average diet that's low fat.



You are missing the point.  At the time 100g was high for me, but that is a side note in the middle of the sentence surrounded by comas.  The point is that with a relatively high amount of carbs, and an increased amount of fat (for me personally) did not result in fat gain.....which is the entire point of what we are discussing.




Biggly said:


> You say that _now _you're taking a lot more fat - so why talk about what you did when you got lean?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This will be the third time I say it.  You said fat in the presence of carbohydrate higher than would be considered very low for most, directly results is adipose tissue gain and nothing else.  

Clearly through personal experience, which no doubt varies wildly from individuals, this is wrong.

The brief amount of science I presented acts to back this up.

Is glucose used?  Is fat used?  

Both.

Read back through what Built quoted me on and what I wrote about triglycerides constantly being hydrolyzed, turnover, etc.

I'm going to quote a member of another forum who puts it very simple in terms of the multiple processes that occur simultaneously with respect to what we are discussing.



Belial said:


> But too many variables to assess.
> 
> The first mistake is in thinking that variable rates of digestion, absorption, etc. can be even roughly calculated.
> 
> ...





Belial said:


> Not in the same instant, but over the course of a day your body can both metabolize fat and repair/add skeletal muscle.
> 
> Actually, I take that back.  Chances are, you're probably repairing/building muscle AND burning fat right now.  You're also breaking down muscle and storing fat.
> 
> ...


----------



## Built (Jul 14, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Sorry but 25% or less of your calories from fat, bearing in mind fat is more than twice the calories by weight compared to the other 2 food groups, is not "high fat", compared to the average diet that's low fat.



See, that's the problem with a ratio approach.

If my maintenance is 2000 calories a day and I eat 55g of fat per day, that's 25% of calories from fat - a "low fat" diet, right?

What happens when I double my calories? Now I'm eating 110g of fat and 4000 calories a day. Good thing it's a low-fat diet. Otherwise I'd get fat!


----------



## Biggly (Jul 14, 2008)

Built, if you double your maintenance level of calories you're gonna get fat, regardless of what you eat.

Slim, I think the important word here is



> So _technically_, you CAN do both.



My empthasis. Yes, you're empthasising the "CAN" and yes pretty much every cell in the body is constantly being broken down, replaced and built back up again as on on-going process. The question is which way does the body tend to balance, tilt, tip or however you want to put it?

The university scholars who brought us libraries of Latin in the recent past are the same people who were telling us fat is evil and carbs are kool, who supply lady's magazines with 'surefire' quick and easy diets - which have been failing for decades. Hence my reluctance to get involved in a Latin fight, as the Latin-munchers themselves frequently disagree (especially when they have opposing funding).

One of the things I love about bodybuilding is it tends to cut through the crap and concentrate on what works, regardless of what scientists "prove" (on a near weekly and contradictory basis). Likewise most food studies don't involve people bodybuilding, in fact often the opposite.

Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a tradesman and supper like a pauper - is there any scientific proof to that? No. For the majority of bodybuilders it just happens to work.

Nutrition scientists tell us we only need about 25 grams of protein a day, that's plenty, and they can prove it. Sure, except bodybuilders have found that you can add a zero to that for max' gains. Scientific? No, it just works.

Can you _technically _burn fat and sugar at the same time? Sure, and you do, but which way does the body balance in the presence of both carbs and fats at the same time?

It goes for the carbs, not least because too-high blood sugar is toxic and an emergency. Eat too much fat? No problem, store it.

Fat and carbs eaten at the same time results in the body using the readily available sugar and shoving the energy in it's storage state into storage - on balance.

Talking of balance, your body will naturally spring back to it's current set point if the calorie deficit or surplus is minor enough. If you're pushing the calories beyond your body's ability to bounce back then you WILL hit problems combining high levels of fat and carbs together, because on high levels the body will store the fat. If reducing your calories, reduce the carbs or your body will try to cling onto its fat.

Latin or no Latin.



B.


----------



## SlimS (Jul 14, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Built, if you double your maintenance level of calories you're gonna get fat, regardless of what you eat.
> 
> Slim, I think the important word here is
> 
> ...



What you quoted of Belial's was referring to building muscle and burning fat at the same time.

That is not what we are talking about (or at least not why I was quoted by Built and then offered my own input), so I did not put it in red.  The point of using what I quoted was to lightly touch on the fact that many different processes occur simultaneously, which is why I said this before quoting it...



Slim Schaedle said:


> I'm going to quote a member of another forum who puts it very simple in terms of the multiple processes that occur simultaneously with respect to what we are discussing.



As for your question about which way the body will swing in the presence of both carbs and fat if oxidation of both "can" occur.......

Well, that would depend if you are eating more or less than you need.  

Pretty simple.


----------



## Biggly (Jul 14, 2008)

Yep 



B.


----------



## fufu (Jul 14, 2008)

Most of my meals calories are founded on fat intake. 

I've been doing a lower carb diet for a solid 5 months. I generally only introduce carbs into the diet when I feel I need them. Before training, after, maybe before bed. 

As Arnold put it, why give the body something it doesn't need? I understand carbs are the quickest route to energy replacement but often times I just don't see a need to eat them. Plus I feel it is very easy to over-eat on carbs, not good while cutting.  Once I let myself enjoy some I just get stronger cravings so I just keep it low all the time. Easier to control cals.


----------



## danzik17 (Jul 14, 2008)

Overeat on carbs? Never!

Oh wait, I forgot all of the "oops" encounters I've had with huge plates of pasta


----------

