High Fat

(eat more) #43

actually you are arguing a non-issue…and now you’re arguing fat adaption.
it isn’t simply because you “you aren’t eating carbs and aren’t eating a lot of dietary fat” it’s because you are introducing less glucose and producing less insulin.

one more time…you will naturally need less dietary fat once you’re body is burning it’s own fat for fuel and need more dietary fat as your body fat decreases…the graph proves that lol

i don’t think you actually understand what you’ve read from Phinney…

i knew when this thread didn’t make sense to me i shouldn’t have tried to understand and make it make sense :joy:

(Martin Arnold) #44

Yes that’s what I said: your body burns fat and so you don’t need to eat a lot of fat. That’s why i asked if anything could impede accessing stored fat. I’ve no idea why you’re having a problem understanding that.

(8 year Ketogenic Veteran) #45

@Martin_Arnold

INSULIN impedes accessing stored fat.
And the mechanism is HIGHLY complicated and different in each body.
Question answered, time to move on.

You appear to be trolling.
Stop.

(eat more) #46

which was answered in more than one way…that you challenged.

the part i think you’re missing is that you don’t intentionally and purposefully restrict or reduce dietary fat…as a very general rule it happens naturally without your intervention

if you have to have a set amount…i gave you the numbers (twice) to calculate for yourself…

(Martin Arnold) #47

I’m not trolling and I don’t care to be insulted like that.

#48

Then why not take a second to thank @richard and the others who took the time to respond to you?

#49

He is a repeat offender. He has done this before. You can spend a lot of time offering opinion, time and help and it will be thrown back in your face. there is a long old thread that had to be closed because of his attitude which stinks.

(Richard Morris) #50

If it takes you 200g of fat to be satiated … it’s possible, but unlikely.

If you had 20 lbs of body fat - that could contribute 630 kCal of energy a day + 100g of protein (400 kCal) + 20g of glucose (80 kCal) - and you were burning 2910 kCal/day = you might need 1800 kCal of fat.

You would still lose roughly 1 lb every 5 days - chugging 200g of fat a day.

What Dr Phinney is saying is that our bodies will tell us they need more energy (through satiation signals) when we don’t have enough. When that happens find a way to add more energy (fat) to your plate.

The flip side is if you are half way through your plate and you feel satiated … STAHP Forrest. I have a lot of problems doing this because it was drilled into me to always clear my plate, and childhood conditioning is hard to break in your 50s.

(Todd Allen) #51

I think this is a good question. I don’t have answers or references and it would be great if they exist and someone else produces them. The best I can do is attempt to contribute to the conversation with a bit of rambling.

My belief is it depends on the time frame. First regarding fat I expect “eating too much” today will make me heavier tomorrow but on a longer term the impact on hormones affecting metabolic rate and appetite becomes more important. Many people have found they can lose weight quickly through sheer will power eating less and/or exercising more ignoring diminishing energy and increasing hunger. CICO often works as suggested for a short while. But it gets harder with each passing day and with each pound lost. For most, eventually will power isn’t enough and weight loss slows or stops. Many experience a loss of motivation and a devastating rebound as will power breaks.

Eating keto helps tame insulin a primary driver of weight gain for many of us. But there are other hormones in play such as leptin and cortisol and many still experience stalls and a few have rebounds despite staying in ketosis leaving us wondering how to optimize and sustain fat loss?

I doubt there is a one size fits all answer. Slow and steady aka KCKO seems to work for many, especially those patient enough to break through stalls. Many variations on fasting work well for others.

I went through several months where fat loss at 1 lb / week was easy and for the past few months even 1 lb / month has been challenging. When I eat fat without restraint I gain weight quickly. It seems my satiety signalling is a little broken and I’ve been experimenting with fasting but it is unclear what approach will work best for me long term.

One thing I’m fairly excited about though is I think I’ve finally figured out what works best for me regarding exercise. Which is minimizing exercise volume and fatigue while maximizing intensity, ie doing daily a few very short bursts (10 to 20 seconds) as fast, hard and heavy as I can with at least several minutes of rest in between each burst.

I’m gaining muscle, peak strength and endurance with minimal recovery down time. The biggest drawback is perhaps increased risk of injury but in the past most of my injuries occurred when fatigued.

I have confidence in this approach because the common wisdom and the advice of my doctors is the opposite - engage in gentle to moderate exercise, the more the better. Which worked as well for me as the advice to eat very low fat, very low salt and mostly plants. Trying hard to follow their advice had me in a death spiral gaining weight and losing muscle.

I’m hopeful my gains will continue and I will slowly lose remaining excess fat without significant weight loss. But I’m an oddball with an untreatable genetic neuromuscular wasting disease (SBMA) and what is improving my body composition may not be the answer for others.

(Tom Seest) #52

I can pretty much eat and get full on anything. At one point, it took a dozen Krispy Kremes. At another, it took an 18 ounce steak. Now, it’s a burger with 9 pieces of bacon on most any day. Not every day is the same.

I can’t remember how the Krispy Kremes taste anymore, as it has been years.

I’m not sure what Phinney and Volek would say about my diet, nor do I care. It seems to work for me, in my slow plodding way. I tend to make adjustments on my own, based on how I feel; not what others say.

(John) #53

I think there is some confusion over what the chart means, or at least recommendations that might be assumed from it.
Protein percentage is going to say the same, carb intake changes slightly, the rest comes from fat.
In the beginning he is saying you need to eat 1400 calories even though you are burning 2800, quite the deficit.
2,8000.2=560 calories from Protein, or 140 grams.
2,8000.25=700 calories from Fat, 77.77 grams.
2,800*0.05=140 calories from Carbs, 35 grams.

This is 1,400 calories, all of your intake, go to bed, watch TV whatever. But just being alive burns 2,800 calories, which means after the 1,400 you ate is gone, the rest has to come from your body, which is the 50%.

Adjust is
2,6000.2=520 calories from Protein
2,6000.4=1,040 from Fat
2,600*0.07=182 from Carbs

This is 1,742 which he appears to have rounded for simplicity. You burned 2,600 though so the rest is obtained from body fat.

He doesn’t recommend staying at a 50% deficit forever even though that would lose more weight faster, why not? It is not really sustainable, especially as Richard pointed out there is a limit on how many calories you can get from body fat in a day. If you are having less and less fat on your body which is producing less and less energy, what has to happen? You are at your carb limit, you don’t need more protein, that means there is only one lever left: fat.

Build is
2,4000.20=480 from Protein
2,4000.11=264 from Fat (the body can provide less and less as we lean down)
2,400*0.09=216 from Carbs

That is 960 calories. If you only eat these things you can see that you can’t access enough fat and your metabolism will crash, so what do you do? The remaining 1,440 calories has to come from diet.

Maintain is
2,2000.2=440 from Protein
ERROR: Not enough fat
2,200.1=220 from Carbs

That is 660 of the 2,200 you need. Eating more carbs or protein is the wrong thing, the only thing you can do now to maintain is eat the rest in fat.

Eating more and more fat is not a rule we are trying to follow, it is how the math works, if you are burning calories they have to come from somewhere, as your body produces less and less energy you have to add it from external sources, and the only one remaining is fat.

The argument about satiety is separate to me. All this chart is saying is that you eat at a deficit and your body will burn the remainder it needs from existing fat stores. As you increase your intake back to normal, or at least maintenance levels, your existing fat stores shrink until all fat must come from diet.

(Martin Arnold) #54

The reason I mention it is because I have been given advice from numerous sources, including here, that the answer to feeling hungry on keto is not to increase protein, but to add fat - in one case to eat 200g (or near enough). I’m overweight. I need to lose weight and, as seems to be supported by Dr Phinney’s work, that requires burning body fat and you won’t do this if your dietary fat meets all your needs.

There is a greater problem, that I have noticed, and that is that online there is so much contradictory info regarding keto. It is all supported, in many cases quite angrily, by people who sincerely think they are correct and will tolerate not even a question. I’ve seen this time and time again and the problem is that I don’t know who to believe. Without evidence all claims are equal. I have one group telling me protein is the satiety factor and if I’m hungry include more in a meal and to eat relatively less fat. Then I come to forums such as this and am told to add fat. I don’t find fat as sating and I’m trying to lose weight. If fat increases weight loss, again I need the evidence.

(Martin Arnold) #55

When you say there is a limit to how much enery you can get from body fat daily, what is that limit? I can’t find where that was stated. Clearly there are limits otherwise people would reach maintenance weight within a day! I’m going to assume that when Phinney advocates getting 50% of energy from body fat he knows that’s possible. If you eat your daily energy requirement then there’s no need for the body to use its own stores, and if it did all that would happen is that intake would go straight into those stores defeating the purpose.

(Cheryl Meyers) #56

Is this what you are looking for? There is a link in Richard’s blog post: http://blog.2keto.com/why-fasting-is-easier-for-some-people/

(Martin Arnold) #57

Thanks that’s really interesting, assuming it’s correct. It’s an Ancel Keys experiment and i thought he was not trustworthy. But anyway.

I don’t get the connection with daily metabolic rate though.

(John) #58

Ancel Keys didn’t do all bad research, he came to the conclusions he wanted and forced them onto the public. The link provided is 100% about your daily metabolic rate. The study shows that there is a limit to how much energy can be obtained from body fat.
Using the calculator, and plugging in the maintain weight minus a few pounds of 145 for lean mass (it isn’t given so numbers will be a little off) then at 200 pounds in the Adapt phase the calculator tells us our 55 pounds of body fat can’t produce the total we need, so 1,068 calories must come from outside the body, which is ~118 grams of fat. These expenditure numbers are really high, probably due to his background with athletes. This is also for fasting, some of the calories needed will come from protein and carbs, I don’t have any numbers for how much protein will be used for the body and how much for energy but I assume it is minimal energy conversion.

During Adjust period you reduce the weight and Metabolic Rate according to the chart and see you need 1,500 calories from external sources which is really close to what the math shows on the chart.

Adjust the calculator for Build and we see there is a 1,928 calorie shortfall, which means your fat stores are only producing (2,400-1,928)/2,400=20% of your total energy needs, some of that comes from carbs and protein but the vast majority has to be supplemented by fat.

At the maintain level you have almost no body fat, your body is only producing 7% of what it needs from your meager holdings so 93% of the 2,200 calories, 2,043, has to come from outside. Remember there are limits to how much we want to consume of carbs and protein, that means fat is the only significant change we can make.

Let’s take protein and carbs out of the equation for simplicity because we don’t really change them much, this means we are a totally fat driven body. At our fattest we can provide most of the energy we need without outside help, we can get these estimates from the calculator, the rest we have to eat. As our fat stores shrink and we produce less, we have to eat more to make up the difference, so much that as we approach 0% BF we also approach 100% external fat.

If we make the assumption above about keeping carbs and protein at the same level, then to eat at a deficit the only possibility is eating less fat. The rationale for that is above and in your chart, to eat at a deficit you must reduce fat, it is the only lever you can control. As you produce less energy from your dwindling stores, you have to add back fat.

(8 year Ketogenic Veteran) #59

Insulin is the lever. For EVERYONE

Just needed to state that.

Lol

(eat more) #60

but…do you have actual proof of that…in grams?

/me runs

:smiling_imp: :joy:

(8 year Ketogenic Veteran) #61

:anger_right:
:floyd:
:skull:
:bmh:
:bmh:
:bmh:
:bmh:
:bmh:
:bmh:

(Martin Arnold) #62

I don’t understand how that calculator works at all. I’m 180lb or so, my lbm is 140lb. I don’t know what information it’s telling me.