Gags <drgagnon@nospam_ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
[email protected]
> "DRS" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Gags <drgagnon@nospam_ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
[email protected]
>>
>>> onset) diabetes. A good rule of thumb with dieting for fat loss is to keep daily fat consumption
>>> below 40 grams per day. The best way to achieve this is to buy one of the "Fats and Figures"
>>> books for about five bucks from a bookstore and then keep a food diary for a few weeks. You
>>> quickly get to know which foods to avoid due to their high fat content and you realise how you
>>> need to adjust your eating habits to keep below 40g of fat a day (it is actually quite a
>>> challenge).
>>
>> There's no way you can advise anyone on their recommended daily fat consumption without knowing
>> enough about their physiology, lifestyle and goals to properly calculate their actual calorific
>> consumption, their BMR and then set their targets accordingly.
>>
>> I am currently reducing my body fat% and I'm eating accordingly - yet my recommended daily fat
>> intake is (just checking the spreadsheet) 49.5grams. And I've lost about three kilos so far.
>
> Hang on.......just getting up on my soapbox........
>
> First up, good on you for making an effort to reduce your body fat %.
>
> I find it hard to believe that you claim that I shouldn't reccomend keeping daily fat intake below
> 40g a day and yet on the strength of some spreadsheet, you can get your intake down to within 0.5
> of a gram?? I have spent considerable time researching and practicing fitness and fat loss through
> various sources over the last 10 to 15 years but yet you are sure that the spreadsheet that you
> have is the be all and end all??
It's not rocket science. I use the ISSA BMR calculator. My BMR * my Activity Level Multiplier gives
my Actual Daily Calories. Subtract 500 calories for weight loss. My fat intake should be 1/3 of that
(I actually use .30). Excel churns through the formulae and says 49.5 grams of fat for me is right.
Of course I don't worry about fractions of a gram, but I want to emphasize the poiint your 40gram
recomendation is without foundation. My number is calculated according to my physiology and
activity, vital elements you completely ignored regarding the OP.
> I think that you may be making a mistake if you are judging your success by how much you weigh.
> The recommended levels of SUSTAINABLE weight loss are generally quoted at approx 1 to 1.5kg per
> week. A lot of diets that people "go on" give people a false sense of success when they lose
> weight (mainly through fluid loss) in the initial stages. Unfortunately, when these people "go
> off" their diet, the
I'm not talking diets. The formulae hold true for weight loss, maintenance and gain.
> weight generally is put back on. Rather than losing weight, most people really wish to reduce body
> fat levels and the most important factor for fat loss is the reduction of fat in the diet.
Nope. The most important factor is that your energy expenditure exceeds your energy consumption but
not by so much as to push the body into starvation mode. The $64 question is the best way to get the
body to consume its fat stores. It turns out that dropping your carb intake is the most important
factor here (assuming your fat intake isn't grossly over what it should be).
>> The problem with the low fat message is that it's ******** and any honest nutritionist will tell
>> you the food pyramid we've grown up with is just accurate enough to be dangerous (there's a new
>> one due out soon).
>
> Scaremongering.......it
No, it's fact, which is why - I repeat - the USDA is about to throw the current one out and replace
it with something more accurate.
>> For the past twenty to thirty years we've been steadily reducing our fat intake and yet as a
>> society we've been getting steadily fatter. Think about it.
>
> Almost true....the past few decades have seen levels of fat intake stabilise and perhaps decrease
> slightly although there has also been an increase in the fat percentage in the diet. There are
> suggestions that decreases in demands for physical activity through the advent of mod-cons have
> more than offset the benefits gained from people exercising more and this has contribute to the
> rising rates of over fatness.
>
>> I don't advocate a full Atkins diet (too many saturated fats for starters) but he was right about
>> one thing: if you want to lose body fat you need to reduce your *carbohydrate* consumption.
>> Cutting your fats intake - and you need the good fats, the poly- and monounsaturated ones, plus
>> Omega-3
> etc. -
>> without cutting your *sugar* intake (which, at the end of the day, is all carbohydrates are) is a
>> recipe for... (wait for it)... GETTING FAT!
>>
>> Broadly speaking the macronutritional breakdown for someone exercising regularly should be (in
>> this order of importance):
>>
>> Protein: 0.8g/lb Lean Body Mass (that's your weight minus your fat). Fats: about 33% of your
>> target calories, of which saturated fats should be 33% or less. Carbohydrates: whatever is left.
>
> It sounds like you are quoting directly from whatever eating plan you have currently decided is
> right for you. As I said, I don't advocate any diets - just long term changes to eating habits. I
> assume that
That is a long term eating plan. It's not a diet. The formulae hold true for weight loss,
maintenance and gain.
> by "good fats" you mean fats that don't contribute to rises in blood cholestorol?? You are right
> in that you do need fat in your diet which is why I am advocating a low fat intake, not a zero
> fat intake.
You're advocating too low fat intake without any regard to the person's physiology. You just picked
a number out of thin air.
> The "GETTING FAT" that you refer to is I think a reference to the results of a no fat, low energy
> diet where the body goes into famine mode and starts storing fat.
Nope, it's a reference to society's obsession with low fat everything yet it consumes gigantic
quantities of carbohydrates - sugars - and then has the stupidity to wonder why it's so damned fat.
> I am interested to know how you calculate your Lean Body Mass??? There are many methods for
> calculating bodyfat levels but unless you have access to a hydrostatic weighing facility (ie
> measure weight in the water allowing for air trapped in lungs) or a DEXA machine (Dual energy X-
> ray absorptiometer), then the results that you will get will not be accurate.
[...]
> Bio Impedance Analysis (the scales that also put a small current through your body) are reasonable
> but can provide varying results depending on your hydration levels at the time of testing.
According to the studies done at Columbia's obesity clinic BIA done properly is at least as accurate
as DEXA. If you have counter studies I'd love to hear about them because every time I see people
bagging BIA I ask for their clinical evidence and thus far not one person has shown me so much as a
skerrick. For some reason there's a widespread prejudice against BIA and I can't figure out why.
> The carbohydrates that should be increased in the diet are not the sugars, but instead the complex
> carbohydrates such as starches found in wholegrain bread, potatoes, brown rice, cereals, etc. It
> is pretty hard to get fat from eating just starches.
It's harder but far from impossible. If you eat enough of anyting you'll get fat. But, yes, simple
carbs generally bad, complex carbs generally good.
>> The thing is this. Your body is incredibly good at keeping itself alive and it will use whatever
>> it has to.
>
> True
>
>> Having said that, it prefers certain energy sources to others, and since losing or gaining weight
>> is ultimately all about manipulating energy levels you can use that fact to your advantage.
>> Roughly speaking your body will use carbohydrates, then
[...]
>
> It is not a simple as the body using one source of energy, then the next, then the next. Initial
> exertion will use phosphates in the
Sometimes you have to simplify to make a point. Did you note the "roughly speaking"? The point is
you reduce your carb intake before your fat intake.
[...]
>> So, having calculated your BMR and your actual daily calorific consumption, if you want to lose
>> weight healthily set a target daily calorific consumption about 500 calories below maintenance,
>> keep your protein and fat intake at their correct levels, drop your *carbohydrate* consumption
>> heavily - and you'll see your body fat% drop slowly but steadily. There's roughly 3,500 calories
>> per pound of fat so this regime should consume about one pound of fat per week, not including any
>> loss of weight due to water loss.
>
> Once again, how do you calculate your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate)??
I use the ISSA method. I posted it here once before (Hippy, you listening? I was replying to you at
the time). At the time I was under the misapprehension that low fat was the way to go but after lots
and lots of research I now know that to be not so.
> Unless you have access to a metabolic chamber where all heat loss is measured for a 24hr period,
> your accuracy is restricted by charts that do not take into account differences between
> individuals.
>
> Daily energy consumption cannot be calculated without keeping some form of food diary.
Hence a spreadsheet.
> If you keep your energy intake below your maintenance level of your BMR, you are not allowing for
> exercise (the initial subject of this
Not with ISSA system. It factors in your general activity levels and is close enough unless you're
insanely anal about the whole thing.
> thread) and so your energy requirements could be far more than what you are taking in. Very low
> energy level diets have the effect of reducing BMR which is counter productive and not healthy.
Define very low. I haven't eliminated carbs, I've just significantly reduced my intake. And
it's working.
> Generally a low fat diet will be a high carbohydrate diet which is good given that the energy
> value of fat (9 kcal/g) is double that of carbohydrates (4.5 kcal/g). Fats consumed are also much
> more easily stored by the body as fat than carbohydrates consumed are. It takes about 25% of the
> energy content of a gram of glucose (carbohydrate) to be stored as body fat compared to about 3%
> for the body to store a gram of fat as body fat. The conversion of carbohydrate to body fat is
> known as "de novo lipogenesis" and rarely happens except in the case of force-feeding of carbs
> (ie. carb loading that elite athletes sometimes perform).
I know about that, but the fact that de novo lipogenesis isn't that common is not the same thing as
saying that excess carbs won't make you fat. If you want to argue the point there's a guy over at
misc.fitness.weights called Lyle McDonald who'd be more than willing to set you straight. But don't
go there unless you've got your cites handy. Just a friendly warning.
> DRS, I am not just naysaying everything that you said and I think it is great that you are
> actively looking at improving your body composition. I just seem to get the impression that you
> are currently on a diet/program and are quoting a number of precise percentages and levels as if
> they are gospel. I do not know the
Nope, I'm not talking diets at all. I'm talking every day dietary habits. The formulae hold true for
weight loss, maintenance and gain.
> level of your experience in this field but I believe that many of your comments are ill-informed.
> There are a million and one diets
I'm not talking about diets. The formulae hold true for weight loss, maintenance and gain.
> out there and most will result in some initial weight loss due to reduction in energy
> intake......I hope that the one that you have chosen gives you the results that you are after.
> Personally, with the risk of sounding vain, I believe that how you look in the mirror and how your
> clothes feel are better indications of progress than purely your weight. A combination of a
> sensible exercise program and low fat (but energy sufficient) eating habits will result in a
> reduction in your levels of bodyfat. By slowly changing your body composition and increaseing the
> percentage of FFM (Fat Free Mass) in your body you will improve the way you look, increase your
> health, and increase your BMR.
Quite so.
--
A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?