• @Blossom Is A Blessing To This Community, Let Us Be A Blessing To Her
    Click Here For More Information
  • Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

When Dietary Fat Intake Falls Below 10% Of Total Daily Calories, You’ll Still Gain Fat

Hgreen56

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
723
How We Get Fat

If carbs and protein are rarely converted to and stored as fat, but can cause fat gain indirectly, wouldn’t a high-carb, high-protein zero fat diet cause zero fat gain?
And the answer is still no. I mentioned above that DNL does not happen in humans under most situations. Severe carbohydrate overfeeding can cause it but that tends to be rare. But one time when DNL is upregulated in humans is when dietary fat intake falls below 10% of total daily calories. Under that condition, carbohydrates can and are converted to fat for storage. You’ll still gain fat.
Because the body is ultimately much smarter than we are. When dietary fat intake is adequate (i.e. 10% of total calories or more), the primate fate of dietary fat is storage and protein and carbohydrates are used for other things. And when dietary fat drops to an extremely low level the body will start converting carbohydrates to fat for storage. It might even start converting protein to fat although I suspect that pathway is still pretty damn inefficient.

wondering if ray opinion is the same...
 
Last edited:

Jessie

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Messages
713
Sure, in fact I think one of the reasons why Ray favors sugar over starch is because starch can stimulate FAS (fatty acid synthesis) and lead to weight gain. I think he cited a study where rodents were fed equal calories, one group sugar the other starch, despite having equal calories the starch fed group consistently weighed more.
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
but total calories are almost irrelevant in losing weight. You can have basal metabolism at 1500 or 3000 calories depending on what you have been eating. And even higher difference depending on what you have been doing.

Also excretion of pufas in feces, peeing out sugar, etc. are independent from basal metabolic rate and have clear effect on energy balance. As has intestinal absorption efficiency.

Counting calories is almost always harmful. You need to learn to listen to your body objectively, including differentiation between food addiction hunger and real hunger.
 

Hans

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
4,806
but total calories are almost irrelevant in losing weight. You can have basal metabolism at 1500 or 3000 calories depending on what you have been eating. And even higher difference depending on what you have been doing.

Also excretion of pufas in feces, peeing out sugar, etc. are independent from basal metabolic rate and have clear effect on energy balance. As has intestinal absorption efficiency.

Counting calories is almost always harmful. You need to learn to listen to your body objectively, including differentiation between food addiction hunger and real hunger.
The main reason people lose weight is because they eat in a deficit. If they're eating 3000 calories and losing weight, they're burning more than that and are thus in a deficit. But the concept on this forum that "you need to boost metabolic rate so high that you don't need to eat in a deficit to lose weight" or at least eat at maintenance to maintain weight is harmful (because now people overeat and some become diabetic). Too many people are overeating like crazy and gaining weight like crazy. The reason why a few people might start to lose weight after a couple of months is because their satiation has improved and they're eating less or because they have more energy and they're more active.
Calories in calories out.
 
Last edited:

PaRa

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
356
The main reason people lose weight is because they eat in a deficit. If they're eating 3000 calories and losing weight, they're burning more than that and are thus in a deficit. But the concept on this forum that "you need to boost metabolic rate so high that you don't need to eat in a deficit to lose weight" or at least eat at maintenance to maintain weight is harmful (because now people overeat and some become diabetic). Too many people are overeating like crazy and gaining weight like crazy. The reason why a few people might start to lose weight after a couple of months is because their satiation has improved and they're eating less or because they have more energy and they're more active.
Calories in calories out.

This
 

Hans

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
4,806
Counting calories is almost always harmful. You need to learn to listen to your body objectively, including differentiation between food addiction hunger and real hunger.
Not if you're an athlete or someone who wants to have better control of their health. If an athlete isn't checking his macros and total calorie intake, he'll perform subpar, gain unnecessary weight for his sport, lose muscle, etc. Counting calories and macros isn't for everyone (I'm not saying everyone SHOULD do it), but everyone can definitely benefit greatly from it (even if it's just short term for them to get a better idea of calculating and estimating calories and macros). It's not about being rigid, it's just about having structure and by having structure it enables you to have more freedom and perform better in life.
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
No, counting calories is always second class compared to learning to listen to what you body needs. An athlete, even some kind of body builder should get their gains through other means, not by counting calories to ensure severe overfeeding way past satiety. Same is true at the other end, if you are hungry you are hurting yourself by not eating. Your body knows better what it needs than any kind of calorie counting app or theory you have in mind. The only caveat is that you need to eat normal foods that cause normal satiety. And you need to learn to differentiate food addiction from real hunger. This can mean that if you eat 4000 calories one day, the next you only eat 2000 because you simply don't have same hunger. No calorie counting theory even begins to incorporate such concepts.

CICO calorie counting is like learning wheels on a bicycle. It's to help the most blind not shoot themselves in the foot. But by training you can give them their vision back.
 

PaRa

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
356
No, counting calories is always second class compared to learning to listen to what you body needs. An athlete, even some kind of body builder should get their gains through other means, not by counting calories to ensure severe overfeeding way past satiety. Same is true at the other end, if you are hungry you are hurting yourself by not eating. Your body knows better what it needs than any kind of calorie counting app or theory you have in mind. The only caveat is that you need to eat normal foods that cause normal satiety. And you need to learn to differentiate food addiction from real hunger. This can mean that if you eat 4000 calories one day, the next you only eat 2000 because you simply don't have same hunger. No calorie counting theory even begins to incorporate such concepts.

CICO calorie counting is like learning wheels on a bicycle. It's to help the most blind not shoot themselves in the foot. But by training you can give them their vision back.

So landwhales that are overeating while being on the sofa all day long are hurting themselves (more than counting calories to loose weight)
if they don’t eat bc they feel hungry ?
The feelings things are ok if you’re healthy, but most people aren’t ( for example we aren’t supposed to be 30%BF, body will behave not naturally in this state so feeling it will do nothing)
 

Hans

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
4,806
No, counting calories is always second class compared to learning to listen to what you body needs.
I agree. No one should force themself to eat something if they don't feel optimal on it. I'm all for experimenting to find what macronutrient ratio and specific foods would suit someone best.

An athlete, even some kind of body builder should get their gains through other means, not by counting calories to ensure severe overfeeding way past satiety.
Not sure what you mean by "get their gains through other means" (steroids perhaps?), but it doesn't matter how good your training program is, you won't gain muscle if you're not eating enough calories or enough protein. Most people routinely undereat protein. It's only the people that have been calorie counting for a while that "intuitively" know how much to eat. If you tell a bodybuilder to stop counting calories and macros while dieting down for a show, you'll get laughed out of the room. If you're not eating enough protein, you'll be more hungry and lose more muscle, compared to those that eat enough protein. I'm pretty sure that if you're a competitive bodybuilder, that you're not going to leave it to estimations and guessing to win a show. Same goes for athletes that need to stay in a certain weight class, or strongmen that need to make sure they're hitting a certain amount of calories and carbs a day to fuel their workload.

The only caveat is that you need to eat normal foods that cause normal satiety. And you need to learn to differentiate food addiction from real hunger. This can mean that if you eat 4000 calories one day, the next you only eat 2000 because you simply don't have same hunger. No calorie counting theory even begins to incorporate such concepts.
Agreed, but this works best for average people that aren't competitive and don't really have physique goals. I believe that you can still count calories and macros and be intuitive. I see counting calories as guidelines, not as something set in stone.
Besides, most people are not aware of the guidelines when trying to eat optimally. They might go years without realizing something simple like protein is necessary for satiety and once they have more protein they start to lose weight. So if they were tracking from the start they would have been aware of it right from the start and not years later down the road of experimenting with things like cinnamon for satiety or "insulin resistance".

CICO calorie counting is like learning wheels on a bicycle. It's to help the most blind not shoot themselves in the foot. But by training you can give them their vision back
Most people are "most blind". It's totally understandable if they have never considered nutritional guidelines before.
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
So landwhales that are overeating while being on the sofa all day long are hurting themselves (more than counting calories to loose weight)
if they don’t eat bc they feel hungry ?
The feelings things are ok if you’re healthy, but most people aren’t ( for example we aren’t supposed to be 30%BF, body will behave not naturally in this state so feeling it will do nothing)
Well that's exactly what i said. CalorIeCOunting is training wheels for those that have lost their health to not continue shooting themselves in the foot, but any non-abused kid will naturally want to ditch the training wheels as quickly as possible. It's unhealthy to ride around with them for years on end. But while you are still new to it and learning, it is however better than falling constantly before learning how to ride. But still it's unhealthy to count calories.
 
Last edited:

Jessie

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Messages
713
I feel like calories in calories out is probably one of the few things the mainstream gets right. But, because the mainstream supports it, all these alt health communities are trying to claim it's not important.

Dietary fat is by far the most caloric dense macro with the least amount of theremogensis. So a heavy restriction in dietary fat in favor for carbohydrate/protein will naturally result in extra weight loss for most people.
 

Hgreen56

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
723
I feel like calories in calories out is probably one of the few things the mainstream gets right. But, because the mainstream supports it, all these alt health communities are trying to claim it's not important.

Dietary fat is by far the most caloric dense macro with the least amount of theremogensis. So a heavy restriction in dietary fat in favor for carbohydrate/protein will naturally result in extra weight loss for most people.
its not that simple and not working for most people.
 

Jessie

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Messages
713
its not that simple and not working for most people.
Well, anything that effects the basal metabolism will effect the rate at which we burn calories. But this doesn't necessarily disprove the idea of calories in calories out. In fact, the bioenergetic view tends to bring clarity to this situation once properly understood.

For example, the emphasis of lowering phosphate and raising calcium. Raising calcium leads to weight loss because it agonizes PDH and results in better metabolism, however this doesn't refute calories in calories out. All it really means is the subject's metabolism was being inhibited, and now their caloric deficit has been raised.

Another example would be postprandial endotoxin. We know from several studies that a lowering of postprandial endotoxin results in weight loss, however this doesn't refute calories in calories out. All it means is endotoxin was suppressing basal metabolism. People's caloric "floors" and "ceilings" will rise and fall depending on if their environment is helping or hurting them. Red light, caffeine, thyroid, avoid PUFA, high protein diets, etc. all more examples that follow suit.

But on the rudimentary level, weight loss is all about using more energy then you bring in.
 

Recoen

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
608
I think tracking micronutrients can be very helpful. A B1 (and other micro) deficiency is directly tied to anorexia and a decreased desire to eat.
Prevalence of thiamin deficiency in anorexia nervosa - PubMed

Thiamine deficiency induces anorexia by inhibiting hypothalamic AMPK - PubMed
You need to have enough micros to get glucose all the way through glycolysis, TCA, and ETC to recover the most ATP. If you don’t you end up eating organic acids in the urine. This is also assuming you’re actually absorbing all the macros and micros you take in.

For fat loss, in a recent podcast Georgi recommended fixing your hormonal environment to what it was (or should have been) during puberty/ early teenage years. He suggested pregnenolone 100mg/d with 5-10mg DHEA for a cycle then drop to 30mg and 5mg.
Also using 100mg progesterone for 1-2mos if you have any fibrotic conditions.
 

Hgreen56

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
723
Well, anything that effects the basal metabolism will effect the rate at which we burn calories. But this doesn't necessarily disprove the idea of calories in calories out. In fact, the bioenergetic view tends to bring clarity to this situation once properly understood.

For example, the emphasis of lowering phosphate and raising calcium. Raising calcium leads to weight loss because it agonizes PDH and results in better metabolism, however this doesn't refute calories in calories out. All it really means is the subject's metabolism was being inhibited, and now their caloric deficit has been raised.

Another example would be postprandial endotoxin. We know from several studies that a lowering of postprandial endotoxin results in weight loss, however this doesn't refute calories in calories out. All it means is endotoxin was suppressing basal metabolism. People's caloric "floors" and "ceilings" will rise and fall depending on if their environment is helping or hurting them. Red light, caffeine, thyroid, avoid PUFA, high protein diets, etc. all more examples that follow suit.

But on the rudimentary level, weight loss is all about using more energy then you bring in.

there are more than metabolism, endotoxins serotonin etc etc,
insulin sensitivity for example.

  1. On high-carbohydrate intakes, do you find yourself getting pumped and full or sloppy and bloated? If the former, you have good insulin sensitivity; if the latter, you don’t.
  2. When you eat a large carbohydrate meal, do you find that you have steady and stable energy levels or do you get an energy crash/sleep and get hungry about an hour later? If the former, you probably have normal/low levels of insulin secretion; if the latter, you probably tend to over-secrete insulin which is causing blood glucose to crash which is making you sleepy and hungry.
  3. https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-sensitivity-and-fat-loss
in a study: obese women with either high or low insulin sensitivity were placed on a
1: high carb (60% carb, 20% fat)
or 2: low carb (40% carb, 40% fat) diet.

So there were four groups:
group 1: high carb/insulin sensitive
group 2: high carb/insulin resistant
group 3: low carb/insulin sensitive
group 4: low carb/insulin resistant.
The results:
insulin sensitive women on the high carb diet lost double the weight as insulin sensitive women on the low-carb diet.
Similarly, insulin resistant women on the low-carb diet lost double the weight as on the high carb diet.



https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-sensitivity-and-fat-loss

thats why some people have great fat loss on low carb/high fat and other don't.
becease they have a bad insulin sensitive
like: @kreeese & @CLASH / link
And @Armash / link
And @Vinny probably to
That`s probably true. My low fat protocol did not work at all, I even gained some more adipose. Thanks.

Thats why some people have great fat loss on high carb/low fat
becease they have a Good insulin sensitive
Like @Zachs, (he did high carb,no fat pufa depetion... cant find the link that quik)
And @Hans / link

First thing what someone must do is find out how there insulin sensitivity is (see above 2 steps) and adjust your diet to that. Its pretty simple, but this peat world, focusing on metabolism, endotoxins, serotonin, pufa depetion, progesterone, liver, carrot salad etc etc, makes its waaay to difficult and mainly misses the point.
 
Last edited:

aguineapig

Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
159
The problem with calories in calories out is the conjecture guessing of what people are burning. My mother for example, gets told to eat less to lose weight. She is slightly obese but eats only 1200-1500 calories a day and low fat.

My critique is that "calories in calories out" is far more complex than people think, which boils down to, in public perception, eating less and exercising more. That can be a downright dangerous prescription for many people especially in a wholistic sense.
 

Hgreen56

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 8, 2020
Messages
723
The problem with calories in calories out is the conjecture guessing of what people are burning. My mother for example, gets told to eat less to lose weight. She is slightly obese but eats only 1200-1500 calories a day and low fat.

My critique is that "calories in calories out" is far more complex than people think, which boils down to, in public perception, eating less and exercising more. That can be a downright dangerous prescription for many people especially in a wholistic sense.

She don't lose weight? than your mother is probably insulin resistant and the carbs do more harm than good..
Tell your mother to go low carb and high fat on the same amount kcal for a while.
See what happens.

Like i said:
insulin sensitive women on the high carb diet lost double the weight as insulin sensitive women on the low-carb diet.
Similarly, insulin resistant women on the low-carb diet lost double the weight as on the high carb diet.
Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss » Bodyrecomposition
 

Similar threads

Top