Thread: eating copious amounts of fat...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

1. 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.
   
2. It ensures adequate fat during a cut, where it is needed for endocrine support and satiety.
   
3. It means you don't need to go ridiculously overboard with protein consumption while bulking.
   
4. 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

Originally Posted by Biggly

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Biggly

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.

Originally Posted by Biggly

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Built

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jodi

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.

1. Figure out maintenance. Track on fitday or some other way, but track for a few days without changing anything.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Originally Posted by Jodi

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.

Originally Posted by Built

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.

1. Figure out maintenance. Track on fitday or some other way, but track for a few days without changing anything.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

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

Originally Posted by Nurse_Pup

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.

Originally Posted by Jodi

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
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

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.

Originally Posted by Jodi

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.

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 your point but I truly feel doing a ratio is by far the simplest method for newbies.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Built

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.

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

Originally Posted by Jodi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jodi

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?

Originally Posted by Nurse_Pup

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....

Originally Posted by Built

What's a healthy calorie?

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

Originally Posted by IainDaniel

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.

Originally Posted by Jodi

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?

Originally Posted by Built

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Built

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.