why would you eat 90% fat?
Hypothetical scenario: if you are eating more than 90% of your calories from fat, the remainder from protein/carbs, what happens if you are eating "too many calories", eg. 4000 calories/day for a 5'5" 150 pound woman. Will you gain weight, maintain, or lose? Please no "calories in=calories out" claims. To maintain your blood sugar, your body will have to use some of the circulating ketones, as well as produce ketones from protein/fat. However, if the excess ingested fat, insulin levels will be too low to favour fat entering the cells. Your body could then use the process (I forget what it's called) where it burns without purpose--like moving something back and forth. Does anybody with any kind of biochem background--and I took biochem,so I'll know if you're fudging! --have an explanation? Has anybody experimented with this before?
btw: this 90% fat diet could also be from veg sources, like macademia nuts or coconut. I'm thinking of Atkins' fat fast, but this would be more of a feast.
why would you eat 90% fat?
Excess fat is partitioned into fat storage, extra muscle, bone, etc. Dietary fat is the easiest thing to store as body fat. Carbs are considerably harder to turn into body fat than fat is. The reason why carbs get such a bad wrap is the quality of carbs on the SAD - grains and sugars - are horrendous for your health. If Americans got all their carbs from sweet potatoes and bananas there wouldn't be an issue.
Fat also has the advantage of keeping you full for very long periods of time so it's harder to overeat calories in the form of dietary fat. It's incredibly easy to overeat grains and sugars since they provide little satiety.
If you're keeping protein constant, it doesn't really matter what your fat/carbs ratio is. You can get 90% of the remaining calories from fat or carbs. As long as they're real, whole foods, you'll be healthy either way. The fact is, in order to lose weight, you have to take in less energy than you need. If you want to call that calories-in-calories-out so be it. You can't lose weight without an energy deficit, and having excess energy will store as additional weight (other factors will determine if it's mostly partitioned to fat or muscle, but you're going to get some of both). That is a fact regardless of whether or not you want to hear it.
Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.
The Caveman Eats: My Primal Recipes for Athletes and Average Joe's Alike
I think you're confusing fuel efficiency with storage, which are slightly different. In the absence of carbs, ie you're in a very ketogenic state, it's not that easy to store fat.
"The fact is, in order to lose weight, you have to take in less energy than you need. If you want to call that calories-in-calories-out so be it. You can't lose weight without an energy deficit, and having excess energy will store as additional weight (other factors will determine if it's mostly partitioned to fat or muscle, but you're going to get some of both). That is a fact regardless of whether or not you want to hear it."
->I appreciate your input, and it's not a matter of living in denial, but from what I've read, it's not so simple. A physical calorie (what happens in the lab with raising the temperature of water) is not a nutritional calorie, where other factors come into play and where energy can be dissipated in many ways (think of the metabolic advantage that comes from low carb diets--this is not the same as 'naturally' eating less).
But thanks for your reply.
Because you aren't losing and want to shock your system? Because you are vegetarian or you're fed up with meat, but don't want a ton of calories from carbs? Because you don't experience cravings at that level? Because you feel best at that level? Because you're epileptic? A few reasons come to mind, but it's not for most.
Excess calories (from ANYTHING) are mostly excreted, some is stored depending on the state of your physiology.
I think that on a 90% fat diet your appetite would be dramatically reduced for a while and you would have a hard time consuming very many calories.
I believe they used to use it as a short term fast for some diets to get weight loss started. It was called fat-fasting.
But if you were able to eat 4000 calories a day of pure fat, you would likely gain weight.
Using low lectin/nightshade free primal to control autoimmune arthritis. (And lost 50 lbs along the way )
How We Get Fat | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald (see part 3 and the conclusion, specifically).
ketones don't maintain your blood sugar. glucose does that. gluconeogenesis, if you're avoiding dietary glucose. for someone demanding biochem explanations, your understanding of all this is not very good.
fat is not magical. you can get fat by eating too many calories from fat, even in ketosis. even if you're an inuit. you will not automatically burn more calories through whatever autonomic processes your body can come up with, as you consume more fat. even if you're in ketosis.
don't give up on calories, and the laws of thermodynamics.
Last edited by jakey; 04-24-2012 at 08:35 PM.
"dean ornish and dr. davis think the palmitic acid our bodies use for fuel while we sleep is poison if we eat it. zero-carbers like charles washington think the oldest fuel in our evolutionary history – glucose - used by organisms a billion years ago and without which the brains of modern mammals cannot survive for more than a few minutes – is an unnatural toxin if you eat it. both views ignore basic facts of medical physiology and defy evolutionary history." - kurt harris