6'0, 203lbs w/ LBM of 175 .... almost 14% bf and wanting to get it below 10% without losing much mass
15% below TDEE is 2797.57 calories
protein - 227g
fat - 142g
carbs - 153g
I'm used to a much higher carb intake and this puts my fat intake at about 45%...is that not way too high?
I did .7 x 203...should i have multiplied by my LBM? or weight in KG?
|
-
07-30-2012, 12:54 PM #1
Is my fat intake to high? Hard to determine whats right
-
07-30-2012, 02:37 PM #2
-
07-30-2012, 03:07 PM #3
-
07-30-2012, 03:11 PM #4
-
-
07-30-2012, 03:40 PM #5
-
07-30-2012, 04:02 PM #6
- Join Date: May 2009
- Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
- Age: 41
- Posts: 540
- Rep Power: 226
Based on what? He didn't provide any information that would give you any hint about what his TDEE would be, nor did he ask anyone for their opinions on his TDEE. He may be extremely active. He's also 200+lbs. My maintenance is 2800 and I'm only 160lbs, but I'm extremely active.
No need to over-think this lifting weights business.
-
07-30-2012, 04:14 PM #7
Wrong. The bare minimum for a male to survive is about 18.5g of fat. Men see testosterone issues with fat intake of under 40g a day. I would say the recommended MAXIMUM would be .5g times your weight. What I would recommend is 50g of fat per day, or 0.25g times your weight minimum, and filling the rest of your calories in carbs. Excess fat intake gives you little benefit. The benefit of carbs is greater performance as well as wellbeing.
-
07-30-2012, 04:15 PM #8
-
-
07-30-2012, 04:46 PM #9
-
07-30-2012, 05:16 PM #10
the number 18.5 is from Lyle McDonald's clinical studies and calculations. This number doesn't matter all that much. Your goal isn't survival, it's maximizing gains.
40g a day is more anecdotally based. In MOST males, when fat intake gets below this number, you start to see decreased sex drive and testosterone production. It would obviously differ based on your size and structure, but this is a good rule of thumb and I couldn't see why you would get less than 40g of fat for extended periods of time.
As for 50g of fat, many coaches/trainers will recommend this number because it ensures you steer clear of the range of fat intake that causes testosterone levels to fall, without excessively taking in fat.
With 0.25g per lb bodyweight, this is another rule of thumb. The reason for this is, the bigger you are, the heavier of a fat intake you could benefit from. Fat intake benefits at the higher levels are not a heavily discussed topic, but most would agree that 50g of fat or 0.25/lb bodyweight are really good numbers. My personal recommendation is to never be below 40g, 50g is a good number in general, and 0.25/lb bodyweight if you're on the much heavier side (over 200lbs). Keep in mind that more fat means less carbs so your performance will be lessened to a degree, and more importantly there is more of a inclination for excess fat to be stored as fat tissue because carbohydrates are oxidized better and used for energy that way. In simple terms, carbs were "made" to be used for energy. Fat CAN be used as energy, but it takes more effort for the body to do that, and it is not what the body prefers to do. So many people argue that more carbs would be better. In my own experience as well, less fat and more carbs has been better for my metabolism. The issue with having less carbs and more fat for me was the decreased energy, lessened desire to be active, and overall metabolic slowdown. My general recommendation for cutting:
Protein: bodyweight times 1.2
fat: 50g (in your case)
carbs: fill the rest of the calories in with carbs
If it means anything I finished a very successful cut from 18 to 12% bodyfat. I actually gained 2lbs of lean body mass, and my strength went up.
-
07-30-2012, 05:59 PM #11
Put simply, no it's not bad. If you are serious about cutting then I recommend a higher fat to carb ratio.
Your current carb intake is similar to mine at the moment with all of mine consumed around my workout. In my opinion it looks ok and I wouldn't go higher unless you are having issues with training fatigue or performance.
That said, I think you could potentially cut the calories slightly if you are not cutting fast enough and your fats look like the area to do it. Could drop to closer to 100grams, bringing your calories down to around 2400.I hate haters
-
07-30-2012, 06:03 PM #12
-
-
07-30-2012, 06:08 PM #13
-
07-30-2012, 06:44 PM #14
While more fat will lead to fewer carbs in a restricted caloric plan, one must keep into consideration the individual response to carbs and fat. While some people may do very well on a higher carb and lower fat intake, the opposite may be true for others.
I generally recommend for one to reach their fat and protein minimums**, as they are required macronutrients, and acquire remaining calories from their preferred mixture of of protein, carbs, and fat. This mixture will ensure optimal performance--both physically and psychologically, micronutrient sufficiency and whatnot.
**~.4-1g of fat per pound of lean weight.
~.82g protein per pound. (which I have derived from here, for those interested)
To the OP:
Your fat is too high and carbs are too low if you're physically or psychologically suffering due to these numbers, prefer to majorly eat high carb foods rather than higher fat foods, etc.
Personally, if I was in your position, I would drop fats to approximately 80g, up carbs to ~300g, while keeping my protein around what you have calculated. This, however, is my preference and you should eat (while ensuring protein, fat, and micronutrient suffiency) how you prefer. These numbers are not set in stone, and you will still need to monitor your weight loss after a few weeks and adjust accordingly.
-
07-30-2012, 08:54 PM #15
[9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] + 5
9.99x92.08 + 6.25 x 182.88 - 4.92x27 + 5
919.88+1143-132.84+5 = 1935.04 BMR
activity level of 1.7
1935.04 x 1.7 = 3289 TDEE
10% of 3289 is 328....5% of 3289 is 164
328+164=492
3289 - 492 (15% of TDEE) = 2797.57 calories
I've been eating 3500+ for the past 4 months and haven't gained or lost anything. Even tho my activity level doesn't warrant 1.8, thats prob what i should've used considering the past 4 months.
-
07-30-2012, 08:58 PM #16
-
-
07-30-2012, 09:19 PM #17
-
07-31-2012, 01:08 PM #18
-
07-31-2012, 01:33 PM #19
Similar Threads
-
How to lose fat for Noobs - Part II
By wave_length in forum Losing FatReplies: 4422Last Post: 12-12-2018, 10:05 AM
Bookmarks