Tag Archives: high fat

optimising macros for fat loss with less hunger

Many people like to define their diet based on macro ranges, such as:

  • low-carb,
  • ketogenic,
  • high-fat,
  • low-fat,
  • high-protein, or
  • high-carb.

However, if you want to control your appetite, reduce body fat, and improve your health, you probably want to know if your chosen dietary preference works.

Everyone agrees that consciously restricting calories can be difficult.  We want to understand how we can manipulate macronutrients and micronutrients to improve satiety and reduce hunger which will lead to a spontaneous reduction in appetite and sustained fat loss.

My Nutrient Optimiser partner Alex Zotov and I have been busy lately mining the database of half a million days of MyFitnessPal data for insights that can help us refine our algorithm to help people achieve their goal with more precision.  It’s fascinating to be able to quantitatively answer common questions and dispel many myths about nutrition with this massive data set!

Data cleaning

In order to focus on people trying to lose weight, we filtered for people with a calorie goal of between 1000 and 2500 calories and eliminated days where people consumed more than 300% or less than 50% of their target calorie intake.  This trimmed reduced out data set down from the original 587,187 days of data to 438,014 days of completed food diaries.

Definitions of diets by macronutrient range

The table below shows how we sliced up the data based on macronutrient ranges that align with different popular dietary approaches.

  • The “n” is the number of days in each ‘bucket’ of data.
  • The “%” column shows the percentage of days that meet that criteria.
  • The average row represents the average macronutrient breakdown of all 438,014 days of data. Each of the dietary approaches are subsets of this data.
Diet Protein Fat Carbs n %
Low-protein, high-fat < 15% > 70% 1,887 0.43%
High-fat > 70% 7,229 2%
Junk food < 20% > 30% > 35% 84,781 19%
Low-protein < 15% 87,985 20%
Standard Western 10 – 20% 30 – 40% 35-50% 43,504 10%
Low-carb, higher-fat > 60% < 30% 18,581 4%
Very low carb < 15% 21,644 5%
Low-fat < 25% 75,859 18%
Low-carb < 30% 64,960 15%
Low-carb, high-protein > 20% < 35% 34,870 8%
High-carb > 70% 4,966 1%
High-protein > 30% 72,473 17%
Very high protein > 40% 15,205 3%
Average  22% 36% 43% 438,014 100%

Average macros (%)

The chart below shows what each of the diet approaches looks like in terms of macronutrients for the days that met the criteria for each ‘bucket’.

image1

Average diet macros (grams)

Many people like to manage their diet by limiting or targeting a certain quantity of a particular macronutrient, so the table shows the average intake of each of the approaches in grams.  If you currently track your diet you might like to see how you compare to these averages.

Diet Protein (g) Fat (g) Carbs (g)
Very high protein 165 45 97
High protein 137 53 122
Low carb, high protein 116 86 54
Low carbohydrate 107 88 72
Low fat 93 33 201
Very low carb 101 107 31
Low carb, high fat 81 120 40
High fat 69 134 29
Standard Western 70 67 193
Junk food 62 76 185
Low protein 49 67 205
High carbohydrate 38 20 248
Low protein, high fat 47 158 47
average 86 62 168

Satiety of different macronutrient diet approaches

This table shows the average goal and actual calorie intake for each of the groups.  The right-hand column shows the average of the actual intake divided by their calorie goal and multiplied by 100%.

A calorie goal in MyFitnessPal is set by a person’s Basal Metabolic Rate minus an allowance to ensure that they achieve an energy deficit if they are trying to achieve weight loss.

  • A score of less than 100% means that someone was able to eat less than calorie goal for the day.
  • A score of greater than 100% indicates that someone was able to eat less than they planned.
Diet Goal (cals) Actual (cals) % Goal
Low protein, high fat 1,698 1,796 106%
High fat 1,698 1,597 94%
Junk food 1,779 1,673 94%
Low protein 1,730 1,615 93%
Standard Western 1,806 1,655 92%
Low carb, high fat 1,721 1,569 91%
average 1,795 1,575 88%
Very low carb 1,714 1,490 87%
Low fat 1,787 1,478 83%
Low carbohydrate 1,753 1,506 86%
Low carb, high protein 1,735 1,461 84%
High carbohydrate 1,592 1,325 83%
High protein 1,834 1,511 82%
Very high protein 1,804 1,453 81%

This chart shows the goal vs actual calorie intake for each approach graphically.

image4

The chart below shows the % goal achieved for each approach graphically.

image2

Discussion

Looking at the goal vs actual calories in the chart below we can see that:

  • The people following a low-protein, high-fat approach were the only ones to exceed their calorie target consistently.
  • The people using the high-protein diet had the highest target calorie intakes, suggesting that they were active and likely had more metabolically active muscle mass, and hence a higher BMR.
  • The high-carb approaches seemed to have a lower goal intake, indicating that these people may have already been typically smaller or had less muscle mass.

Both the high-fat and low-protein approaches have a negative impact on satiety.  Combining these two approaches (i.e. high-fat with low-protein) appears to lead to people to eat much more than planned.

Avoiding protein (i.e. in pursuit of ketones or due fear of gluconeogenesis) and consuming “fat to satiety” appears to significantly increase your chances of overeating.

Lowering carbohydrates provides slightly better than average satiety.  Focusing on reducing carbohydrates while also prioritising protein seems to provide a better outcome.

When we look at the correlation between macronutrient consumption and the ability to achieve your target calorie goal, we see that higher protein has the strongest alignment with followed by lower fat.  Restricting carbohydrate seems to have a much smaller impact on spontaneous calorie intake.

This observation from the data also aligns with this recent study that tested high protein low carb vs normal protein high fat and found that “Body-weight loss and weight-maintenance depends on the high-protein, but not on the ‘low-carb’ component of the diet, while it is unrelated to the concomitant fat-content of the diet.”

A higher protein approach with less fat may be more advantageous in terms of satiety if your goal is fat loss.

A high carb approach such as a Whole Food Plant Based approach may lead to weight loss.  However, it may not provide adequate protein to prevent loss of lean muscle which is a real concern during weight loss.

Also, keep in mind that plant-based amino acids and some micronutrients such as vitamin A and omega 3s are less bioavailable from plant-based sources compared to animal-based sources.

Someone following a high carb plant-based approach should monitor their body fat levels during weight loss and look to add additional protein if they are losing excessive amounts of lean muscle mass or their % body fat is increasing even though they are losing weight.

Personally, I used to follow more of a low carb high-fat approach in an effort to manage my insulin levels and blood sugars.  However, recently I have found much better results in terms of satiety and body composition by prioritising protein.

When you buy into the Carbohydrate-Insulin Hypothesis of Obesity, a lot of things get blamed on insulin resistance.  I was a victim, and my obesity was beyond my control (or so I thought).

I now realise that following a diet that enables you to eat less and control hunger is what will reverse insulin resistance (see this article for more discussion) and lead to increased satiety and fat loss.

image2