Why do people insist that they need tons of fat for keto!
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
Not exactly... in her book it's more implied. She recommends 1-2tbs of coconut oil put in to warm water and you drink it before each meal. Plus her sample menu planlemurcat12 wrote: »Biochemist Mary Enig PhD, suggest it. She's the one who discovered trans fats are bad. When she made that statment to frito's lay they said to her, "If you talked differently you'd get paid more." There is a lot of politics and non sense.
She said most of your fat should be saturated? Do you have a cite?
SHe has 2 meal plans 2,500 calories and a meal plan of 2,000 calories. I can send you the pdf if you want of the book.
Also Stephen Phinney M.D. also talk about how the majority of your calories should come from saturated fat, also Peter Attia M.D. These guys are really good resources, They are probably the top go to people in the keto community in my opinion. A quick search on youtube will bring them up. Peter Attita is really heavy on the numbers.
Peter Attia was just talking about saturated fat in his latest blog post:
"However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis)." --Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
As for Mary Enig, I think that milk/coconut milk diet is out there. lol But I'm going to assume it was to make the point that traditional fats, even if they're high in saturated fat, are healthful. Not that we should be eating saturated fat to the exclusion of everything else. Even red meat has more monounsaturated fats than saturated. Here's the blurb from her book:
"Coconut oil, red meat, and butter—these fats are traditionally considered harmful, but this powerful book, based on more than two decades of research, shows that these saturated fats are actually essential to weight loss and health. Eat Fat, Lose Fat flouts conventional wisdom by revealing that so-called healthy vegetable oils (such as corn and soybean) are in large part responsible for our national obesity and health crisis.
The three programs in this book, which features delicious coconut oil based recipes, among others, show that eating healthy fats is the answer to losing weight and achieving good health for a lifetime." --Eat Fat, Lose Fat: The Healthy Alternative to Trans Fats
OKay i read the link. I do agree with him, he has concluded that some people just aren't meant for this type of diet. Which I agree with. Some people are better geared towards processing carbs compared to fat. Compare endurance athletes to power athletes. Some people are just naturally thin with lower body fat %, some have higher and are more robust. There is genetic variance.
I just checked my diary, 81g of saturated fats out of 178, which is 46.% from saturated fats. A day when i ate just animal products 90g of fat out of which is 49% from saturated fats.
You do have a point though, it's something to monitor and keep track of(your blood markers).
But isn't the argument made by Eing (and other advocates of this way of eating) that this is our "natural" way to eat. If you have to monitor your blood work to ensure it isn't dangerous for you, that seems contradictory.
Of course, it's possible that you don't believe that this is a natural food pattern for humans, just one that promotes health for some and not others.
Yes we are humans but we have adapted to different global regions which should also be taken in to consideration.
Which global regions are associated with requiring (or tolerating) large amounts of saturated fat and which ones aren't? I think this would be a key message for proponents of high saturated fat in the diet to get out there. The Weston A. Price website still includes language about their way of eating being suitable for people "worldwide." And didn't Price base his research on people in specific regions? If evolution based on region has made people vary so widely, how did he verify that his findings applied to all people and not just a subset?
Which global regions? Honestly, Idk, i haven't done research on that. But I do know the inuits mostly had a ketogenic diet, and asian's have more of a carb based diet. With that said, genetics do play a role. I am not familiar with Mr.Price.
This also reminds me, someone mentioned him earlier, Dr.Enig does have carbs in her diet, I was using her just as a reference for fat, nothing more.
Only during times of famine and starvation. Other times they had too much protein 40-50% protein to be exact. They also eat fermented ie "rotten meat" so they get a lot of "meat sugar". They also use alot of that whale blubber for fuels. Before cooking oils and butter were created, it would have been extremely difficult to get >60% fat since game animals are relativity lean even while eating the organ, unless these starving people threw away all the meat just to eat the fat0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »Isn't that where "net" carbs come in?
not really, that's an artefact of US labels.
I eat non-starchy vegetables with typically <5% carbohydrate, hence a pound of veg a day is ~22g of carbohydrate and some amount of fibre as well.
Didn't it start as an Atkins thing? I've always associated with low carb diets.............
Carbs - fiber = net carbs0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »mybellabear1 wrote: »This is MIND BLOWING that people think that LCHF means high fat in grams! A little math is all that is needed. 9 calories for 1 gram of fat, and 4 calories for 1 gram of protein, so even if someone ate 100 grams of protein and 100 grams of fat, fat is still higher! 400 calories of protein, and a whopping 1000 from fat alone! It really bothers me that so much misinformation is out there, and people have people shoving lard down their throats thinking that fat should be high
I am so grateful for keto for weight loss and ketogenic women on facebook! Optimal ketogenic living has helped me shed over 60 pounds in just over 2 months!
Your mind is blown because people think that a Low Carb High Fat diet is high in fat?
Maybe it's Low Carb, High Fun!
Although I struggle to understand how that could even be possible. Sounds like a definite contradiction.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »The things people do just to lose weight.... Why not just eat less food? Why the macro restriction? It just boggles my mind.
On an average day without trying i can only consume roughly 35g fat. I cannot even imagine consuming upwards of 100g of fat.
Besides, how on earth do you get enough micronutrients and fiber without eating enough vegetables (carbs)?
I mean, if it works for satiety while on a caloric deficit, fine, but surely eating this way is not sustainable?
This is the bit I always wonder about. I've read that constipation isn't an issue for them because of the fat content of their diet, so I'm guessing they don't care about fiber that much? But the vitamins and minerals from veggies are a head scratcher.
Veggies don't seem to count for people who do low carb. At least from what I've seen when people talk about being low carb and focusing on eating lots of veggies instead of carbs lol.
Isn't that where "net" carbs come in?
No idea. I don't usually see people talking about net carbs much, just saying "I don't eat carbs, eating veggies instead" which just always makes me shake my head haha.
I'm sure you can low carb while eating produce, but don't say that you don't eat carbs when you eat produce.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
Only in marketing material. The science is rock solid. An early reference (from 1928 Journal of Biological Chemistry...)...the average daily food partition is about 280 gm. of protein, 135 gm. of fat, and 54 gm. of carbohydrate
of which the bulk is derived from the glycogen of the meat eaten.
Way to much protein for ketosis.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
LOl Dr. Eades, get owned by Richard Nikoley and Duck Dodgers
http://freetheanimal.com/2014/10/comment-michael-doesnt.html
http://freetheanimal.com/2014/10/damned-inuit-diet.html0 -
The thing with coconut oil is MCT(medium change triglycerides), It oxidizes(used for energy) and don't get stored as fat..
Well that's completely wrong....it takes more energy to oxidize it than what it contains...
And yet that manages to be even more wrong, while simultaneosly contradicting the first claim....this increases metabolic rate.
And that's from Planet Pure Speculation.
I actually chortled loudly at work and with increasing volume at each line.
:laugh:
Well done.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Most of your fat calories should come from saturated fat.janejellyroll wrote: »Totally off topic, but LCHF is so hard when you're also a vegan xD
I rely on Earth Balance vegan butter to get my fat content up there.
Couldn't you also use, say, any plant oil? I'm vegan too and Earth Balance is a great substitute for butter. But I can't imagine using a lot of it each day.
And, like mamapeach910, I am trying to wrap my mind around how difficult this would be.
Okay, so coconut oil is vegan, yes?
Is this whole idea that most of the calories for this WOE be from saturated fat behind the coconut oil craze or at least part of what's behind the coconut oil craze?
I'm getting old, it's getting hard to keep up with all this nonsense.
The thing with coconut oil is MCT(medium change triglycerides), It oxidizes(used for energy) and don't get stored as fat, it takes more energy to oxidize it than what it contains, this increases metabolic rate. And also suppresses appetite.
"In summary, research conducted to date in animals shows that replacing dietary LCT by MCT causes a rise in EE, a depression of food intake and lower body fat mass. Similarly, in humans, MCT increase EE relative to LCT consumption. Fewer studies have examined the effects of MCT on satiety but, although results vary, these also suggest decreased food intake when LCT are replaced with MCT in the diet. Therefore, greater EE and lower food intake with MCT compared with LCT suggest that replacing dietary LCT with MCT could facilitate weight maintenance in humans. "
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/3/329.full
But that increase in metabolic rate weans off after a while of use (just like caffeine) does it not?
I use it sometimes because it tastes good in some things, but I feel the human studies are a bit scarce and small so I don't see myself moving to regular use since I love my olive oil too much to give it up for something that does not have strong evidence behind it.
Caffeine is different, it's a stimulant, it stimulates the adrenal glands. Which a tolerant can be built. This is why you need more caffeine for the same effect.
MCT is energy, it provides so much any, and it takes so much energy to oxidize it. This is thermodynamics.
I haven't dug deep before because the studies seemed a bit small and weak at first glance, but now I took a second look and indeed your body does adapt. And I thought I did read something of that nature.. now I remember.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/103484980 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Most of your fat calories should come from saturated fat.janejellyroll wrote: »Totally off topic, but LCHF is so hard when you're also a vegan xD
I rely on Earth Balance vegan butter to get my fat content up there.
Couldn't you also use, say, any plant oil? I'm vegan too and Earth Balance is a great substitute for butter. But I can't imagine using a lot of it each day.
And, like mamapeach910, I am trying to wrap my mind around how difficult this would be.
Okay, so coconut oil is vegan, yes?
Is this whole idea that most of the calories for this WOE be from saturated fat behind the coconut oil craze or at least part of what's behind the coconut oil craze?
I'm getting old, it's getting hard to keep up with all this nonsense.
The thing with coconut oil is MCT(medium change triglycerides), It oxidizes(used for energy) and don't get stored as fat, it takes more energy to oxidize it than what it contains, this increases metabolic rate. And also suppresses appetite.
"In summary, research conducted to date in animals shows that replacing dietary LCT by MCT causes a rise in EE, a depression of food intake and lower body fat mass. Similarly, in humans, MCT increase EE relative to LCT consumption. Fewer studies have examined the effects of MCT on satiety but, although results vary, these also suggest decreased food intake when LCT are replaced with MCT in the diet. Therefore, greater EE and lower food intake with MCT compared with LCT suggest that replacing dietary LCT with MCT could facilitate weight maintenance in humans. "
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/3/329.full
But that increase in metabolic rate weans off after a while of use (just like caffeine) does it not?
I use it sometimes because it tastes good in some things, but I feel the human studies are a bit scarce and small so I don't see myself moving to regular use since I love my olive oil too much to give it up for something that does not have strong evidence behind it.
Caffeine is different, it's a stimulant, it stimulates the adrenal glands. Which a tolerant can be built. This is why you need more caffeine for the same effect.
MCT is energy, it provides so much any, and it takes so much energy to oxidize it. This is thermodynamics.
I haven't dug deep before because the studies seemed a bit small and weak at first glance, but now I took a second look and indeed your body does adapt. And I thought I did read something of that nature.. now I remember.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10348498
For those who aren't going to click through...To examine the effect of consumption of medium-chain triglycerides (MCT) vs. long-chain triglycerides (LCT) on total energy expenditure...there was no effect of diet on TEF. There were no differences in BMR, TEF, or AIEE between diets when expressed as percentages of TEE.0 -
I don't understand net carbs at all. Not gonna lie. I always thought it was Carbs - fiber equaled net carbs, but I bought these the other day (because they are yummy). The front of the box...
Nutritional info...
How is that 3 net carbs?0 -
I don't understand net carbs at all. Not gonna lie. I always thought it was Carbs - fiber equaled net carbs, but I bought these the other day (because they are yummy). The front of the box...
Nutritional info...
How is that 3 net carbs?
I'm guessing because it's assumed sugar alcohols aren't like... digested... or.. something?0 -
Because 20-10 = 3 in Magic Atkins-land
But yea, I think they don't count "sugar alcohols" either.0 -
Effing marketers, that's crazy talk. Fibre doesn't pass through unmolested, unless you have Montezuma's revenge, and sugar alcohols don't come with dietary equivalent of a Romulan cloaking device.
I wouldn't count that as less than 10g of carbs.
0 -
Effing marketers, that's crazy talk. Fibre doesn't pass through unmolested, unless you have Montezuma's revenge, and sugar alcohols don't come with dietary equivalent of a Romulan cloaking device.
I wouldn't count that as less than 10g of carbs.
I wouldn't either. Luckily I love carbs. These really are tasty.
That's interesting though cause Pure Protein bars use sugar alcohols so all this time, they have been the same net carbs as a Quest bar? Or are some of the ingredients (carbs) in Quest bars (erithrotol for example) not counted towards carb counts as well?
I know I'm veering off, but whatever, this thread is all over the place.
0 -
I don't know about that - I see a difference between making pork rind nachos (which are awesome, btw) and eating a stick of butter. And I can honestly say, after 15 years, I have never once been even tempted to eat a stick of butter. That may be because my plan was set up by an RD long before there were keto blogs on the net, so nobody ever gave me the unfortunate misinformation that you should eat all your fat grams instead of considering them an upper limit.0 -
I don't understand net carbs at all. Not gonna lie. I always thought it was Carbs - fiber equaled net carbs, but I bought these the other day (because they are yummy). The front of the box...
Nutritional info...
How is that 3 net carbs?
I'm guessing because it's assumed sugar alcohols aren't like... digested... or.. something?
But that makes no sense because if you do the math... 9g of fat: 81 calories; 15 g of protein: 60 calories. So that's 141 calories. Total calories? 180.
That leaves 39 calories, roughly 10 grams of carb calories worth. So how can you be counting the calories from the carbs but not the carbs themselves?
This is my problem with ALL "net carbs" claims.
I pulled a link a while ago from some government website. It only said something about insoluble fiber not being included in calorie counts. Soluble fiber is digested. Shouldn't those carbs count for carb counting people?
0 -
People should count "total carbs" not net carbs. Well that's the direction all this stuff is going anyways.
I was reading a post about a type 1 diabetic who consumed 1g of net carb, his blood glucose went up to 300mg/dl. which equated his response to about 30g of carbs, this was determined by how much insulin he had to take.
That's because diabetics have a system for fiber and sugar alcohols (count fiber if less than 5, count half if more than 5, count half sugar alcohols and round up if there are fractions). It was pretty irresponsible for him to deviate from these rules.. The bar above would be 10 diabetic carbs.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions