Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are High-Fat Foods Good For You? Wait - Are Fatty Foods Good For You?
Wetcoaster
Posts: 1,788 Member
in Debate Club
http://ca.askmen.com/sports/foodcourt/are-high-fat-foods-good-for-you.html
"Calories are all that matter to weight loss, so any time someone says what amounts to, “If you consume this thing that is higher in calories for the same volume, you’ll lose more weight,” my bovine dropping detector goes berserk. It makes no logical sense, even when we consider the effect on satiety"
"Calories are all that matter to weight loss, so any time someone says what amounts to, “If you consume this thing that is higher in calories for the same volume, you’ll lose more weight,” my bovine dropping detector goes berserk. It makes no logical sense, even when we consider the effect on satiety"
0
Replies
-
Hmmm. I think the only way it makes sense is when you DO consider satiety. Yes, fat has more calories, gram for gram, then either protein or carbs. But the impact on satiety is quite different, at least for me. That's the basic idea behind why LCHF diets can help - appetite control. Without constantly spiking and dropping blood sugar, and with the filling, satiating effects of fat and protein, you end up eating less calories overall, even though the foods you eat are "high calorie" foods. It's not complicated - a glass of whole milk is more filling and doesn't impact blood sugar as much as a glass of skim milk. I do find it funny that the article is slamming epidemiological studies. The vast, vast majority of the outdated low fat recommendations are based on... Wait for it... Epidemiological studies.3
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »Hmmm. I think the only way it makes sense is when you DO consider satiety. Yes, fat has more calories, gram for gram, then either protein or carbs. But the impact on satiety is quite different, at least for me.
Not for everyone. Studies even indicate that it's the least sating macro, on average (although I suspect there's a difference between specific high fat and high carb foods). Protein is the most sating, on average.
I find fat not sating at all, although I still eat about 30% or more of it, since I don't have hunger issues so long as I eat a sensible diet and follow a schedule, and I enjoy it so feel happier with my overall diet with more of it (however, I've gone quite low fat without hunger issues or any issue other than likely boredom after a few months--did not eat super processed "low fat" foods like Snackwells, although I have experimented with different types of dairy and find skim and full fat equally satiating by amount, despite the calorie disparity).
I do think keto reduces appetite naturally for many, but I also think diets like keto and paleo (which can be done without being low carb or high fat) and vegan/plant based (typically tending more toward low fat and high carb) can lead to calorie cutting simply because what you used to eat is off limits and it takes a while to adjust to a major change. When I started MFP and started logging (after losing some weight without logging), I realized I was eating too little (around 900 calories) without realizing it or feeling hungry. It's because I'd sharply cut carbs and fat and hadn't adjusted by eating larger servings of protein -- I was basically eating small amounts of potatoes/sweet potatoes, lots of vegetables, and standard servings (3-4 oz) of lean meat/fish.
I think if I hadn't started doing MFP and intentionally eating more carbs and fat I would have adjusted anyway by adding in more high calorie things like nuts and larger servings of meat and so on, and eventually slipping due to wanting more variety. And this is seen in studies of low carb vs. other diets that don't count calories -- there's a big difference at first and then by a year it evens out (and is typically less than what many of us achieve with calorie counting).
Anyway, I do think that if hunger is an issue playing around with macros is a great idea. For me and many others, though, hunger/satiety isn't/wasn't an issue.
Also, great podcast I listened to while running a half marathon today, and have been wanting to recommend that is relevant to this: http://www.evilsugarradio.com/94-stephan-guyenet-the-complexity-of-obesity/980/
I knew about Guyenet before and have been to his site, but this was a great summary/discussion of many different issues.1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Hmmm. I think the only way it makes sense is when you DO consider satiety. Yes, fat has more calories, gram for gram, then either protein or carbs. But the impact on satiety is quite different, at least for me. That's the basic idea behind why LCHF diets can help - appetite control. Without constantly spiking and dropping blood sugar, and with the filling, satiating effects of fat and protein, you end up eating less calories overall, even though the foods you eat are "high calorie" foods. It's not complicated - a glass of whole milk is more filling and doesn't impact blood sugar as much as a glass of skim milk. I do find it funny that the article is slamming epidemiological studies. The vast, vast majority of the outdated low fat recommendations are based on... Wait for it... Epidemiological studies.
That stood out or me too. Epidemiological studies to support keeping fat lower is good but epidemiological studies to support higher fat (usually saturated fat) is bad? He doesn't make much of an argument, imo.
And this statement seems goofy:
"Calories are all that matter to weight loss, so any time someone says what amounts to, “If you consume this thing that is higher in calories for the same volume, you’ll lose more weight,” my bovine dropping detector goes berserk. It makes no logical sense, even when we consider the effect on satiety."
Why would anyone want to eat the same volume of carbs in fat? I can easily eat a big bowl of salad or veggies with a nice dip or dressing. No one will eat a big bowl of fat (dip or salad dressing) with a bit of veggie. I can't image anyone doing that. Even if they tried it they would fail, or at the very least feel pretty badly afterwards.
The vast majority of people who eat high fat eat a lower volume of food than someone who eats low fat. I think most naturally do it too.2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Hmmm. I think the only way it makes sense is when you DO consider satiety. Yes, fat has more calories, gram for gram, then either protein or carbs. But the impact on satiety is quite different, at least for me. That's the basic idea behind why LCHF diets can help - appetite control. Without constantly spiking and dropping blood sugar, and with the filling, satiating effects of fat and protein, you end up eating less calories overall, even though the foods you eat are "high calorie" foods. It's not complicated - a glass of whole milk is more filling and doesn't impact blood sugar as much as a glass of skim milk. I do find it funny that the article is slamming epidemiological studies. The vast, vast majority of the outdated low fat recommendations are based on... Wait for it... Epidemiological studies.
That stood out or me too. Epidemiological studies to support keeping fat lower is good but epidemiological studies to support higher fat (usually saturated fat) is bad? He doesn't make much of an argument, imo.
And this statement seems goofy:
"Calories are all that matter to weight loss, so any time someone says what amounts to, “If you consume this thing that is higher in calories for the same volume, you’ll lose more weight,” my bovine dropping detector goes berserk. It makes no logical sense, even when we consider the effect on satiety."
Why would anyone want to eat the same volume of carbs in fat? I can easily eat a big bowl of salad or veggies with a nice dip or dressing. No one will eat a big bowl of fat (dip or salad dressing) with a bit of veggie. I can't image anyone doing that. Even if they tried it they would fail, or at the very least feel pretty badly afterwards.
The vast majority of people who eat high fat eat a lower volume of food than someone who eats low fat. I think most naturally do it too.
My thoughts precisely. Take it to an extreme - one day wake up and eat a quarter cup of sugar. Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat your normal breakfast? Normal meals at other times? For me, a quarter cup of sugar would do nothing to fill me up and I know I'd be able to eat normally the rest of the day. The next day wake up and eat a quarter cup of butter. Can you even get it down in one sitting? Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat a normal breakfasts? Normal meals at other times? For me a quarter cup of butter, if I could even eat that much at one sitting, would leave me so stuffed there is no way I could manage to eat breakfast. Maybe not even lunch! Another example - how many people guzzle soda all day long and still eat normal meals? I know I used to do just that. How about guzzling heavy cream? No way I could drink 12 oz of cream and then eat a full meal, but I could certainly drink a 12 oz pop with my dinner. I don't think dude with the bro-science even thought this thru at all, lol.
1 -
I never understand anything based on a constant volumetric or mass intake. Who does that.
This writer seems to be creating catchy headlines to get clicks; still at least I learned that Mr Beckham has a new fragrance out.1 -
While I replaced most all of my carbs with fats and some of my protein with fats I was doing it to try and lower my 40 years of arthritis pain without Rx meds because they had damaged my health over the years. 30 days in the pain dropped like a rock.
From the weight loss side effect the reason is simple. To burn stored fat it is easier done when one's insulin level is low. Carbs jacks up Insulin levels where fats do not in a meaningful way. That is why LCHF works better for many people than HCLF. Well when my lifetime of cravings went to ZERO on LCHF (as in <50 grams of carbs daily) of course that helped with weight loss because there were NO more carb binges ever over the past 20 months.
I found the article to me more about filling column inches before a deadline than science about macros.1 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
So we aren't eating more fat, or much of it anyways, but we are increasingly eating more processed / added fats? It looks like added fats went from about 38g/person/day to 53g/person/day from 1980 to 2010. It looks like our overall fat intake increased from about 161 g/person per day to just over 170g/person/day. It appears that increase is mostly in added/processed fats.
"As you can see, there is no real trend here (total fat vs weight trends). Our total fat intake increased slightly between 1980 and 2010, but mostly we just bumped around with no real directionality. This does refute the common claim that our fat intake declined over the course of the obesity epidemic. All available data agree that our absolute intake of fat has hardly changed at all. It only declined as a percentage of total calorie intake.
Now, let's see what happened to added fat. As opposed to the fat naturally found in foods like meat, nuts, eggs, dairy, avocados, and olives, added fats are those that are extracted from foods and concentrated to a nearly pure state. These include seed oils like soybean and canola oil, as well as more traditional fats like butter and lard, although today we eat much more of the former than the latter"
So (saturated) fats in meat, eggs and nuts are good but processed oils like seed oils, olive oil and butter is bad? Olive oil and butter are lumped in with canola oil?
This seems like one of those times when correlation does not equal causation.0 -
@queenliz99 no doubt high fat, high carb... well, high everything, is the reason obesity is such a problem. Our intake of saturated fat declined, but we then replaced that with more carbs and industrial seed and vegetable oils (we didn't just stop eating butter, we switched to hearthhealthy(tm) margarine; we didn't just stop cooking with lard, we replaced it with hearthealthy(tm) crisco, etc. we were told this was better for us, and we followed the advice at our own peril). Yes, our consumption of total fat increased, as did our consumption of everything, but much (most?) of the additional fat we consume is in the form of cheap, processed oils. I've noticed that now that the writing is on the wall, the powers that be are doing subtle shifts; no doubt an effort to save face. CSPI, a group that was largely behind the shift from ancestral fats to hydrogenated oils, is basically denying ever having recommended trans fats (though their lobbying is why "tropical oils" were replaced with rancid seed and veg oils in most restaurants and packaged food products in the 1980s). The USDA has removed dietary cholesterol as a "nutrient of concern", and is placing less emphasis on reducing saturated fat intake (though they still advise to limit that... for now). USDA is finally placing a limit on "added" sugar. The shift is happening. Science advances one funeral at a time (if you can even call nutrition science "science" in the first place), so it will take some time to see any real progress, but I'm definitely seeing a huge shift in my lifetime (I'm an 80's baby).
High fat is a terrible idea in the context of a high carb diet, especially when those fats are primarily inflammatory, rancid, heavily oxidized seed and vegetable oils. The link you provided spoke of added fats - in this day and age "added fats" is synonymous with canola, soybean, corn, and other "vegetable oils". Yeah. Those are pretty bad. But when you reduce carbs to ones personal tolerance level, keep healthy, minimally processed, traditional fats in the diet, and get adequate protein, many people find that appetite regulates, and the weight takes care of itself (obviously this won't address psychological issues with food and may not get you a "perfect" physique, but it is how we ate before there was an obesity problem).4 -
This content has been removed.
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Hmmm. I think the only way it makes sense is when you DO consider satiety. Yes, fat has more calories, gram for gram, then either protein or carbs. But the impact on satiety is quite different, at least for me. That's the basic idea behind why LCHF diets can help - appetite control. Without constantly spiking and dropping blood sugar, and with the filling, satiating effects of fat and protein, you end up eating less calories overall, even though the foods you eat are "high calorie" foods. It's not complicated - a glass of whole milk is more filling and doesn't impact blood sugar as much as a glass of skim milk. I do find it funny that the article is slamming epidemiological studies. The vast, vast majority of the outdated low fat recommendations are based on... Wait for it... Epidemiological studies.
That stood out or me too. Epidemiological studies to support keeping fat lower is good but epidemiological studies to support higher fat (usually saturated fat) is bad? He doesn't make much of an argument, imo.
And this statement seems goofy:
"Calories are all that matter to weight loss, so any time someone says what amounts to, “If you consume this thing that is higher in calories for the same volume, you’ll lose more weight,” my bovine dropping detector goes berserk. It makes no logical sense, even when we consider the effect on satiety."
Why would anyone want to eat the same volume of carbs in fat? I can easily eat a big bowl of salad or veggies with a nice dip or dressing. No one will eat a big bowl of fat (dip or salad dressing) with a bit of veggie. I can't image anyone doing that. Even if they tried it they would fail, or at the very least feel pretty badly afterwards.
The vast majority of people who eat high fat eat a lower volume of food than someone who eats low fat. I think most naturally do it too.
My thoughts precisely. Take it to an extreme - one day wake up and eat a quarter cup of sugar. Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat your normal breakfast? Normal meals at other times? For me, a quarter cup of sugar would do nothing to fill me up and I know I'd be able to eat normally the rest of the day. The next day wake up and eat a quarter cup of butter. Can you even get it down in one sitting? Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat a normal breakfasts? Normal meals at other times? For me a quarter cup of butter, if I could even eat that much at one sitting, would leave me so stuffed there is no way I could manage to eat breakfast. Maybe not even lunch! Another example - how many people guzzle soda all day long and still eat normal meals? I know I used to do just that. How about guzzling heavy cream? No way I could drink 12 oz of cream and then eat a full meal, but I could certainly drink a 12 oz pop with my dinner. I don't think dude with the bro-science even thought this thru at all, lol.
I disagree. I could not eat a quarter cup of sugar OR butter, as both sound unappealing, but people seem to consume that in coconut oil, and I could easily eat that many calories in cheese. I don't like anything that is straight sugar.
Yeah, people consume sugary beverages, but many people consume coffee with cream in similar amounts.
It's about taste.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Hmmm. I think the only way it makes sense is when you DO consider satiety. Yes, fat has more calories, gram for gram, then either protein or carbs. But the impact on satiety is quite different, at least for me. That's the basic idea behind why LCHF diets can help - appetite control. Without constantly spiking and dropping blood sugar, and with the filling, satiating effects of fat and protein, you end up eating less calories overall, even though the foods you eat are "high calorie" foods. It's not complicated - a glass of whole milk is more filling and doesn't impact blood sugar as much as a glass of skim milk. I do find it funny that the article is slamming epidemiological studies. The vast, vast majority of the outdated low fat recommendations are based on... Wait for it... Epidemiological studies.
That stood out or me too. Epidemiological studies to support keeping fat lower is good but epidemiological studies to support higher fat (usually saturated fat) is bad? He doesn't make much of an argument, imo.
And this statement seems goofy:
"Calories are all that matter to weight loss, so any time someone says what amounts to, “If you consume this thing that is higher in calories for the same volume, you’ll lose more weight,” my bovine dropping detector goes berserk. It makes no logical sense, even when we consider the effect on satiety."
Why would anyone want to eat the same volume of carbs in fat? I can easily eat a big bowl of salad or veggies with a nice dip or dressing. No one will eat a big bowl of fat (dip or salad dressing) with a bit of veggie. I can't image anyone doing that. Even if they tried it they would fail, or at the very least feel pretty badly afterwards.
The vast majority of people who eat high fat eat a lower volume of food than someone who eats low fat. I think most naturally do it too.
My thoughts precisely. Take it to an extreme - one day wake up and eat a quarter cup of sugar. Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat your normal breakfast? Normal meals at other times? For me, a quarter cup of sugar would do nothing to fill me up and I know I'd be able to eat normally the rest of the day. The next day wake up and eat a quarter cup of butter. Can you even get it down in one sitting? Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat a normal breakfasts? Normal meals at other times? For me a quarter cup of butter, if I could even eat that much at one sitting, would leave me so stuffed there is no way I could manage to eat breakfast. Maybe not even lunch! Another example - how many people guzzle soda all day long and still eat normal meals? I know I used to do just that. How about guzzling heavy cream? No way I could drink 12 oz of cream and then eat a full meal, but I could certainly drink a 12 oz pop with my dinner. I don't think dude with the bro-science even thought this thru at all, lol.
I disagree. I could not eat a quarter cup of sugar OR butter, as both sound unappealing, but people seem to consume that in coconut oil, and I could easily eat that many calories in cheese. I don't like anything that is straight sugar.
Yeah, people consume sugary beverages, but many people consume coffee with cream in similar amounts.
It's about taste.
Agreed. Both sound equally unappealing and would likely end in me feeling sick, therefore not wanting to eat normally for the rest of the day.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Hmmm. I think the only way it makes sense is when you DO consider satiety. Yes, fat has more calories, gram for gram, then either protein or carbs. But the impact on satiety is quite different, at least for me. That's the basic idea behind why LCHF diets can help - appetite control. Without constantly spiking and dropping blood sugar, and with the filling, satiating effects of fat and protein, you end up eating less calories overall, even though the foods you eat are "high calorie" foods. It's not complicated - a glass of whole milk is more filling and doesn't impact blood sugar as much as a glass of skim milk. I do find it funny that the article is slamming epidemiological studies. The vast, vast majority of the outdated low fat recommendations are based on... Wait for it... Epidemiological studies.
That stood out or me too. Epidemiological studies to support keeping fat lower is good but epidemiological studies to support higher fat (usually saturated fat) is bad? He doesn't make much of an argument, imo.
And this statement seems goofy:
"Calories are all that matter to weight loss, so any time someone says what amounts to, “If you consume this thing that is higher in calories for the same volume, you’ll lose more weight,” my bovine dropping detector goes berserk. It makes no logical sense, even when we consider the effect on satiety."
Why would anyone want to eat the same volume of carbs in fat? I can easily eat a big bowl of salad or veggies with a nice dip or dressing. No one will eat a big bowl of fat (dip or salad dressing) with a bit of veggie. I can't image anyone doing that. Even if they tried it they would fail, or at the very least feel pretty badly afterwards.
The vast majority of people who eat high fat eat a lower volume of food than someone who eats low fat. I think most naturally do it too.
My thoughts precisely. Take it to an extreme - one day wake up and eat a quarter cup of sugar. Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat your normal breakfast? Normal meals at other times? For me, a quarter cup of sugar would do nothing to fill me up and I know I'd be able to eat normally the rest of the day. The next day wake up and eat a quarter cup of butter. Can you even get it down in one sitting? Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat a normal breakfasts? Normal meals at other times? For me a quarter cup of butter, if I could even eat that much at one sitting, would leave me so stuffed there is no way I could manage to eat breakfast. Maybe not even lunch! Another example - how many people guzzle soda all day long and still eat normal meals? I know I used to do just that. How about guzzling heavy cream? No way I could drink 12 oz of cream and then eat a full meal, but I could certainly drink a 12 oz pop with my dinner. I don't think dude with the bro-science even thought this thru at all, lol.
I disagree. I could not eat a quarter cup of sugar OR butter, as both sound unappealing, but people seem to consume that in coconut oil, and I could easily eat that many calories in cheese. I don't like anything that is straight sugar.
Yeah, people consume sugary beverages, but many people consume coffee with cream in similar amounts.
It's about taste.
Agreed. Both sound equally unappealing and would likely end in me feeling sick, therefore not wanting to eat normally for the rest of the day.
Fair enough. Honestly neither would be particularly appealing to me, I am just hard pressed to think of an equal volume of a "pure" carb to compare with a "pure" fat, since most foods contain a combination, plus protein and/or fiber thrown in for good measure, lol. I wasn't suggesting anybody actually try it, so much as to consider the impact it might have on your appetite both at the time, and for the rest of the day. For me, the sugar would not fill me up as much, and certainly wouldn't have the same staying power, as the fat. That's why volume comparisons make no sense.
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Hmmm. I think the only way it makes sense is when you DO consider satiety. Yes, fat has more calories, gram for gram, then either protein or carbs. But the impact on satiety is quite different, at least for me. That's the basic idea behind why LCHF diets can help - appetite control. Without constantly spiking and dropping blood sugar, and with the filling, satiating effects of fat and protein, you end up eating less calories overall, even though the foods you eat are "high calorie" foods. It's not complicated - a glass of whole milk is more filling and doesn't impact blood sugar as much as a glass of skim milk. I do find it funny that the article is slamming epidemiological studies. The vast, vast majority of the outdated low fat recommendations are based on... Wait for it... Epidemiological studies.
That stood out or me too. Epidemiological studies to support keeping fat lower is good but epidemiological studies to support higher fat (usually saturated fat) is bad? He doesn't make much of an argument, imo.
And this statement seems goofy:
"Calories are all that matter to weight loss, so any time someone says what amounts to, “If you consume this thing that is higher in calories for the same volume, you’ll lose more weight,” my bovine dropping detector goes berserk. It makes no logical sense, even when we consider the effect on satiety."
Why would anyone want to eat the same volume of carbs in fat? I can easily eat a big bowl of salad or veggies with a nice dip or dressing. No one will eat a big bowl of fat (dip or salad dressing) with a bit of veggie. I can't image anyone doing that. Even if they tried it they would fail, or at the very least feel pretty badly afterwards.
The vast majority of people who eat high fat eat a lower volume of food than someone who eats low fat. I think most naturally do it too.
My thoughts precisely. Take it to an extreme - one day wake up and eat a quarter cup of sugar. Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat your normal breakfast? Normal meals at other times? For me, a quarter cup of sugar would do nothing to fill me up and I know I'd be able to eat normally the rest of the day. The next day wake up and eat a quarter cup of butter. Can you even get it down in one sitting? Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat a normal breakfasts? Normal meals at other times? For me a quarter cup of butter, if I could even eat that much at one sitting, would leave me so stuffed there is no way I could manage to eat breakfast. Maybe not even lunch! Another example - how many people guzzle soda all day long and still eat normal meals? I know I used to do just that. How about guzzling heavy cream? No way I could drink 12 oz of cream and then eat a full meal, but I could certainly drink a 12 oz pop with my dinner. I don't think dude with the bro-science even thought this thru at all, lol.
I disagree. I could not eat a quarter cup of sugar OR butter, as both sound unappealing, but people seem to consume that in coconut oil, and I could easily eat that many calories in cheese. I don't like anything that is straight sugar.
Yeah, people consume sugary beverages, but many people consume coffee with cream in similar amounts.
It's about taste.
Agreed. Both sound equally unappealing and would likely end in me feeling sick, therefore not wanting to eat normally for the rest of the day.
Fair enough. Honestly neither would be particularly appealing to me, I am just hard pressed to think of an equal volume of a "pure" carb to compare with a "pure" fat, since most foods contain a combination, plus protein and/or fiber thrown in for good measure, lol. I wasn't suggesting anybody actually try it, so much as to consider the impact it might have on your appetite both at the time, and for the rest of the day. For me, the sugar would not fill me up as much, and certainly wouldn't have the same staying power, as the fat. That's why volume comparisons make no sense.
For me volume makes a huge difference, which is why Fell is right (for me).0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Hmmm. I think the only way it makes sense is when you DO consider satiety. Yes, fat has more calories, gram for gram, then either protein or carbs. But the impact on satiety is quite different, at least for me. That's the basic idea behind why LCHF diets can help - appetite control. Without constantly spiking and dropping blood sugar, and with the filling, satiating effects of fat and protein, you end up eating less calories overall, even though the foods you eat are "high calorie" foods. It's not complicated - a glass of whole milk is more filling and doesn't impact blood sugar as much as a glass of skim milk. I do find it funny that the article is slamming epidemiological studies. The vast, vast majority of the outdated low fat recommendations are based on... Wait for it... Epidemiological studies.
That stood out or me too. Epidemiological studies to support keeping fat lower is good but epidemiological studies to support higher fat (usually saturated fat) is bad? He doesn't make much of an argument, imo.
And this statement seems goofy:
"Calories are all that matter to weight loss, so any time someone says what amounts to, “If you consume this thing that is higher in calories for the same volume, you’ll lose more weight,” my bovine dropping detector goes berserk. It makes no logical sense, even when we consider the effect on satiety."
Why would anyone want to eat the same volume of carbs in fat? I can easily eat a big bowl of salad or veggies with a nice dip or dressing. No one will eat a big bowl of fat (dip or salad dressing) with a bit of veggie. I can't image anyone doing that. Even if they tried it they would fail, or at the very least feel pretty badly afterwards.
The vast majority of people who eat high fat eat a lower volume of food than someone who eats low fat. I think most naturally do it too.
My thoughts precisely. Take it to an extreme - one day wake up and eat a quarter cup of sugar. Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat your normal breakfast? Normal meals at other times? For me, a quarter cup of sugar would do nothing to fill me up and I know I'd be able to eat normally the rest of the day. The next day wake up and eat a quarter cup of butter. Can you even get it down in one sitting? Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat a normal breakfasts? Normal meals at other times? For me a quarter cup of butter, if I could even eat that much at one sitting, would leave me so stuffed there is no way I could manage to eat breakfast. Maybe not even lunch! Another example - how many people guzzle soda all day long and still eat normal meals? I know I used to do just that. How about guzzling heavy cream? No way I could drink 12 oz of cream and then eat a full meal, but I could certainly drink a 12 oz pop with my dinner. I don't think dude with the bro-science even thought this thru at all, lol.
I disagree. I could not eat a quarter cup of sugar OR butter, as both sound unappealing, but people seem to consume that in coconut oil, and I could easily eat that many calories in cheese. I don't like anything that is straight sugar.
Yeah, people consume sugary beverages, but many people consume coffee with cream in similar amounts.
It's about taste.
Agreed. Both sound equally unappealing and would likely end in me feeling sick, therefore not wanting to eat normally for the rest of the day.
Fair enough. Honestly neither would be particularly appealing to me, I am just hard pressed to think of an equal volume of a "pure" carb to compare with a "pure" fat, since most foods contain a combination, plus protein and/or fiber thrown in for good measure, lol. I wasn't suggesting anybody actually try it, so much as to consider the impact it might have on your appetite both at the time, and for the rest of the day. For me, the sugar would not fill me up as much, and certainly wouldn't have the same staying power, as the fat. That's why volume comparisons make no sense.
Volume comparisons do make sense though. Higher volume tends to be more filling. Foods that are high in fats tend to be low volume for the same calories than foods lower in fats.
And I agree with Lemur here, guzzling a bottle of heavy cream would leave me nauseous, and that's why I couldn't eat dinner, not because it's filling. If that's how you want to stay under your calories, well...1 -
A handful of nuts on the other hand...2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Hmmm. I think the only way it makes sense is when you DO consider satiety. Yes, fat has more calories, gram for gram, then either protein or carbs. But the impact on satiety is quite different, at least for me. That's the basic idea behind why LCHF diets can help - appetite control. Without constantly spiking and dropping blood sugar, and with the filling, satiating effects of fat and protein, you end up eating less calories overall, even though the foods you eat are "high calorie" foods. It's not complicated - a glass of whole milk is more filling and doesn't impact blood sugar as much as a glass of skim milk. I do find it funny that the article is slamming epidemiological studies. The vast, vast majority of the outdated low fat recommendations are based on... Wait for it... Epidemiological studies.
That stood out or me too. Epidemiological studies to support keeping fat lower is good but epidemiological studies to support higher fat (usually saturated fat) is bad? He doesn't make much of an argument, imo.
And this statement seems goofy:
"Calories are all that matter to weight loss, so any time someone says what amounts to, “If you consume this thing that is higher in calories for the same volume, you’ll lose more weight,” my bovine dropping detector goes berserk. It makes no logical sense, even when we consider the effect on satiety."
Why would anyone want to eat the same volume of carbs in fat? I can easily eat a big bowl of salad or veggies with a nice dip or dressing. No one will eat a big bowl of fat (dip or salad dressing) with a bit of veggie. I can't image anyone doing that. Even if they tried it they would fail, or at the very least feel pretty badly afterwards.
The vast majority of people who eat high fat eat a lower volume of food than someone who eats low fat. I think most naturally do it too.
My thoughts precisely. Take it to an extreme - one day wake up and eat a quarter cup of sugar. Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat your normal breakfast? Normal meals at other times? For me, a quarter cup of sugar would do nothing to fill me up and I know I'd be able to eat normally the rest of the day. The next day wake up and eat a quarter cup of butter. Can you even get it down in one sitting? Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat a normal breakfasts? Normal meals at other times? For me a quarter cup of butter, if I could even eat that much at one sitting, would leave me so stuffed there is no way I could manage to eat breakfast. Maybe not even lunch! Another example - how many people guzzle soda all day long and still eat normal meals? I know I used to do just that. How about guzzling heavy cream? No way I could drink 12 oz of cream and then eat a full meal, but I could certainly drink a 12 oz pop with my dinner. I don't think dude with the bro-science even thought this thru at all, lol.
I disagree. I could not eat a quarter cup of sugar OR butter, as both sound unappealing, but people seem to consume that in coconut oil, and I could easily eat that many calories in cheese. I don't like anything that is straight sugar.
Yeah, people consume sugary beverages, but many people consume coffee with cream in similar amounts.
It's about taste.
Agreed. Both sound equally unappealing and would likely end in me feeling sick, therefore not wanting to eat normally for the rest of the day.
Fair enough. Honestly neither would be particularly appealing to me, I am just hard pressed to think of an equal volume of a "pure" carb to compare with a "pure" fat, since most foods contain a combination, plus protein and/or fiber thrown in for good measure, lol. I wasn't suggesting anybody actually try it, so much as to consider the impact it might have on your appetite both at the time, and for the rest of the day. For me, the sugar would not fill me up as much, and certainly wouldn't have the same staying power, as the fat. That's why volume comparisons make no sense.
For me volume makes a huge difference, which is why Fell is right (for me).
I get that.... My take on what he was saying was - why would you choose the higher fat options (and the subsequent higher calories) for the same volume? (whole milk vs skim was his example). And I took it to it's logical absurdity and compared the same volume of sugar vs butter. Because even whole milk contains quite a bit of sugar, and both whole and skim contain protein, it's not a really useful comparison. You probably wouldn't see a big impact between those two choices (tho all the studies I've seen on whole vs fat free dairy have shown whole dairy to have a positive impact on weight control, so there seems to be at least some impact). Choosing between equal volumes of butter vs sugar might be a different story tho. Both would be hard to eat in one sitting in isolation, but for me the butter would prevent me from eating much at my next meal (maybe even next two meals), while the sugar wouldn't do anything to suppress my appetite - it may even increase my appetite when the sugar crash hits two hours later!
I totally get adding volume to meals; I generally do this in the form of fibrous veggies. Topped with some butter or olive oil
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Hmmm. I think the only way it makes sense is when you DO consider satiety. Yes, fat has more calories, gram for gram, then either protein or carbs. But the impact on satiety is quite different, at least for me. That's the basic idea behind why LCHF diets can help - appetite control. Without constantly spiking and dropping blood sugar, and with the filling, satiating effects of fat and protein, you end up eating less calories overall, even though the foods you eat are "high calorie" foods. It's not complicated - a glass of whole milk is more filling and doesn't impact blood sugar as much as a glass of skim milk. I do find it funny that the article is slamming epidemiological studies. The vast, vast majority of the outdated low fat recommendations are based on... Wait for it... Epidemiological studies.
That stood out or me too. Epidemiological studies to support keeping fat lower is good but epidemiological studies to support higher fat (usually saturated fat) is bad? He doesn't make much of an argument, imo.
And this statement seems goofy:
"Calories are all that matter to weight loss, so any time someone says what amounts to, “If you consume this thing that is higher in calories for the same volume, you’ll lose more weight,” my bovine dropping detector goes berserk. It makes no logical sense, even when we consider the effect on satiety."
Why would anyone want to eat the same volume of carbs in fat? I can easily eat a big bowl of salad or veggies with a nice dip or dressing. No one will eat a big bowl of fat (dip or salad dressing) with a bit of veggie. I can't image anyone doing that. Even if they tried it they would fail, or at the very least feel pretty badly afterwards.
The vast majority of people who eat high fat eat a lower volume of food than someone who eats low fat. I think most naturally do it too.
My thoughts precisely. Take it to an extreme - one day wake up and eat a quarter cup of sugar. Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat your normal breakfast? Normal meals at other times? For me, a quarter cup of sugar would do nothing to fill me up and I know I'd be able to eat normally the rest of the day. The next day wake up and eat a quarter cup of butter. Can you even get it down in one sitting? Does it impact your appetite? Are you able to eat a normal breakfasts? Normal meals at other times? For me a quarter cup of butter, if I could even eat that much at one sitting, would leave me so stuffed there is no way I could manage to eat breakfast. Maybe not even lunch! Another example - how many people guzzle soda all day long and still eat normal meals? I know I used to do just that. How about guzzling heavy cream? No way I could drink 12 oz of cream and then eat a full meal, but I could certainly drink a 12 oz pop with my dinner. I don't think dude with the bro-science even thought this thru at all, lol.
I disagree. I could not eat a quarter cup of sugar OR butter, as both sound unappealing, but people seem to consume that in coconut oil, and I could easily eat that many calories in cheese. I don't like anything that is straight sugar.
Yeah, people consume sugary beverages, but many people consume coffee with cream in similar amounts.
It's about taste.
Agreed. Both sound equally unappealing and would likely end in me feeling sick, therefore not wanting to eat normally for the rest of the day.
Fair enough. Honestly neither would be particularly appealing to me, I am just hard pressed to think of an equal volume of a "pure" carb to compare with a "pure" fat, since most foods contain a combination, plus protein and/or fiber thrown in for good measure, lol. I wasn't suggesting anybody actually try it, so much as to consider the impact it might have on your appetite both at the time, and for the rest of the day. For me, the sugar would not fill me up as much, and certainly wouldn't have the same staying power, as the fat. That's why volume comparisons make no sense.
Volume comparisons do make sense though. Higher volume tends to be more filling. Foods that are high in fats tend to be low volume for the same calories than foods lower in fats.
And I agree with Lemur here, guzzling a bottle of heavy cream would leave me nauseous, and that's why I couldn't eat dinner, not because it's filling. If that's how you want to stay under your calories, well...
But that wasn't exactly what he was saying - he was comparing equal volumes of foods that only differ in sugar/fat content. High volume foods tend to be high in fiber and water, hence the added volume. Comparing foods that strictly differ in sugar and fat content (like whole vs skim milk, or butter vs sugar) paints a different picture.
FWIW - I don't guzzle heavy cream, but I do pour generous amounts over fresh berries for dessert from time to time.... and then don't need to eat until noonish the next day.0 -
There's about 12 sugar cubes in a quarter cup... I could have eaten that in one sitting, if no one was watching and judging. LOL Very easy to do (and quadruple) if it is in soda form. Honestly, I could do the 1/4 c fat too if it was coconut oil with some cocoa and stevia but I don't think I could do a cup of fat even if it was mixed with cocoa, and sweetener or put in BPC.
The volume coparison, imo, should be done with real foods. No sane person would say that switching X volume of carbs with X volume of fats would lead to weight loss, and no sane person would do it anyways. Substituting 2 cups of salad and a tablespoon of dressing with 2 cups of dressing and a tablspoon of salad? Swap the volume of two slices of bread and the Tbs of peanut butter so there is more peanut butter and a tablespoon of bread? It makes no sense.
High fat foods are eaten in lower volume, as a general rule. I eat very high fat. My plate is usually less full than the rest of my family's, especially lately when I am experimenting with an all animal diet for a few week. When carbs are at 30g for the day, my plate is similarly full because of the bulk and volume of the veggies.0 -
So we aren't eating more fat, or much of it anyways, but we are increasingly eating more processed / added fats? It looks like added fats went from about 38g/person/day to 53g/person/day from 1980 to 2010. It looks like our overall fat intake increased from about 161 g/person per day to just over 170g/person/day. It appears that increase is mostly in added/processed fats.
Is the data remotely reliable though ? I've been reading a few articles making the case for not using the data from Food diaries, recall interviews, NHANES etc.0 -
I don't think anyone wants to eat straight sugar -- it's not tasty. IMO there's something messed up going on if you want to.
I also think drinking straight oil or eating butter is weird, granted.1 -
eatbadlyplate wrote: »So we aren't eating more fat, or much of it anyways, but we are increasingly eating more processed / added fats? It looks like added fats went from about 38g/person/day to 53g/person/day from 1980 to 2010. It looks like our overall fat intake increased from about 161 g/person per day to just over 170g/person/day. It appears that increase is mostly in added/processed fats.
Is the data remotely reliable though ? I've been reading a few articles making the case for not using the data from Food diaries, recall interviews, NHANES etc.
I have no idea if the data in the link http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/11/fat-added-fat-and-obesity-in-america.html provided by Queenliz99 is accurate. Even if it is, it really only seems to show that adding processed vegetable oils seems to correlate with weight gain over the last 3 decades. Many many other factors also correlate with the increased fatness of North America though. My guess is that it is a combination of things.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
vinegar_husbands wrote: »I cook with lard almost everyday. Ghee is nice too. I use it because I don't cook with butter very often. Now that I cook with lard, I'm leaner than ever. Lard is a miracle! Fat is great! Very filling- Makes veggies taste good.
Also, I have a strange suspicion that AskMen (and other gender oriented magazines/websites) is actually written by feminists and big food/pharma shills.
lol....seriously? you did read who wrote it and who he talked to right?0 -
I like the debate so far....great to read.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132672
Soybean Oil Is More Obesogenic and Diabetogenic than Coconut Oil and Fructose in Mouse: Potential Role for the Liver
Poonamjot Deol, Jane R. Evans, Joseph Dhahbi, Karthikeyani Chellappa, Diana S. Han, Stephen Spindler, Frances M. Sladek
Published: July 22, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132672
As bad as I hated to give it up I finally gave up buttermilk ranch salad dressing used in some restaurants. I loved the taste but many of the 200 calories was from soybean oil. They can have my soybean oil for diesel fuel usage. I wanted the fats but not that kind due to my joint pain that is managed OK now that I am off of sugar and all forums of grains.
2 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
Interesting article. It seemed to come down to saturated fats not being proven to be bad and a call to the government to quit making reccommendations for the public to cut saturated fats since reducing saturated fats is not proven to be beneficial.0 -
Even if it is, it really only seems to show that adding processed vegetable oils seems to correlate with weight gain over the last 3 decades. Many many other factors also correlate with the increased fatness of North America though. My guess is that it is a combination of things.
Poultry meat consumption is a good correlation in the UK.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9446.pdf "WHY HAVE AMERICANS BECOME MORE OBESE?" from 2003 concluded it was calories, but at the same time observed that the self reported calorie intake of women corresponded with a body weight of about 64 lbs and that of men about 106 lbs.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions