Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Are High-Fat Foods Good For You? Wait - Are Fatty Foods Good For You?

13»

Replies

  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,623Member Member Posts: 7,623Member Member
    I love regular yellow mustard since I can remember so that works OK for me on salads. They they only have it in packets it is a lot of work however.
  • tlflag1620tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358Member Member Posts: 1,358Member Member
    Interesting article and I tend to agree. While you will likely not see someone eating a bowl of butter with a spoon (anymore than you would see someone eating a bowl of cornstarch), there is a point of diminishing returns for fat consumption even for those who swear by the satiating effect of fat. Gagging due to a fat overload doesn't count. More is better is only applicable in the context of a ketogenic diet which involves entirely different processes, and does not produce that satiety effect in everyone anyway.
    jgnatca wrote: »
    A handful of nuts on the other hand...
    Believe it or not, only today I was lamenting not being able to eat 3 cups of nuts in one setting with a clear conscience like I used to.

    Picking two random foods and comparing their satiety in a vacuum then making macronutrient satiety judgement statements is a bit silly. Yes, you may feel more full eating a certain fatty food vs another carby food, but the opposite is also true for a different pair. If you compare the satiety of 300 grams of nuts vs 300 grams of air popped popcorn, popcorn always wins for most people, if you are even able to eat that much. 300 grams of popcorn is close to 40 cups, so yeah. Weight per weight popcorn would produce more satiety for most people in this case and contains nearly half the calories in the same amount of nuts, so if we are making a calorie per calorie comparison it's even more outrageous and obviously unfair.

    On a personal level, the vast majority of the calories I cut were from fat to be able to produce a comparable satiety level without compromising my food choices and taste. Gradually reducing the amount of oil in my salad, for example, from a whopping 5 tablespoons to 1 made a huge difference in my calorie consumption with a negligible effect on satiety. A salad without oil may not feel satisfying taste-wise to some, so it may have a psychological effect of producing more hunger. A salad with 1 tablespoon of oil will likely have a better satiety than a plain salad, but a satiety extremely close to that of a salad with 1.5 spoonfuls of oil because the difference in taste is barely noticeable for 60 less calories.

    How many times have we read threads of people ordering a meal they thought was lower in calories, only to find out it had so much fat in it making it extremely high in calories and wiping their deficit. Had these people not checked the calories later, they would have gone believing they had a low calorie meal. Obviously being high in fat did not make them magically full after eating two bites.

    I'm leaving yet another example: for many people, a baked potato with a bit of butter or sour cream is more satiating than the same amount of potatoes deep fried despite being lower in fat.

    People need to acknowledge both context and individuality! If people take their head out of the vacuum they seem to be living in, the amount of blanket statements will drastically decrease.





    Weight is different than volume tho. Yes, gram for gram, popcorn will fill you up more than almonds. But cup for cup? Yeah, a cup of almonds is more filling than a cup of popcorn.

    I agree with what you are saying... My initial comments were made towards the article's sentiment that it makes no sense to choose a higher fat content when choosing between the same *volume* of two food options. And while in some cases it might make sense to opt for the lower fat option (especially if you follow a low fat diet!), dismissing the effect of satiety out of hand is pretty dumb. That's all I was getting at...

  • amusedmonkeyamusedmonkey Posts: 9,644Member Member Posts: 9,644Member Member
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Interesting article and I tend to agree. While you will likely not see someone eating a bowl of butter with a spoon (anymore than you would see someone eating a bowl of cornstarch), there is a point of diminishing returns for fat consumption even for those who swear by the satiating effect of fat. Gagging due to a fat overload doesn't count. More is better is only applicable in the context of a ketogenic diet which involves entirely different processes, and does not produce that satiety effect in everyone anyway.
    jgnatca wrote: »
    A handful of nuts on the other hand...
    Believe it or not, only today I was lamenting not being able to eat 3 cups of nuts in one setting with a clear conscience like I used to.

    Picking two random foods and comparing their satiety in a vacuum then making macronutrient satiety judgement statements is a bit silly. Yes, you may feel more full eating a certain fatty food vs another carby food, but the opposite is also true for a different pair. If you compare the satiety of 300 grams of nuts vs 300 grams of air popped popcorn, popcorn always wins for most people, if you are even able to eat that much. 300 grams of popcorn is close to 40 cups, so yeah. Weight per weight popcorn would produce more satiety for most people in this case and contains nearly half the calories in the same amount of nuts, so if we are making a calorie per calorie comparison it's even more outrageous and obviously unfair.

    On a personal level, the vast majority of the calories I cut were from fat to be able to produce a comparable satiety level without compromising my food choices and taste. Gradually reducing the amount of oil in my salad, for example, from a whopping 5 tablespoons to 1 made a huge difference in my calorie consumption with a negligible effect on satiety. A salad without oil may not feel satisfying taste-wise to some, so it may have a psychological effect of producing more hunger. A salad with 1 tablespoon of oil will likely have a better satiety than a plain salad, but a satiety extremely close to that of a salad with 1.5 spoonfuls of oil because the difference in taste is barely noticeable for 60 less calories.

    How many times have we read threads of people ordering a meal they thought was lower in calories, only to find out it had so much fat in it making it extremely high in calories and wiping their deficit. Had these people not checked the calories later, they would have gone believing they had a low calorie meal. Obviously being high in fat did not make them magically full after eating two bites.

    I'm leaving yet another example: for many people, a baked potato with a bit of butter or sour cream is more satiating than the same amount of potatoes deep fried despite being lower in fat.

    People need to acknowledge both context and individuality! If people take their head out of the vacuum they seem to be living in, the amount of blanket statements will drastically decrease.





    Weight is different than volume tho. Yes, gram for gram, popcorn will fill you up more than almonds. But cup for cup? Yeah, a cup of almonds is more filling than a cup of popcorn.

    I agree with what you are saying... My initial comments were made towards the article's sentiment that it makes no sense to choose a higher fat content when choosing between the same *volume* of two food options. And while in some cases it might make sense to opt for the lower fat option (especially if you follow a low fat diet!), dismissing the effect of satiety out of hand is pretty dumb. That's all I was getting at...

    This is true, but that volume is mostly air. This is precisely why I didn't use a vegetable for the example. Even ignoring that, a cup of almonds is more than 800 calories while a cup of popcorn is 30. So while in theory you could say a cup of almonds is more filling, in practice this point is kind of moot.

    You are right though. The article makes the exact "statement in a vacuum" I'm against if it indeed is saying that. I admit I only skimmed through so I thought it was basically saying it's all about calories and glorifying fat as the next weight loss miracle is not all it's cracked up to be, basically asserting my disdain for blanket statements.

    One more thing: opting for lower fat options is not limited to a low fat diet. It's basically up to preference and a person's own judgement of what is worth the calories and what isn't. I will ALWAYS opt for a skinless chicken that isn't fried because I would rather spend those extra calories on something else, which could actually be high in fat like a full fat cheese. My current diet is by no means a low fat diet, all I did was cut down on the extra fat I used to consume from 250 or so grams or about 50-60% of my previous 4000+ calorie diet to a reasonable 40-70 grams or about 30% of my current 1500-1600 calorie diet.
    edited April 2016
  • tlflag1620tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358Member Member Posts: 1,358Member Member
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Interesting article and I tend to agree. While you will likely not see someone eating a bowl of butter with a spoon (anymore than you would see someone eating a bowl of cornstarch), there is a point of diminishing returns for fat consumption even for those who swear by the satiating effect of fat. Gagging due to a fat overload doesn't count. More is better is only applicable in the context of a ketogenic diet which involves entirely different processes, and does not produce that satiety effect in everyone anyway.
    jgnatca wrote: »
    A handful of nuts on the other hand...
    Believe it or not, only today I was lamenting not being able to eat 3 cups of nuts in one setting with a clear conscience like I used to.

    Picking two random foods and comparing their satiety in a vacuum then making macronutrient satiety judgement statements is a bit silly. Yes, you may feel more full eating a certain fatty food vs another carby food, but the opposite is also true for a different pair. If you compare the satiety of 300 grams of nuts vs 300 grams of air popped popcorn, popcorn always wins for most people, if you are even able to eat that much. 300 grams of popcorn is close to 40 cups, so yeah. Weight per weight popcorn would produce more satiety for most people in this case and contains nearly half the calories in the same amount of nuts, so if we are making a calorie per calorie comparison it's even more outrageous and obviously unfair.

    On a personal level, the vast majority of the calories I cut were from fat to be able to produce a comparable satiety level without compromising my food choices and taste. Gradually reducing the amount of oil in my salad, for example, from a whopping 5 tablespoons to 1 made a huge difference in my calorie consumption with a negligible effect on satiety. A salad without oil may not feel satisfying taste-wise to some, so it may have a psychological effect of producing more hunger. A salad with 1 tablespoon of oil will likely have a better satiety than a plain salad, but a satiety extremely close to that of a salad with 1.5 spoonfuls of oil because the difference in taste is barely noticeable for 60 less calories.

    How many times have we read threads of people ordering a meal they thought was lower in calories, only to find out it had so much fat in it making it extremely high in calories and wiping their deficit. Had these people not checked the calories later, they would have gone believing they had a low calorie meal. Obviously being high in fat did not make them magically full after eating two bites.

    I'm leaving yet another example: for many people, a baked potato with a bit of butter or sour cream is more satiating than the same amount of potatoes deep fried despite being lower in fat.

    People need to acknowledge both context and individuality! If people take their head out of the vacuum they seem to be living in, the amount of blanket statements will drastically decrease.





    Weight is different than volume tho. Yes, gram for gram, popcorn will fill you up more than almonds. But cup for cup? Yeah, a cup of almonds is more filling than a cup of popcorn.

    I agree with what you are saying... My initial comments were made towards the article's sentiment that it makes no sense to choose a higher fat content when choosing between the same *volume* of two food options. And while in some cases it might make sense to opt for the lower fat option (especially if you follow a low fat diet!), dismissing the effect of satiety out of hand is pretty dumb. That's all I was getting at...

    This is true, but that volume is mostly air. This is precisely why I didn't use a vegetable for the example. Even ignoring that, a cup of almonds is more than 800 calories while a cup of popcorn is 30. So while in theory you could say a cup of almonds is more filling, in practice this point is kind of moot.

    You are right though. The article makes the exact "statement in a vacuum" I'm against if it indeed is saying that. I admit I only skimmed through so I thought it was basically saying it's all about calories and glorifying fat as the next weight loss miracle is not all it's cracked up to be, basically asserting my disdain for blanket statements.

    One more thing: opting for lower fat options is not limited to a low fat diet. It's basically up to preference and a person's own judgement of what is worth the calories and what isn't. I will ALWAYS opt for a skinless chicken that isn't fried because I would rather spend those extra calories on something else, which could actually be high in fat like a full fat cheese. My current diet is by no means a low fat diet, all I did was cut down on the extra fat I used to consume from 250 or so grams or about 50-60% of my previous 4000+ calorie diet to a reasonable 40-70 grams or about 30% of my current 1500-1600 calorie diet.

    I hear ya! I opt to leave the skin on chicken, but put a touch less butter on my veggies :). I used to eat low fat (about 20-25% of an 1800 cal per day diet) and while I could lose weight, I was starving all the time and had touble with long term adherence. Eating closer to 100 g per day on the same number of calories has allowed me to get to goal weight and maintain it for years without going hungry. Goes to show how different we can be!

  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    Whatever floats your boat! ;-)

    There was a time when I would have vouched for brown sugar with butter, however.
Sign In or Register to comment.