Are you afraid of fats?
Replies
-
So, in the UK we are scared and pushed into believing that fats = weight gain and in order to lose weight, we must succumb to low fat options/keep our fat intake down.
Have you seen this too? Ever fallen into this before realizing its a myth?
If you know of people trying to lose weight by lowering fat (only) - would you try to educate them?
LOL, I thought the title asked "Are you afraid of tats?" and I was going to say no....
No to fear of fats also. I add avocado, some olives, and olive oil to my food every week per my doctor's advice.1 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »No, I don't. I lived in Denmark for a while and gained a lot of weight. Not because my normal diet consisted of so much fat, but because stuff I was used to eating was all low-fat there. It was so difficult to find proper stiff full fat yogurt, full fat milk, so many other things. This was particularly true at work which served breakfast and lunch. And if you take fat out of food it loses a lot of taste. I was just longing for food with taste that I bought a lot of stuff additionally. Well.. that lead to gaining weight of course.
Denmark had the best tasting butter, cheese... heck, all of the dairy, that I've ever experienced. Decent pork, too. The one amazing thing was, for a country comprised of islands (and one near-island, peninsula type thing), the seafood was terrible.
You think so? I found it terrible. But then again I lived in an area where supermarkets only stocked Arla stuff
0 -
Yes I think I am .. I read a book called the t factor diet which had you count fat grams instead of calories .. now if I remember right it said.60 grams for men ... MFP has my micros at 54 grams ... so I guess I'm low fat ... I would love to have nice bone in ribeye every day . It just doesn't fit in my calores very well lol0
-
It just doesn't fit my budget very well.red99ryder wrote: »I would love to have nice bone in ribeye every day . It just doesn't fit in my calores very well lol
0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
It just doesn't fit my budget very well.red99ryder wrote: »I would love to have nice bone in ribeye every day . It just doesn't fit in my calores very well lol
Well that too lol0 -
-
Fat is delicious. I cannot be afraid of something so delicious.... 0
-
I thought that low fat was a thing of the past (except for people that find it helps them eat less calories or have a medical reason). But, about six months ago I joined a plant based diet group online. They are a great group! But, I was surprised how they promoted a low fat diet. So, the diet was high carb. I had to leave the group. I got very sick. I joined while dealing with a medical issue, but at first I didn't know it was a type of carb malabsorption I was dealing with. More and more these days I hear how good fat is. But, there is so much conflicting info out there. But, I eat what is working for my body.0
-
I was born in the 70's and can't remember the push or recommendation for low fat, so it's never been ingrained in me.
So, no I'm not afraid of fats. Avocado's, mayo, bacon, steak, yogurt, milk, cheese, butter, eggs- These are all staples in my diet.
Not a day goes by here (Australia) that i don't see or read an article on the "evils" of sugar though.... Fat seems to be the good guy now.1 -
The only fats I'm afraid of are belly fats, thigh fats and chin waddle fats. The rest are a-okay.6
-
I try to get 50% of my calories from fat. Im not scared of it at all. It keeps me full longer so I actually eat less through out the day.
I have tried to educate friends who believed that eating fat is what makes you fat.0 -
Are you afraid of fats?
No.
But fatty food does seem to set my gallbladder off which is rather unpleasant.0 -
According to this article, the low fat thing came out in the 1980s. As I recall, it hit Canada in the late 1980s/early 1990s when everything on the shelves started sporting new "99% FAT FREE!!!!" labels. Including products that were 99% fat free in the first place.
http://www.shape.com/blogs/weight-loss-coach/dieting-through-decades-what-weve-learned-fads
In the early 1990s my ex-husband started going to Weight Watchers. I've always been a CI<CO person so I took a look at the calorie content of the WW foods, and their ingredients. Of course everything he brought home then was "FAT FREE!!!", but when I looked at the calorie content, it wasn't much lower than stuff we could get in the supermarket .... and when I looked at the ingredients, I discovered these foods were loaded with sugar. They had to be to get any kind of flavour going.0 -
-
No. But I also don't have a very high fat diet because I like a high volume of food.
I'm actually more afraid of low fat. I've done that once. It wreaked havoc on my hormones.0 -
I did in the 90's and turn of century. Now? Not so much. Most of my diet is fat. 0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.
This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?
Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.
Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.
The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.
2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.
This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?
Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.
Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.
The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.
Calories per gram might be important to someone who knows it's calories that lead to weight loss/gain.5 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.
This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?
Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.
Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.
The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.
Calories per gram might be important to someone who knows it's calories that lead to weight loss/gain.
That makes no sense. What does calories per gram have to do with the number of calories you consume?
I just gave an example of two breakfasts - the one that is loaded with fat has far fewer calories than the high-carb, high-sugar alternative.
And if the USDA is no longer providing the number of fat calories, obviously it is not fat calories that make you fat.3 -
I am in the uk, and it's sugar they keep banging on about more not fat
Anyway I don't track my fat intake or sugar1 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »I am in the uk, and it's sugar they keep banging on about more not fat
Anyway I don't track my fat intake or sugar
That's fine, but for 30 years it has been drummed into the heads of Americans that fat makes you fat. So people spend more time trying to avoid fat than trying to consume fewer calories. It's maddening.1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.
This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?
Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.
Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.
The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.
Calories per gram might be important to someone who knows it's calories that lead to weight loss/gain.
That makes no sense. What does calories per gram have to do with the number of calories you consume?
I just gave an example of two breakfasts - the one that is loaded with fat has far fewer calories than the high-carb, high-sugar alternative.
And if the USDA is no longer providing the number of fat calories, obviously it is not fat calories that make you fat.
Because if one would want bigger portions, they might want to consume less fat. Knowing how fat compares to carbs and protein in terms of calorie density can be useful information when figuring out their own prefered way of eating.1 -
Your brain is mainly made of fatty acids, the majority are actually saturated. Cutting out your fat intake robs your brain of the materials it needs to function.2
-
I am somewhat afraid of fats, but because of any health woo. I don't digest fats very well. If I eat too much fat in one sitting my digestion will punish me for it with pain, bloating and diarrhea. It's always a bit of a balancing act to get enough for my body's needs without reaching the point of problem.
(had to have my gall bladder removed last year and my digestion's been out of whack since. Thankfully I have an awesome doctor and dietician who help me figure out what's appropriate for me.
) 0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »I am in the uk, and it's sugar they keep banging on about more not fat
Anyway I don't track my fat intake or sugar
yeah actually it was on the radio this morning.
Food industries have a 5 year target to reduce sugars in their meals by 20%.
..but definitely low sugar is the most "recent" craze alongside "high protein" diets.
I think it's confused the entire population and people don't understand whats good for them anymore.0 -
Just to answer - I have never been afraid of fats.
Fat's keep me satiated but I did personally fall for the "high protein, low carb" diet when I was extremely active, and lifting 5 days per week and that's because I was constantly getting my information from bodybuilding websites.
0 -
There is a low-carb group on this page with 32,000 members. Is there a low-fat group? Couldn't find it. That says it all.1
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.
This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?
Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.
Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.
The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.
Way to misinterpret or distort his comment.
He didn't say that fat makes you fat. He said that reducing fat can be a good (I'd say easy) way of reducing calories. Worked for me. For example, I took a normal meal I'd make and added less oil or butter or less cheese, or both. Lots of foods I used to add cheese to, I don't. Oil I use much more sparingly. Those are changes that reduced calories significantly and yet are almost unnoticeable by me (there are other ways to add flavor if you need).
The breakfasts you mention would both be bad ones for me. I know bacon and eggs leave me completely unsatisfied after just a short time (fat isn't satiating for me). The bagel with juice (full fat OR low fat cream cheese) would also contain little that I find satisfying and even less protein than the first breakfast. What works for me is fiber or protein or, ideally, both. I've been quite satiated on vegetable omelet with some smoked salmon or low fat (yes, low fat) cottage cheese, steel cut oats with blueberries and some vegetables on the side (I like to add protein powder but don't need it), or various smoothies with a combination of vegetables, fruit, and dairy. I've experimented with different macros and find that lots of fat and almost no fat are both fine, so long as I have protein or fiber (ideally both, but the oatmeal shows that even less protein can be fine if the ingredients are otherwise satisfying for me).7 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.
This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?
Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.
Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.
The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.
Calories per gram might be important to someone who knows it's calories that lead to weight loss/gain.
That makes no sense. What does calories per gram have to do with the number of calories you consume?
I just gave an example of two breakfasts - the one that is loaded with fat has far fewer calories than the high-carb, high-sugar alternative.
And if the USDA is no longer providing the number of fat calories, obviously it is not fat calories that make you fat.
Calories per gram matters to volume eaters.Therealobi1 wrote: »I am in the uk, and it's sugar they keep banging on about more not fat
Anyway I don't track my fat intake or sugar
yeah actually it was on the radio this morning.
Food industries have a 5 year target to reduce sugars in their meals by 20%.
..but definitely low sugar is the most "recent" craze alongside "high protein" diets.
I think it's confused the entire population and people don't understand whats good for them anymore.
Anymore???3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.
This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?
Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.
Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.
The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.
Way to misinterpret or distort his comment.
He didn't say that fat makes you fat. He said that reducing fat can be a good (I'd say easy) way of reducing calories. Worked for me. For example, I took a normal meal I'd make and added less oil or butter or less cheese, or both. Lots of foods I used to add cheese to, I don't. Oil I use much more sparingly. Those are changes that reduced calories significantly and yet are almost unnoticeable by me (there are other ways to add flavor if you need).
Well of course you shouldn't cook with more oil or more butter than you need. You could also eat less of the stuff you are putting in the oil or butter, whether it contains lots of fat or little fat.
The no-fat mantra culminated in the 1990's disaster of horrible and tasteless Snackwell Cookies. They were flying off the shelves because they contained no fat. Same calories as cookies with fat, but that did not matter because Americans were totally brainwashed by the stupid USDA and their junk science.
Snackwell cookies were healthy, eggs would give you a heart attack.
Let's stop worrying about fat. There is nothing to worry about.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions