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.
Full fat VS low fat
Replies
-
I used skim and lower fat dairy options when I was trying to lose weight, back to 2% yogurt and half and half cream in my yogurt since then.1
-
Sorry, no. I don't eat raw or partially raw meat.
Blasphemer!1 -
A friend of mine (a nutritionist) offered to buy me a coffee. She was shocked when I requested a full cream flat white. She told me that it's not as high in calcium as skim milk. It hasn't changed my mind though.1
-
Interestingly, this is actually one question where the answer actually is "genetics." Some people lose weight more efficiently on a low-fat diet, and some on a low-carb diet (rs1801282 is the relevant SNP). Without getting your genes sequenced, trial and error is the only way to figure out which is better for you.
Personally, I stick with low fat and try to make sure that the fat sources I eat are high quality (avocados, animal fats, coconut oil, etc.).3 -
Consuming full fat dairy or low fat dairy doesn't mean you are on a high fat or low fat diet, though. I eat a moderately high fat diet (40% currently), but like mostly 1%-2% cottage cheese and yogurt, since I have no problem getting fat from other sources and simply prefer the 1-2% (usually).2
-
alida1walsh wrote: »A friend of mine (a nutritionist) offered to buy me a coffee. She was shocked when I requested a full cream flat white. She told me that it's not as high in calcium as skim milk. It hasn't changed my mind though.
Did you do a facepalm, when she told you that?0 -
I'd say full fat in moderation depending on what it is. When it comes to ice cream I enjoy halo top because I can eat the whole pint, and it's higher protein so i feel satiated. But with everything else, missing the fat caused me to eat more servings, ending up being more calories in the end. When I switched back to full fat products in moderation I was happier and healthier and more satisfied.0
-
Hearts_2015 wrote: »Full fat vs low fat what? I generally steer clear of anything with 'diet' or 'low fat' advertised in it because I feel many times the quality of the product suffers when fat is removed. However I do eat fat free Greek yogurt with my breakfast often because I've found one I like and have it with eggs, which provide the fat. I wind up with a well-balance breakfast from a macro perspective.
I use full fat cheese, milk, eat nuts, avocados, olive oil, etc. Fat isn't scary or to be avoided. Bacon is delicious. Turkey bacon makes me
@pinuplove What full fat Greek yogurt brand have you found that you enjoy? I'm looking for something new.. planning on trying plain Greek and adding mix-ins to avoid some of that crazy amount of sugar in the fruit yogurt.
Any responses are appreciated! Thanks
Regarding OP... I used to go with fat free this and that.. but that was when I started out. Many times when you buy a product that has the fat cut they'll increase the sugar. Same if you buy sugar free or reduced sugar, they raise the sodium or fat.livingleanlivingclean wrote: »You need to eat fat, therefore some of your food has to contain fat.
I choose low fat dairy as I prefer to add fat in other ways - like a sprinkle of nuts with berries on the yoghurt. Skim milk froths better than fattier milk, and I only use it to make froth for my coffee...
I prefer using some egg whites with a whole egg or two rather than all whole eggs as I prefer to add other fat - like avo on the eggs, or in a salad.
I prefer to not cook with oil as I can have a fatty piece of salmon instead.
Some days I'll lower fat in meals so I can include some chocolate, or icecream, or chips/crisps etc
Choose your fats. You need them.
I like what you've shared..thinking it through like that makes sense, thanks for tanking time to share that.
Skyr is really yummy. I think its technically cheese but it has the taste of thick yoghurt.1 -
I check the nutrition facts to see if the reduced fat has more sugar than the regular. If it does, I'm buying the regular, no questions asked. I'll save added sugar for my desserts, thanks. Don't need that crap in my meals.2
-
whatlunasaid wrote: »I check the nutrition facts to see if the reduced fat has more sugar than the regular. If it does, I'm buying the regular, no questions asked. I'll save added sugar for my desserts, thanks. Don't need that crap in my meals.
You should look at the ingredients, as serving sizes can be slightly different.
I've never seen a plain yogurt with added sugar (I don't drink milk, but I'm pretty sure the same is true for plain milk). The claim that it has added sugar is basically made up.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »whatlunasaid wrote: »I check the nutrition facts to see if the reduced fat has more sugar than the regular. If it does, I'm buying the regular, no questions asked. I'll save added sugar for my desserts, thanks. Don't need that crap in my meals.
You should look at the ingredients, as serving sizes can be slightly different.
I've never seen a plain yogurt with added sugar (I don't drink milk, but I'm pretty sure the same is true for plain milk). The claim that it has added sugar is basically made up.
I should have been more specific. I do check the whole label for suspect variations. But the quickest thing that stands out is usually the sugar count.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »whatlunasaid wrote: »I check the nutrition facts to see if the reduced fat has more sugar than the regular. If it does, I'm buying the regular, no questions asked. I'll save added sugar for my desserts, thanks. Don't need that crap in my meals.
You should look at the ingredients, as serving sizes can be slightly different.
I've never seen a plain yogurt with added sugar (I don't drink milk, but I'm pretty sure the same is true for plain milk). The claim that it has added sugar is basically made up.
..And it's usually the opposite case for flavored yogurt. The one's advertising "low-fat" usually drop the sugar content or replace with splenda to drop the calories further.2 -
There are a couple of things that I buy low fat but it's for the volume/calorie pay off. I love buying 40% lower fat marble cheese because it's super yummy and I LOVE cheese. Like, I can eat a scary amount of it. So the lower calories lets me eat a larger amount of cheese, which makes me happier.
The other lower fat thing I just grabbed was light kraft peanut butter. I'm working on perfecting my homemade protein bar recipe and I didn't want TOO many calories going to peanut butter since I'm trying to get them under 250 cals each so just finding ways to shave off calories here and there *shrug*.3 -
I go by taste as I want to enjoy what I am eating- when I am good with the taste of the lower fat option, great. But there are some things I eat full fat. For example, I like skim milk and 0% greek yogurt, but my cheese will forever be full fat, mostly because it is something we splurge on (rarely do we buy grocery store cheese- we go to specialty stores and love trying all different types/flavors. Yes, we are weird). Just like everything else in my diet, I drop what I don't think is worth it and make room for what is. Everyone will be different in what they consider important.1
-
Full fat. I also eat the whole damn egg. None of this egg white business for me unless I'm making angel food cake.6
-
enterdanger wrote: »Full fat. I also eat the whole damn egg. None of this egg white business for me unless I'm making angel food cake.
Lol I looove eggs. But I've actually come to really love liquid egg whites. On the other hand, to me 1% milk is a fundamental crime against nature it's so thin and watery. My husband bought some the other week because I was making mashed potatoes and I was SOO mad. The potatoes weren't nearly as rich and creamy as my normal recipe. It was so sad.1 -
Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.5 -
menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
Why is this true? How is low fat food the father of obesity/type 2 diabetes? Or Mr. jerkoff scientist 4 that matter?
2 -
menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
Why is this true? How is low fat food the father of obesity/type 2 diabetes? Or Mr. jerkoff scientist 4 that matter?
Google Ancel Keys and the Seven Nations study.2 -
menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
thing is full fat for some of us can kill us(raises cholesterol dangerously high(. especially those of use who have certain cholesterol/liver issues.1 -
Is bacon full fat? Cuz I want some right now1
-
MsHarryWinston wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »Full fat. I also eat the whole damn egg. None of this egg white business for me unless I'm making angel food cake.
Lol I looove eggs. But I've actually come to really love liquid egg whites. On the other hand, to me 1% milk is a fundamental crime against nature it's so thin and watery. My husband bought some the other week because I was making mashed potatoes and I was SOO mad. The potatoes weren't nearly as rich and creamy as my normal recipe. It was so sad.
Skim milk is even worse - like water that a white crayon has been dipped in...4 -
menotyou56 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
Why is this true? How is low fat food the father of obesity/type 2 diabetes? Or Mr. jerkoff scientist 4 that matter?
Google Ancel Keys and the Seven Nations study.
That study, with all its shortcomings, was scientifically sound and the correlation did show up, but even if we throw that out completely and butcher it in the comical way people like to butcher Ancel Key's work, it still wouldn't matter and would not lead to your obesity/diabetes conclusion. You're talking as if the low fat craze was anything other than the flavor of the year just like low carb is now, where people "know" they "shouldn't be eating this" but they eat it anyway. The actual average fat consumption was not much influenced by that craze, in fact in some countries it increased (ironically "proving" the correlation Ancel observed).
(Wonder why all Tanzanians haven't turned into rolling fat blobs yet with such a low fat consumption)
You know what else increased that would be one of the real contributing factors to the increase in obesity/type 2 diabetes? Food availability.
It really doesn't matter if you choose to eat low fat or full fat items. As long as you have your calories and hunger in check you will be fine.7 -
MsHarryWinston wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »Full fat. I also eat the whole damn egg. None of this egg white business for me unless I'm making angel food cake.
Lol I looove eggs. But I've actually come to really love liquid egg whites. On the other hand, to me 1% milk is a fundamental crime against nature it's so thin and watery. My husband bought some the other week because I was making mashed potatoes and I was SOO mad. The potatoes weren't nearly as rich and creamy as my normal recipe. It was so sad.
Skim milk is even worse - like water that a white crayon has been dipped in...
Noooooooo! So gross.
0 -
menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
This is a misunderstanding of what happened.
I do think that Keys was wrong (at least to some extent) in his views on fat but he acted in good faith. (On the other hand, many more knowledgeable than me or you, like Walter Willett and David Katz, believe the evidence as a whole continues to support the concern about excessive consumption of sat fat.) Here is a really good piece on the allegations against Keys: http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2016/04/13/Ancel-Keys-and-the-Seven-Country-Study-A-Response-to-The-Sugar-Conspiracy
More significantly, blaming Keys for the obesity epidemic is absurd, especially since in real terms we did not reduce fat consumption and did not follow dietary advice much at all. A good piece on this: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/did-the-us-dietary-guidelines-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/If the Dietary Guidelines caused us to gain weight by putting us on a low-fat diet, there should be evidence that we actually began eating less fat in response to the Guidelines. If not, the hypothesis cannot be correct.
Two independent lines of evidence suggest that our absolute fat intake did not decline after the publication of the Guidelines (5, 6). Proponents of the hypothesis invariably cite the fact that the percentage of fat in the US diet declined, which is true (although the change was rather small). The reason the percentage changed is not because our fat intake decreased, but because our carbohydrate intake increased, along with our total calorie intake. Does this count as a low-fat diet?
As an analogy, imagine a man named Jim who has obesity. Jim wants to lose weight, so he decides to eat a low-carbohydrate diet. Rather than reducing his intake of carbohydrate, Jim adds fat to all his meals so that the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases. Jim’s calorie intake increases from 3,000 to 4,000 Calories per day, and his absolute carbohydrate intake remains the same. Yet the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases from 45% to 34%. Is Jim on a low-carbohydrate diet, and should we expect him to lose weight?
Of course not. Jim isn’t eating a low-carbohydrate diet, and neither have Americans been eating a low-fat diet....
If the Guidelines caused the obesity epidemic, then the people who actually followed the advice should have gained more weight than the people who didn’t. Yet the evidence shows precisely the opposite (9).
To elaborate on that last, the guidelines recommend whole grains vs. refined, limiting added sugar, and especially consuming recommended amounts of vegetables and fruits. The changes in the US diet suggest that we did this even less after the publication of the advice than before. Those who did these things, according to such things as the Nurse's Study, were less likely to be obese. (I think this is because attention to health advice correlates with likelihood to do healthful things in general, but it's what we have.)6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
This is a misunderstanding of what happened.
I do think that Keys was wrong (at least to some extent) in his views on fat but he acted in good faith. (On the other hand, many more knowledgeable than me or you, like Walter Willett and David Katz, believe the evidence as a whole continues to support the concern about excessive consumption of sat fat.) Here is a really good piece on the allegations against Keys: http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2016/04/13/Ancel-Keys-and-the-Seven-Country-Study-A-Response-to-The-Sugar-Conspiracy
More significantly, blaming Keys for the obesity epidemic is absurd, especially since in real terms we did not reduce fat consumption and did not follow dietary advice much at all. A good piece on this: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/did-the-us-dietary-guidelines-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/If the Dietary Guidelines caused us to gain weight by putting us on a low-fat diet, there should be evidence that we actually began eating less fat in response to the Guidelines. If not, the hypothesis cannot be correct.
Two independent lines of evidence suggest that our absolute fat intake did not decline after the publication of the Guidelines (5, 6). Proponents of the hypothesis invariably cite the fact that the percentage of fat in the US diet declined, which is true (although the change was rather small). The reason the percentage changed is not because our fat intake decreased, but because our carbohydrate intake increased, along with our total calorie intake. Does this count as a low-fat diet?
As an analogy, imagine a man named Jim who has obesity. Jim wants to lose weight, so he decides to eat a low-carbohydrate diet. Rather than reducing his intake of carbohydrate, Jim adds fat to all his meals so that the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases. Jim’s calorie intake increases from 3,000 to 4,000 Calories per day, and his absolute carbohydrate intake remains the same. Yet the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases from 45% to 34%. Is Jim on a low-carbohydrate diet, and should we expect him to lose weight?
Of course not. Jim isn’t eating a low-carbohydrate diet, and neither have Americans been eating a low-fat diet....
If the Guidelines caused the obesity epidemic, then the people who actually followed the advice should have gained more weight than the people who didn’t. Yet the evidence shows precisely the opposite (9).
To elaborate on that last, the guidelines recommend whole grains vs. refined, limiting added sugar, and especially consuming recommended amounts of vegetables and fruits. The changes in the US diet suggest that we did this even less after the publication of the advice than before. Those who did these things, according to such things as the Nurse's Study, were less likely to be obese. (I think this is because attention to health advice correlates with likelihood to do healthful things in general, but it's what we have.)
should we trust blogosphere or actual peer reviewed scientific papers?
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
This is a misunderstanding of what happened.
I do think that Keys was wrong (at least to some extent) in his views on fat but he acted in good faith. (On the other hand, many more knowledgeable than me or you, like Walter Willett and David Katz, believe the evidence as a whole continues to support the concern about excessive consumption of sat fat.) Here is a really good piece on the allegations against Keys: http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2016/04/13/Ancel-Keys-and-the-Seven-Country-Study-A-Response-to-The-Sugar-Conspiracy
More significantly, blaming Keys for the obesity epidemic is absurd, especially since in real terms we did not reduce fat consumption and did not follow dietary advice much at all. A good piece on this: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/did-the-us-dietary-guidelines-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/If the Dietary Guidelines caused us to gain weight by putting us on a low-fat diet, there should be evidence that we actually began eating less fat in response to the Guidelines. If not, the hypothesis cannot be correct.
Two independent lines of evidence suggest that our absolute fat intake did not decline after the publication of the Guidelines (5, 6). Proponents of the hypothesis invariably cite the fact that the percentage of fat in the US diet declined, which is true (although the change was rather small). The reason the percentage changed is not because our fat intake decreased, but because our carbohydrate intake increased, along with our total calorie intake. Does this count as a low-fat diet?
As an analogy, imagine a man named Jim who has obesity. Jim wants to lose weight, so he decides to eat a low-carbohydrate diet. Rather than reducing his intake of carbohydrate, Jim adds fat to all his meals so that the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases. Jim’s calorie intake increases from 3,000 to 4,000 Calories per day, and his absolute carbohydrate intake remains the same. Yet the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases from 45% to 34%. Is Jim on a low-carbohydrate diet, and should we expect him to lose weight?
Of course not. Jim isn’t eating a low-carbohydrate diet, and neither have Americans been eating a low-fat diet....
If the Guidelines caused the obesity epidemic, then the people who actually followed the advice should have gained more weight than the people who didn’t. Yet the evidence shows precisely the opposite (9).
To elaborate on that last, the guidelines recommend whole grains vs. refined, limiting added sugar, and especially consuming recommended amounts of vegetables and fruits. The changes in the US diet suggest that we did this even less after the publication of the advice than before. Those who did these things, according to such things as the Nurse's Study, were less likely to be obese. (I think this is because attention to health advice correlates with likelihood to do healthful things in general, but it's what we have.)
should we trust blogosphere or actual peer reviewed scientific papers?
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext
I usually prefer peer reviewed scientific papers whose data shows the same thing they're saying in text.
The only difference between the 1976 and 1988 reading is that people started eating 50 grams MORE of carbs, not decreasing fat. Exactly what the "blogosphere" article said. I'll go start a low carb diet by eating 5000 calories of coconut oil exta to everything else I'm already eating, that'll do the trick.Your own link wrote:However, without specific recommendations from the AHA or the USDA/DHHS on total caloric intake on an absolute basis, the shift in the share of fat and carbohydrate is primarily due to an almost 65 g, or about a 260 kcal, daily increase in Americans' intake of carbohydrate from 1965 to 2011. For fat, Americans' consumption on an absolute basis fell between 1965 and 1971 by >25 g, but has since remained largely flat. As shown in Figure 6, the average adult American consumed about 109 g/d of fat and 213 g/d of carbohydrate in 1965. Daily fat consumption fell to 83 g in 1971, and remained at approximately the same level through 2011. In contrast, carbohydrate consumption, although basically flat from 1965 to 1971 in terms of total calories, has risen to 278 g/d since 1965, an increase of 30.6%.5 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
This is a misunderstanding of what happened.
I do think that Keys was wrong (at least to some extent) in his views on fat but he acted in good faith. (On the other hand, many more knowledgeable than me or you, like Walter Willett and David Katz, believe the evidence as a whole continues to support the concern about excessive consumption of sat fat.) Here is a really good piece on the allegations against Keys: http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2016/04/13/Ancel-Keys-and-the-Seven-Country-Study-A-Response-to-The-Sugar-Conspiracy
More significantly, blaming Keys for the obesity epidemic is absurd, especially since in real terms we did not reduce fat consumption and did not follow dietary advice much at all. A good piece on this: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/did-the-us-dietary-guidelines-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/If the Dietary Guidelines caused us to gain weight by putting us on a low-fat diet, there should be evidence that we actually began eating less fat in response to the Guidelines. If not, the hypothesis cannot be correct.
Two independent lines of evidence suggest that our absolute fat intake did not decline after the publication of the Guidelines (5, 6). Proponents of the hypothesis invariably cite the fact that the percentage of fat in the US diet declined, which is true (although the change was rather small). The reason the percentage changed is not because our fat intake decreased, but because our carbohydrate intake increased, along with our total calorie intake. Does this count as a low-fat diet?
As an analogy, imagine a man named Jim who has obesity. Jim wants to lose weight, so he decides to eat a low-carbohydrate diet. Rather than reducing his intake of carbohydrate, Jim adds fat to all his meals so that the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases. Jim’s calorie intake increases from 3,000 to 4,000 Calories per day, and his absolute carbohydrate intake remains the same. Yet the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases from 45% to 34%. Is Jim on a low-carbohydrate diet, and should we expect him to lose weight?
Of course not. Jim isn’t eating a low-carbohydrate diet, and neither have Americans been eating a low-fat diet....
If the Guidelines caused the obesity epidemic, then the people who actually followed the advice should have gained more weight than the people who didn’t. Yet the evidence shows precisely the opposite (9).
To elaborate on that last, the guidelines recommend whole grains vs. refined, limiting added sugar, and especially consuming recommended amounts of vegetables and fruits. The changes in the US diet suggest that we did this even less after the publication of the advice than before. Those who did these things, according to such things as the Nurse's Study, were less likely to be obese. (I think this is because attention to health advice correlates with likelihood to do healthful things in general, but it's what we have.)
should we trust blogosphere or actual peer reviewed scientific papers?
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext
stevencloser covered it. The article I linked was an analysis of the evidence.
It's really absurd to point to percentages as evidence that the US followed the recommendations and that the recommendations are why obesity is high. We did not reduce TOTAL fat calories, and reducing fat as a percentage of total intake is not following the recommendations. Moreover, the idea that the slight shift in percentages (and men and women continue to eat different percentages) is the key thing makes no sense when there are countries that are much better off than we are when it comes to obesity that are higher carb and lower fat. Looking at global evidence does not at all support the idea that percentages of macros is all that significant, let alone slight changes like this. (I'd even guess that on average high protein correlates with obesity -- not because eating more protein makes a diet less satisfying, but because a country's wealth and high protein and western diet and high protein would be correlated.)
If people in the US followed the dietary guidelines, we would eat less added sugar and, especially, more vegetables and fruit.
What tracks with the dietary shift and the increased calories is the (a) increasing availability of inexpensive and hyperpalatable food options that are also extremely convenient and non time consuming (which tend to be high in fat and refined carbs, but especially the latter); and (2) a decline in cultural means by which diet was formed and eating amounts/times/choices more limited.
It seems to me that to blame it on the US Dietary Guidelines recommending a certain carb percentage, reducing fat, and eating lots of grains (and, btw, whole grains, legumes, and vegetables) vs. these other changes that actually track more with how Americans eating style has changed (weird that fast food consumption has increased when people are supposedly trying to eat low fat, for example), requires that one be on the "it's all the carbs" bandwagon already. And it's not consistent, again, with results in other countries.5 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CornflakeGirl01 wrote: »I have done a great deal of personal research on this topic and definitely have an opinion, which can be substantiated by numerous scientific research. Fat in your diet is essential for energy, healthy tissue, controlling inflammation, absorption of fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, & K), and regulation of many hormones. It can even help with weight loss, by providing enough calories and energy to keep you feeling satiated and your energy levels even.
The trick is to eat the right kind of fat, which is mainly plant based, from nuts, seeds, avocados. In addition to plant based polyunsaturated fats, fats found in fish like salmon, tuna, and sardines contain essential fatty acids, omega-3 and omega-6 that help reduce heart disease. Vegetable based fats help with insulin resistance and body inflammation, which contributes to multiple chronic diseases.
Fats from animal sources are called saturated fats and are okay in moderation. You get these from beef, cheese, ice cream, and eggs.
Trans fats are found in processed foods and should be avoided at all costs. Cookies, cakes, and fast food contain trans fats. If it comes in a box, it has trans fats most likely and is artificially created! Additionally, "low fat" foods are often created with increased sugar and other processed items like refined substances (flour, starch). They do this to make the "low fat" taste good, but end up jacking up our blood sugar, spiking our insulin levels and even causing weight GAIN!
So, I personally, so not eat anything "low-fat". It is better to choose half and half for your coffee than processed, sugary creamers. To me, "low-fat" equals high sugar, high insulin body spikes, low nutritionally value, and possible weight gain.
I hope this helps!
Yes! this was what I wanted to know!
I knew there was something "bad" about low fat items but weren't sure what it applied to!
There is nothing wrong with low fat items. food is food. I have to be on a low fat diet due to a health issue.low fat does not mean high sugar or high insulin spikes.I have read labels on low fat and regular fat products and there isnt much difference in the sugar content,a lot of the regular fat items tend to be higher in sugar a lot of the time,but not always.
insulin spikes happen in healthy people too. its how insulin works,if you have an insulin issue and have to watch your sugar/carbs thats one thing. but you can eat regular fat or low fat foods, its up to as long as you dont have a health issue.weight gain also only happens in a surplus of calories.
This is completely off topic, but I love your hair color!1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CornflakeGirl01 wrote: »I have done a great deal of personal research on this topic and definitely have an opinion, which can be substantiated by numerous scientific research. Fat in your diet is essential for energy, healthy tissue, controlling inflammation, absorption of fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, & K), and regulation of many hormones. It can even help with weight loss, by providing enough calories and energy to keep you feeling satiated and your energy levels even.
The trick is to eat the right kind of fat, which is mainly plant based, from nuts, seeds, avocados. In addition to plant based polyunsaturated fats, fats found in fish like salmon, tuna, and sardines contain essential fatty acids, omega-3 and omega-6 that help reduce heart disease. Vegetable based fats help with insulin resistance and body inflammation, which contributes to multiple chronic diseases.
Fats from animal sources are called saturated fats and are okay in moderation. You get these from beef, cheese, ice cream, and eggs.
Trans fats are found in processed foods and should be avoided at all costs. Cookies, cakes, and fast food contain trans fats. If it comes in a box, it has trans fats most likely and is artificially created! Additionally, "low fat" foods are often created with increased sugar and other processed items like refined substances (flour, starch). They do this to make the "low fat" taste good, but end up jacking up our blood sugar, spiking our insulin levels and even causing weight GAIN!
So, I personally, so not eat anything "low-fat". It is better to choose half and half for your coffee than processed, sugary creamers. To me, "low-fat" equals high sugar, high insulin body spikes, low nutritionally value, and possible weight gain.
I hope this helps!
Yes! this was what I wanted to know!
I knew there was something "bad" about low fat items but weren't sure what it applied to!
There is nothing wrong with low fat items. food is food. I have to be on a low fat diet due to a health issue.low fat does not mean high sugar or high insulin spikes.I have read labels on low fat and regular fat products and there isnt much difference in the sugar content,a lot of the regular fat items tend to be higher in sugar a lot of the time,but not always.
insulin spikes happen in healthy people too. its how insulin works,if you have an insulin issue and have to watch your sugar/carbs thats one thing. but you can eat regular fat or low fat foods, its up to as long as you dont have a health issue.weight gain also only happens in a surplus of calories.
This is completely off topic, but I love your hair color!
thank you0
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