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.
Fat - not carbs - addictive?
Options
magnusthenerd
Posts: 1,207 Member
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1028415X.2019.1651104?fbclid=IwAR3rbk_N08iMgLoHBv6S0bMWhEvAnYy2QU9AmMH6Fm6s7u33QzMmlqb2VpQ&needAccess=true&journalCode=ynns20
Fat rather than sugar diet leads to binge-type eating, anticipation, effort behavior and activation of the corticolimbic system
Results: In corticolimbic areas, c-Fos activation and ΔFosB accumulation were evaluated. After an acute exposition, rats ate more SRD than FRD, but FDR stimulated higher c-Fos. After chronic administration, the FDR group exhibited higher levels of BTE and FAA; this was associated with higher c-Fos and accumulation of ΔFosB in the corticolimbic system. Similar effects in the FRD group were observed after one week of withdrawal.
5
Replies
-
Sure is for me. I lost my sweet tooth a long time ago, but I could pile cheese on my tacos until I can't see them anymore, and everything tastes better with butter.14
-
Rat study aside, cheese and nuts were issues for me, plain carbs never were. Plain carbs are about the last foods I'd ever have difficulty controlling (I love fruit and veg, but won't overindulge to the point of it being an issue, and with things like plain bread, plain pasta, plain rice, plain grains, my reaction is eh. With foods other than fruit that are basically just sugar, no fat, my reaction ranges from eh to ugh).
However, cheese and nuts tend to be salty (I have much more trouble moderating salted nuts than not). I tend to think in humans it's mostly about combinations that work together (fat+salt, fat+carb+salt, fat+sugar, protein+fat+salt). Didn't one of those "food addiction" studies come up with pizza on the top -- fat, carbs, and often salty too (and some protein).9 -
Rat study aside, cheese and nuts were issues for me, plain carbs never were. Plain carbs are about the last foods I'd ever have difficulty controlling (I love fruit and veg, but won't overindulge to the point of it being an issue, and with things like plain bread, plain pasta, plain rice, plain grains, my reaction is eh. With foods other than fruit that are basically just sugar, no fat, my reaction ranges from eh to ugh).
However, cheese and nuts tend to be salty (I have much more trouble moderating salted nuts than not). I tend to think in humans it's mostly about combinations that work together (fat+salt, fat+carb+salt, fat+sugar, protein+fat+salt). Didn't one of those "food addiction" studies come up with pizza on the top -- fat, carbs, and often salty too (and some protein).
The study does point out that it is combinations that cause highly palatable foods. It seems more like the study is designed to test relative contributions - the one diet was 50% sugar rich and the other was 50% fat rich. The 50% fat diet is the one that produced binging behavior and food anticipation.5 -
It doesn’t sound crazy or anything. Cheese used to be a huge problem for me. I can see it. Any time I have a day where I over eat and I’m way in the red, if I check the macros it’s always the fat that’s over.2
-
Makes sense. Years ago I watched a lot of the >10k calorie/day challenges and this was a common theme. Those successful in the challenge moved from sweet to salty and back, but all focused on high fat foods.
Those who attempted to eat a lot of only sweets or only salty ended up sick and unable to finish the challenge.2 -
Interesting. I got a "website is experiencing technical difficulties" message so I'm not able to read the article. For me sugar is a lot more likely to lead to binge-eating and strong cravings but I wonder if that's related to being insulin-resistant.3
-
I don't find this to be the case for me. I could eat my weight in crackers, cereal, chips, soda...and GUMMY BEARS, all particularly low or no fat foods.
Fatty foods don't seem to have the same effect.
But I also have never experienced binge type eating tendencies. It's more a handful of crackers here, a few extra chips after I finish my sandwich, another handful of crackers next time I walk through the kitchen, then another because that was a small handful...etc etc.
Even when it comes to candy, I will keep shoveling gummy bears forever. Something like chocolate, which some fat, I can stop much easier.4 -
People aren’t rats... while we are similar in a lot of ways, we are different in even more. One rat study doesn’t indicate anything about human consumption, it simply suggests an avenue of study.8
-
ExistingFish wrote: »I don't find this to be the case for me. I could eat my weight in crackers, cereal, chips, soda...and GUMMY BEARS, all particularly low or no fat foods.
Fatty foods don't seem to have the same effect.
But I also have never experienced binge type eating tendencies. It's more a handful of crackers here, a few extra chips after I finish my sandwich, another handful of crackers next time I walk through the kitchen, then another because that was a small handful...etc etc.
Even when it comes to candy, I will keep shoveling gummy bears forever. Something like chocolate, which some fat, I can stop much easier.
I'm the opposite -- foods that are mostly just carbs are hard for me to overeat and often don't appeal at all -- but I think this just supports the idea that humans tend to vary quite a bit on what they tend to find hard not to overindulge on. While I think there might be something to certain combinations being the toughest to avoid overeating on average, I'd bet that for humans it's much more about history and associations with the foods, taste preferences, habits, family and culture, etc., than any purely physical reaction to anything we eat.
One way humans are likely different from rats, although even rats are more likely to show addictive behaviors in some environments vs. others.3 -
This is not really the case for me. I have no problem eating in a calorie deficit if my fat intake is on the high side and my carbs are low. 128g carbs, 128g protein, 58g fat was a fairly low calorie day for me recently and I had no issues with hunger at all. However, if you put me in front of unlimited pasta with a tomato based sauce it is horrendous how much of it I want to eat.6
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »Rat study aside, cheese and nuts were issues for me, plain carbs never were. Plain carbs are about the last foods I'd ever have difficulty controlling (I love fruit and veg, but won't overindulge to the point of it being an issue, and with things like plain bread, plain pasta, plain rice, plain grains, my reaction is eh. With foods other than fruit that are basically just sugar, no fat, my reaction ranges from eh to ugh).
However, cheese and nuts tend to be salty (I have much more trouble moderating salted nuts than not). I tend to think in humans it's mostly about combinations that work together (fat+salt, fat+carb+salt, fat+sugar, protein+fat+salt). Didn't one of those "food addiction" studies come up with pizza on the top -- fat, carbs, and often salty too (and some protein).
The study does point out that it is combinations that cause highly palatable foods. It seems more like the study is designed to test relative contributions - the one diet was 50% sugar rich and the other was 50% fat rich. The 50% fat diet is the one that produced binging behavior and food anticipation.
It seems the combinations of fat and simple carbs like sugar was what got me in trouble for 40 years before going LCHF only back in 2014.
The below is based on working with 125,000 humans that showed that "Researchers said they found that carbohydrates, not fat, have “the most adverse impact on cardiovascular risk factors.” "
Carbs May Be Worse for Heart Health Than Fat
https://healthline.com/health-news/carbs-may-be-worse-for-heart-health-than-fat#1
I am aware heart health is not a eating concern for most people that I see eating but it is for a few of us.6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Rat study aside, cheese and nuts were issues for me, plain carbs never were. Plain carbs are about the last foods I'd ever have difficulty controlling (I love fruit and veg, but won't overindulge to the point of it being an issue, and with things like plain bread, plain pasta, plain rice, plain grains, my reaction is eh. With foods other than fruit that are basically just sugar, no fat, my reaction ranges from eh to ugh).
However, cheese and nuts tend to be salty (I have much more trouble moderating salted nuts than not). I tend to think in humans it's mostly about combinations that work together (fat+salt, fat+carb+salt, fat+sugar, protein+fat+salt). Didn't one of those "food addiction" studies come up with pizza on the top -- fat, carbs, and often salty too (and some protein).
The study does point out that it is combinations that cause highly palatable foods. It seems more like the study is designed to test relative contributions - the one diet was 50% sugar rich and the other was 50% fat rich. The 50% fat diet is the one that produced binging behavior and food anticipation.
It seems the combinations of fat and simple carbs like sugar was what got me in trouble for 40 years before going LCHF only back in 2014.
The below is based on working with 125,000 humans that showed that "Researchers said they found that carbohydrates, not fat, have “the most adverse impact on cardiovascular risk factors.” "
Carbs May Be Worse for Heart Health Than Fat
https://healthline.com/health-news/carbs-may-be-worse-for-heart-health-than-fat#1
I am aware heart health is not a eating concern for most people that I see eating but it is for a few of us.
Oh, I think a lot of people are concerned about heart health. Eating a diet high in sat fat and low in fruits and veg and whole grains and beans/lentils still is not considered good for heart health.
Your link is a very misleading discussion of the PURE study.
Here's a good analysis: https://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2017/08/29/The-5-Continent-PURE-Study-A-Prospective-Cohort-Study
Some selected bits:
"Of the study, which included 135,335 individuals [from around the world -- recall the typical US diet is about 50-55% carbs and 35% fat]:
Those who were eating diets highest in carbohydrates (74.4-80.7% of daily calories from carbs) had a hazard ratio 1.28 (1.12-1.46) times greater of dying over the median follow-up period of 7.4 years.
If you ate 65.7-69.7% of daily calories from carbs? Hazard ratio of 1.17 (1.03-1.32) compared to the lowest carb intake.
Intake of 59.3-62.3% of daily intake (or below) from carbs? The association became nonsignificant."
And even more!
"But to a certain extent, sure, this study provides a hint that getting 80% of your calories from carbohydrates isn't great. Additionally, the authors note that the vast majority of carbohydrates captured in the study were refined carbohydrates, and we already have pretty strong reasons for limiting those."
And
"Ok, but who is getting 80% of calories from refined carbohydrates?
EXCELLENT QUESTION! The answer?
1. A supermodel in the 80's
or
2. Someone at risk for malnutrition (not getting enough to eat)
What makes me say that?
We like to think of all "Western Diet" junk food as being chock full of carbs: snack foods, cheese curls, potato chips, ice cream, cakes, etc. And it is! But these foods also have fats as well. Unless you're mainlining Coke and Jolly Ranchers (which someone, somewhere certainly is), the junk food you enjoy is likely NOT 80% carbohydrate. And even if you DO like tons of soda, you'd need to drink a TON to offset the % of calories you're getting from foods you eat daily like meats and oils in processed food.
In fact, people eating 80% carbs are either eating extremely low fat, or quite low protein... and perhaps not eating that much at all.
And this is where the countries included in the study become an important factor.
PURE study is groundbreaking because it focuses on food patterns in NON-Western countries - and honestly - it's high time for that.
And the countries included have a wide range of socioeconomic, food availability, and cultural food intakes that differ widely from those in the US (which was not [an] included country in the study).
The authors included three countries they termed "High Income":
Canada, Sweden, UAE
Eleven "Middle Income"
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Iran, Malaysia, Palestine, Poland, South Africa, Turkey
And four "Low Income"
Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe
Authors also included a supplement that showed the "top five" contributors of each major macronutrient in each country. For some, it shows what you might expect: Carbs are carbs, meats are proteins, meats and butter provide fat, etc.
But in some countries that isn't what you see.
For example, in Bangladesh, white rice is listed as the top contributor of carbohydrates, protein, AND total fat. Not exactly a varied diet.
And you can imagine that people aren't eating mostly white rice totally by choice."
Bolding is mine. Read the whole thing, it's good.18 -
This article is very misleading. High fat foods in the absence or near absence of carbs has been proven to increase satiety leading to reduction in eating. I am not at home at the moment to cite research but it is extremely easy to find. As for fat being the cause of heart issues that had also been debunked. It is a combination of high fat and high carbs because your body cannot effectively utilize both at the same time.3
-
michaeldevine545 wrote: »High fat foods in the absence or near absence of carbs has been proven to increase satiety leading to reduction in eating.
The studies I've seen are about going to a very low carb/keto diet that ALSO increases protein. It is not surprising that increasing protein and changing your diet so significantly that you have to cut out most of the foods many overeat and start from scratch for those kinds of items tend to decrease calories without counting at first. That's not necessarily about satiety at all. (I do think for many but not all very low carb does tend to make people less interested in food or less hungry, but often the switch is less from plain carbs and certainly not less processed carbs with more fiber, but from foods that are high in fat and carbs).
It is true that fat in and of itself is not considered a problem anymore, but sat fat is still considered a food that should be limited:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/12/19/saturated-fat-regardless-of-type-found-linked-with-increased-heart-disease-risk/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/frank-sacks-swap-saturated-fats-for-healthier-fats/6 -
michaeldevine545 wrote: »This article is very misleading. High fat foods in the absence or near absence of carbs has been proven to increase satiety leading to reduction in eating. I am not at home at the moment to cite research but it is extremely easy to find. As for fat being the cause of heart issues that had also been debunked. It is a combination of high fat and high carbs because your body cannot effectively utilize both at the same time.
How is it misleading? The methodology explains exactly how they did it. The point is to test fat versus sugar in actually hyperpalatable consistencies, not eating them alone.4 -
I transitioned from a high carb/low fat way of eating, to a low carb/high fat way of eating and neither macros splits caused binge eating or out of control food cravings for me. I do find that the lower carb/higher fat ratio keeps me satiated longer, but I know others do well with a higher carb macros split. It seems pretty individual, and it's also not factoring in protein consumption, which I think plays a significant role in all of this.2
-
It's true for me. If the high fat food is salty, so much the better.1
-
ExistingFish wrote: »I don't find this to be the case for me. I could eat my weight in crackers, cereal, chips, soda...and GUMMY BEARS, all particularly low or no fat foods.
Fatty foods don't seem to have the same effect.
But I also have never experienced binge type eating tendencies. It's more a handful of crackers here, a few extra chips after I finish my sandwich, another handful of crackers next time I walk through the kitchen, then another because that was a small handful...etc etc.
Even when it comes to candy, I will keep shoveling gummy bears forever. Something like chocolate, which some fat, I can stop much easier.
Chips are a high fat food... unless they are baked. Mine is sweet and fat. Ice cream..2 -
michaeldevine545 wrote: »High fat foods in the absence or near absence of carbs has been proven to increase satiety leading to reduction in eating.
The studies I've seen are about going to a very low carb/keto diet that ALSO increases protein. It is not surprising that increasing protein and changing your diet so significantly that you have to cut out most of the foods many overeat and start from scratch for those kinds of items tend to decrease calories without counting at first. That's not necessarily about satiety at all. (I do think for many but not all very low carb does tend to make people less interested in food or less hungry, but often the switch is less from plain carbs and certainly not less processed carbs with more fiber, but from foods that are high in fat and carbs).
It is true that fat in and of itself is not considered a problem anymore, but sat fat is still considered a food that should be limited:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/12/19/saturated-fat-regardless-of-type-found-linked-with-increased-heart-disease-risk/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/frank-sacks-swap-saturated-fats-for-healthier-fats/
Yes, increased protein. Most carbs coming from higher fiber sources. Double whammy. Though, in some of the research I have read, ketosis will blunt appetite a little more than would be expected. I will have to go dig them up and post them. I also suspect the absence of a macro plays in as well. How fun is icecream without the sweetness?4 -
michaeldevine545 wrote: »This article is very misleading. High fat foods in the absence or near absence of carbs has been proven to increase satiety leading to reduction in eating. I am not at home at the moment to cite research but it is extremely easy to find. As for fat being the cause of heart issues that had also been debunked. It is a combination of high fat and high carbs because your body cannot effectively utilize both at the same time.
What type of foods are you referring to? Also, butter and oils have some of the lowest satiety scores.
Source: https://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/fullness-factor4 -
I got to a point when I was restricting my calorie intake to 1200 that nothing really satisfied the hunger I had. Since I was at a healthy bmi I stopped dieting and went to maintenance and tbh, if I'm eating a balanced diet (getting the macros mfp sets me) with good food, I don't get cravings at maintenance levels of calories if I keep my activity level at about the same every day.
So as far as what is the more satisfying macro? idk really, its more a matter of harmonizing all of it, the macros, calories and excersize my body needs. Because when I was keto, all the fat couldn't satisfy me, when I was vegetarian, all the bread couldn't satisfy me. It depended on calories meeting my energy needs, not over or under eating anything.
Scores on foods for satiety are nice, but when it comes to putting it into practice, too few calories is gonna make a person hungry. imo.2 -
Old thread but just wanted to say that I was on a heavy carb diet..I miss spaghetti and Mac n cheese bc it goes back for a lot of us. But the mfp route has me eating more fats. TBH, I don't miss having pasta and rice everyday throughout the day. I don't get sugar cravings anymore either. I feel full longer between meals, spacing them out and eating consistently to macros. I include my snacks in there and condiments but only thing I need to watch is sodium. I don't like salty and super crunchy foods so chips for example, was not an issue.1
-
I'd consider mac and cheese and chips, at least, foods that are as much or more high fat as high carb. With other types of pasta, depends on the sauce and what else you eat with it, of course.5
-
Thank you. I believe I responded to what macro tends to be more satisfying via personal preference, but I don't believe I requested a correction as though I were confusing myself.2
-
I adore the fat and refined carbohydrate combo. Faves of mine would be shortbread cookies made with butter and white flour, peanut butter cookies, almond cookies, cake, fruit pies, pastries, cream puffs or copenhagens, trifle. I could eat those all day long. On the other hand I like potatoes but couldn't binge on them, not even if they are made into chips. So I know what my weaknesses are; refined carbs plus fat. Other examples would be rice with butter and a little sugar in, ice cream, or sweet type breads with butter smoothed over. Cuppa tea besides and its Paradise!2
-
I could never really overeat plain carbs either. Anything I am prone to overdo has mixed macros. I think this is likely quite common, but people often oddly call foods that are half fat/half carbs (or carbs, fat, and protein) "carbs" if they are foods that are perceived to be less healthful. I think it's because of the current anti carb thing.0
-
I could never really overeat plain carbs either. Anything I am prone to overdo has mixed macros. I think this is likely quite common, but people often oddly call foods that are half fat/half carbs (or carbs, fat, and protein) "carbs" if they are foods that are perceived to be less healthful. I think it's because of the current anti carb thing.
It’s pretty difficult to overeat plain fat, though. Except bacon. Even nut butter usually goes on bread. For the typical American diet, cut the carbs and the fat problem also resolves itself. No one is getting fat eating just slabs of greasy cheese with pepperoni on it, it goes on dough first. French fries, same deal, you don’t eat a vat of corn oil.
Fat also doesn’t play silly games with insulin levels, which causes cravings in some people.2 -
Hey, this is a good old thread to bump.
I had a lottttttttta fat and carbs yesterday. Over by 2300 calories.
4,077 Cal, 508 Carb, 201 Fat, 116 Protein, 92 Sat Fat, 56g Fiber
I'm down a pound today.
That's probably a different thread, huh? I wish I could eat like that every day and get those results, it was perfect. That was a lot of food, though. I'll only worry about my arteries for a minute. Worth it.
Addictive? Hm. Well, I believe the wrong combo or split can make things worse. JMHO
2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I could never really overeat plain carbs either. Anything I am prone to overdo has mixed macros. I think this is likely quite common, but people often oddly call foods that are half fat/half carbs (or carbs, fat, and protein) "carbs" if they are foods that are perceived to be less healthful. I think it's because of the current anti carb thing.
It’s pretty difficult to overeat plain fat, though. Except bacon. Even nut butter usually goes on bread. For the typical American diet, cut the carbs and the fat problem also resolves itself. No one is getting fat eating just slabs of greasy cheese with pepperoni on it, it goes on dough first. French fries, same deal, you don’t eat a vat of corn oil.
Fat also doesn’t play silly games with insulin levels, which causes cravings in some people.
I would counter this argument, that fat IS able to easily be overeaten on. Lets look at a ribeye steak vs a lean sirloin. Ribeye per 100 grams raw is 22 grams if fat (292 calories) vs sirloin 100 grams raw 14 grams of fat 14 grams (244 calories). By choosing the leaner cut, one "saves" 50 calories. Yes, people do overeat on pepperoni with cheese. Look at people eating "greasy" ribs. The combination of fat and umami flavor is goes down easy. Pepperoni per 100 grams is nearly 500 calories. Compare that to nearly 7 medium apples to equal the calories? I dare many people to eat nearly 800 grams of apples in a sitting. Add carbs to energy dense mixture and people eat more! If insulin had anything to do with hunger, why did we see the results of Kevin Halls last study of a plant based vs animal based keto diet? 300 cals a day spontaneous decrease in calories on the second week of the keto vs a 1000 calorie average decrease on the first day of a plant based? Protein was equated. https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/rdjfb/3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I could never really overeat plain carbs either. Anything I am prone to overdo has mixed macros. I think this is likely quite common, but people often oddly call foods that are half fat/half carbs (or carbs, fat, and protein) "carbs" if they are foods that are perceived to be less healthful. I think it's because of the current anti carb thing.
It’s pretty difficult to overeat plain fat, though. Except bacon. Even nut butter usually goes on bread. For the typical American diet, cut the carbs and the fat problem also resolves itself. No one is getting fat eating just slabs of greasy cheese with pepperoni on it, it goes on dough first. French fries, same deal, you don’t eat a vat of corn oil.
Fat also doesn’t play silly games with insulin levels, which causes cravings in some people.
I agree with the exception of good cheese, which I can easily overeat on its own, and nuts (which are a mix of macros, although the majority of cals are from fat). I am not personally prone to overeat bacon or sausage (although I'd bet there are people who are), but in any case those are fat+protein. That was basically my point, as quoting myself demonstrates: "[a]nything I am prone to overdo has mixed macros."
Blaming "carbs" when most of what people mention overeating has plenty of fat too, doesn't make sense to me. If you overeat french fries, must you cut out most carbs (or potatoes) or maybe just don't eat the potatoes fried in a high cal way. I like some roasted chicken breast (bone in, skin on), roasted potatoes with a tiny bit of olive oil and salt, and then half a plate of vegetables, again with a little bit of fat. I find this no more difficult to avoid overeating (although delicious) than a higher fat cut of meat with a cream sauce and no potatoes.
Similarly, I often make pasta (2 oz or quite often less) with a sauce made of a little olive oil, lots of vegetables, and some shrimp. Delicious, and easy to make sating -- for me -- without blowing the calorie budget. If I have more cals I add some pine nuts, olives, and/or feta (depends on what I feel like and how many extra cals I have).
On the other hand, I can make a mean pasta carbonara, but usually don't, since those cals add up fast and yes they end up being predominantly from fat. I've never much liked pasta with cream sauces, but many do, and there too often the cals are mainly from fat -- and people might make the mistake of not adding enough protein (which for me is usually required for a sating meal). Now, in a restaurant, sure, one of the main issues with pasta is serving size, but when cooking at home it's easy to control the amount of pasta, and for me what makes 150 cal of pasta satisfying vs. not is typically what else is eaten with it, and I've noticed that many of the highest cal pasta meals have one main thing in common -- the amount of fat added. Yet the meals are dismissed as "carbs."5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions