Fat is empty calories?

Don't have time to read it - but I believe in not going too low fat because some vitamins are fat soluble and should be eaten with fat (thus my salad dressing ARE NOT fat free versions). I believe we need fats. So based on that - no I wouldn't consider them empty calories. I would consider them "vitamin carriers" myself, unless you are eating sticks of butter (aka shame sticks).

Absolutely not. People think of fat as the enemy because it usually contains MORE calories than say, protein. Healthy fats found in foods such as olive oils, cold water fish, nuts and avocado contain many beneficial properties and even aid weight loss due to their satiating properties. You'd be doing yourself a dis-service by cutting them out of your diet. Often times low-fat foods contain just as many, maybe more calories than the full-fat product itself in addition to a ridiculous amount of sugars and additives.

The first time I heard "shame sticks" was on the TV show According to Jim - it's stick of butter rolled in white sugar and then eaten ... I know it's wicked. Makes me think of when you make cookies and you have creamed the butter and sugar together - umhmmm, who's never just tried it at that stage. It's soooo tasty..... I guess that's one to try to fit into your macros LOL

If you have look around the site you can also go to the following page which goes into a little more detail

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html

All its really doing is trying to push portion control but is using solid fats and sugar as the examples

It is not claiming that all fats are bad for you or are empty calories

This page is more detailed, yes, but they only admit that "A small amount of empty calories is okay". We have to look at the whole picture, and portion control and variety is essential. But when that is taken care of, there isn't any reason to demonize any food, is it? I think strict rules and no reasoning behind them makes us stupid. And fat.

And now another question popped into my head (thanks :-) ): Just as added sugar is thought by many to be inferior to sugars in fruit and vegetables, is there a difference between naturally occuring fats and added fats, nutritionally? Regarding micronutrients, I mean?

Don't get me wrong I do not agree with the kind of thinking used in this article its just that further investigation shows it isn't the pure fat hating site that it initially looks to be.

I also cannot see why there would be any difference between a fat that has been added to a fat that is naturally in the product, providing it is the same kind of fat, I mean you cannot compare added trans fat with naturally occurring Omega 3 fats.

However I do believe we need to look at the nutrition of the fat source or sugar source as a whole because just concentrating on the fat/sugar alone really doesn't give the whole picture

Haha, silly article. :flowerforyou:
I also love it when I buy seasoned salts and it reads "0 calorie" <-- Yeah, okay. Because nothing has calories.

Fat is essential in hormone production, vitamins absorption, organs protection and keeping us warm. Fat is the other source of energy (the one I prefer personally)