Why do people insist that they need tons of fat for keto!
Options
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »
Most of your fat calories should come from saturated fat.janejellyroll wrote: »Totally off topic, but LCHF is so hard when you're also a vegan xD
I rely on Earth Balance vegan butter to get my fat content up there.
Couldn't you also use, say, any plant oil? I'm vegan too and Earth Balance is a great substitute for butter. But I can't imagine using a lot of it each day.
And, like mamapeach910, I am trying to wrap my mind around how difficult this would be.
Okay, so coconut oil is vegan, yes?
Is this whole idea that most of the calories for this WOE be from saturated fat behind the coconut oil craze or at least part of what's behind the coconut oil craze?
I'm getting old, it's getting hard to keep up with all this nonsense.
The thing with coconut oil is MCT(medium change triglycerides), It oxidizes(used for energy) and don't get stored as fat, it takes more energy to oxidize it than what it contains, this increases metabolic rate. And also suppresses appetite.
"In summary, research conducted to date in animals shows that replacing dietary LCT by MCT causes a rise in EE, a depression of food intake and lower body fat mass. Similarly, in humans, MCT increase EE relative to LCT consumption. Fewer studies have examined the effects of MCT on satiety but, although results vary, these also suggest decreased food intake when LCT are replaced with MCT in the diet. Therefore, greater EE and lower food intake with MCT compared with LCT suggest that replacing dietary LCT with MCT could facilitate weight maintenance in humans. "
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/3/329.full
But that increase in metabolic rate weans off after a while of use (just like caffeine) does it not?
I use it sometimes because it tastes good in some things, but I feel the human studies are a bit scarce and small so I don't see myself moving to regular use since I love my olive oil too much to give it up for something that does not have strong evidence behind it.0 -
Not exactly... in her book it's more implied. She recommends 1-2tbs of coconut oil put in to warm water and you drink it before each meal. Plus her sample menu planlemurcat12 wrote: »Biochemist Mary Enig PhD, suggest it. She's the one who discovered trans fats are bad. When she made that statment to frito's lay they said to her, "If you talked differently you'd get paid more." There is a lot of politics and non sense.
She said most of your fat should be saturated? Do you have a cite?
SHe has 2 meal plans 2,500 calories and a meal plan of 2,000 calories. I can send you the pdf if you want of the book.
Also Stephen Phinney M.D. also talk about how the majority of your calories should come from saturated fat, also Peter Attia M.D. These guys are really good resources, They are probably the top go to people in the keto community in my opinion. A quick search on youtube will bring them up. Peter Attita is really heavy on the numbers.
That's . . . that's a lot of coconut. And I love coconut.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, 100 g is high to me.
Also 100 g fat=900 calories, 100 g protein=400 calories. If my maintenance is 2000 calories, that leaves 700, or 175 g carbs, so not low carb (as I define it, anyway) and certainly not keto.
Now, I like to eat about 125 g protein, or 500 calories, and let's assume 5% carbs or 25 grams, that leaves about 1400 calories to fat or 155 grams.
Which is fine, not criticizing, but I'd call that high fat.
Yeah but that means cheese curds all day, right?
Alas, it does not. At least, not for my husband who's doing LCHF. Cheese curds are too low fat for him to eat a great deal of. He's after a 2:1 fat:protein ratio - in grams. It does mean all the triple cream brie you want, though!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't understand why LCHF requires lots of saturated fat (vs fat in general). Am curious about that.
Not sure about "requires" more "doesn't have a problem with". In a low carbohydrate context the saturated fat eaten is oxidised as fuel. Sat fat levels in blood don't reflect sat fat in food.
That's what I'd always assumed was the LCHF position until PU_239's comment above. His(?) comment was what I was responding to, but I suppose he may not speak for LCHF as a whole. ;-)
I am skeptical about the arguments/evidence against sat fat (at least to a point) as there are obvious questions about all the studies I've seen (not claiming these are definitive--I keep meaning to dig into the issue more), but the mainstream nutrition types (like Walter Willett) certainly are not saying that sat fat is totally fine, no problem. Just that what's healthy is to substitute unsaturated fats (at least certain unsaturated fats) and not refined carbs.
In that my preferred/easiest way of eating tends to be somewhat higher than recommended by these folks in sat fat (and has been pretty low in refined carbs already, despite me not being low carb), I'm interested in the sat fat argument.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, 100 g is high to me.
Also 100 g fat=900 calories, 100 g protein=400 calories. If my maintenance is 2000 calories, that leaves 700, or 175 g carbs, so not low carb (as I define it, anyway) and certainly not keto.
Now, I like to eat about 125 g protein, or 500 calories, and let's assume 5% carbs or 25 grams, that leaves about 1400 calories to fat or 155 grams.
Which is fine, not criticizing, but I'd call that high fat.
Yeah but that means cheese curds all day, right?
Alas, it does not. At least, not for my husband who's doing LCHF. Cheese curds are too low fat for him to eat a great deal of. He's after a 2:1 fat:protein ratio - in grams. It does mean all the triple cream brie you want, though!
That's no reason to give up curds. Tell him to look at overall composition, eat the curds, and pair them with something higher in fat. Curds + pork crackling or curds melted into sauce with hwc.0 -
-
Not exactly... in her book it's more implied. She recommends 1-2tbs of coconut oil put in to warm water and you drink it before each meal. Plus her sample menu planlemurcat12 wrote: »Biochemist Mary Enig PhD, suggest it. She's the one who discovered trans fats are bad. When she made that statment to frito's lay they said to her, "If you talked differently you'd get paid more." There is a lot of politics and non sense.
She said most of your fat should be saturated? Do you have a cite?
SHe has 2 meal plans 2,500 calories and a meal plan of 2,000 calories. I can send you the pdf if you want of the book.
Also Stephen Phinney M.D. also talk about how the majority of your calories should come from saturated fat, also Peter Attia M.D. These guys are really good resources, They are probably the top go to people in the keto community in my opinion. A quick search on youtube will bring them up. Peter Attita is really heavy on the numbers.
I like coconut and all, but... oh man, that's a lot.
And I thought coconut oil in coffee was bad. I can't even imagine it just in warm water. My stomach is lurching at the mere thought.
0 -
The things people do just to lose weight.... Why not just eat less food? Why the macro restriction? It just boggles my mind.
On an average day without trying i can only consume roughly 35g fat. I cannot even imagine consuming upwards of 100g of fat.
Besides, how on earth do you get enough micronutrients and fiber without eating enough vegetables (carbs)?
I mean, if it works for satiety while on a caloric deficit, fine, but surely eating this way is not sustainable?0 -
Not exactly... in her book it's more implied. She recommends 1-2tbs of coconut oil put in to warm water and you drink it before each meal. Plus her sample menu planlemurcat12 wrote: »Biochemist Mary Enig PhD, suggest it. She's the one who discovered trans fats are bad. When she made that statment to frito's lay they said to her, "If you talked differently you'd get paid more." There is a lot of politics and non sense.
She said most of your fat should be saturated? Do you have a cite?
SHe has 2 meal plans 2,500 calories and a meal plan of 2,000 calories. I can send you the pdf if you want of the book.
Also Stephen Phinney M.D. also talk about how the majority of your calories should come from saturated fat, also Peter Attia M.D. These guys are really good resources, They are probably the top go to people in the keto community in my opinion. A quick search on youtube will bring them up. Peter Attita is really heavy on the numbers.
Peter Attia was just talking about saturated fat in his latest blog post:
"However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis)." --Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
As for Mary Enig, I think that milk/coconut milk diet is out there. lol But I'm going to assume it was to make the point that traditional fats, even if they're high in saturated fat, are healthful. Not that we should be eating saturated fat to the exclusion of everything else. Even red meat has more monounsaturated fats than saturated. Here's the blurb from her book:
"Coconut oil, red meat, and butter—these fats are traditionally considered harmful, but this powerful book, based on more than two decades of research, shows that these saturated fats are actually essential to weight loss and health. Eat Fat, Lose Fat flouts conventional wisdom by revealing that so-called healthy vegetable oils (such as corn and soybean) are in large part responsible for our national obesity and health crisis.
The three programs in this book, which features delicious coconut oil based recipes, among others, show that eating healthy fats is the answer to losing weight and achieving good health for a lifetime." --Eat Fat, Lose Fat: The Healthy Alternative to Trans Fats
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »The things people do just to lose weight.... Why not just eat less food? Why the macro restriction? It just boggles my mind.
On an average day without trying i can only consume roughly 35g fat. I cannot even imagine consuming upwards of 100g of fat.
Besides, how on earth do you get enough micronutrients and fiber without eating enough vegetables (carbs)?
I mean, if it works for satiety while on a caloric deficit, fine, but surely eating this way is not sustainable?
This is the bit I always wonder about. I've read that constipation isn't an issue for them because of the fat content of their diet, so I'm guessing they don't care about fiber that much? But the vitamins and minerals from veggies are a head scratcher.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »The things people do just to lose weight.... Why not just eat less food? Why the macro restriction? It just boggles my mind.
On an average day without trying i can only consume roughly 35g fat. I cannot even imagine consuming upwards of 100g of fat.
Besides, how on earth do you get enough micronutrients and fiber without eating enough vegetables (carbs)?
I mean, if it works for satiety while on a caloric deficit, fine, but surely eating this way is not sustainable?
Shush with the common sense.
People want to try just about anything but the old boring eat less and move more. You're correct. This isn't a sustainable way of living.0 -
The thing with coconut oil is MCT(medium change triglycerides), It oxidizes(used for energy) and don't get stored as fat..
Well that's completely wrong....it takes more energy to oxidize it than what it contains...
And yet that manages to be even more wrong, while simultaneosly contradicting the first claim....this increases metabolic rate.
And that's from Planet Pure Speculation.
0 -
I know, JPW1990. If he really liked cheese curds, he'd find a way to eat them. He's just much more into soft-ripened raw cheeses that you can smell from three towns away.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »The things people do just to lose weight.... Why not just eat less food? Why the macro restriction? It just boggles my mind.
On an average day without trying i can only consume roughly 35g fat. I cannot even imagine consuming upwards of 100g of fat.
Besides, how on earth do you get enough micronutrients and fiber without eating enough vegetables (carbs)?
I mean, if it works for satiety while on a caloric deficit, fine, but surely eating this way is not sustainable?
Eating 25% less of everything doesn't work well for some, possibly many. Tell them to eat as much as they want while restricting carbohydrate and they choose to eat a lot less. You can argue it's more satisfying or it's just hard to find things to eat, but either way the intake on ad-lib low carb is inevitably low in most cases.
No idea why it wouldn't be sustainable, not that one needs to sustain a deficit for ever.
I eat in the top 10 or 20% of vegetable consumption on low carb, the crapatarians aren't eating lots of micros. Fiber isn't a clear benefit, soluble or insoluble ?0 -
That's no reason to give up curds. Tell him to look at overall composition, eat the curds, and pair them with something higher in fat. Curds + pork crackling or curds melted into sauce with hwc.
That gets you back to the OP though, OD on protein then guzzle fat to hit a percentage.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I am skeptical about the arguments/evidence against sat fat (at least to a point) as there are obvious questions about all the studies I've seen (not claiming these are definitive--I keep meaning to dig into the issue more), but the mainstream nutrition types (like Walter Willett) certainly are not saying that sat fat is totally fine, no problem.
Apart from being stuck in their ways and dependent on certain funding streams the "mainstream" is using epidemiology / astrology in the context of a high carb diet - the "evidence" against sat fat is derived from high carb populations, not low carb fat burners.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »The things people do just to lose weight.... Why not just eat less food? Why the macro restriction? It just boggles my mind.
On an average day without trying i can only consume roughly 35g fat. I cannot even imagine consuming upwards of 100g of fat.
Besides, how on earth do you get enough micronutrients and fiber without eating enough vegetables (carbs)?
I mean, if it works for satiety while on a caloric deficit, fine, but surely eating this way is not sustainable?
Eating 25% less of everything doesn't work well for some, possibly many. Tell them to eat as much as they want while restricting carbohydrate and they choose to eat a lot less. You can argue it's more satisfying or it's just hard to find things to eat, but either way the intake on ad-lib low carb is inevitably low in most cases.
In *some* cases. A huge portion of the population will gain weight because ad-libing HFHP leads easily to over-eating.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
Not exactly... in her book it's more implied. She recommends 1-2tbs of coconut oil put in to warm water and you drink it before each meal. Plus her sample menu planlemurcat12 wrote: »Biochemist Mary Enig PhD, suggest it. She's the one who discovered trans fats are bad. When she made that statment to frito's lay they said to her, "If you talked differently you'd get paid more." There is a lot of politics and non sense.
She said most of your fat should be saturated? Do you have a cite?
SHe has 2 meal plans 2,500 calories and a meal plan of 2,000 calories. I can send you the pdf if you want of the book.
Also Stephen Phinney M.D. also talk about how the majority of your calories should come from saturated fat, also Peter Attia M.D. These guys are really good resources, They are probably the top go to people in the keto community in my opinion. A quick search on youtube will bring them up. Peter Attita is really heavy on the numbers.
Peter Attia was just talking about saturated fat in his latest blog post:
"However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis)." --Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
As for Mary Enig, I think that milk/coconut milk diet is out there. lol But I'm going to assume it was to make the point that traditional fats, even if they're high in saturated fat, are healthful. Not that we should be eating saturated fat to the exclusion of everything else. Even red meat has more monounsaturated fats than saturated. Here's the blurb from her book:
"Coconut oil, red meat, and butter—these fats are traditionally considered harmful, but this powerful book, based on more than two decades of research, shows that these saturated fats are actually essential to weight loss and health. Eat Fat, Lose Fat flouts conventional wisdom by revealing that so-called healthy vegetable oils (such as corn and soybean) are in large part responsible for our national obesity and health crisis.
The three programs in this book, which features delicious coconut oil based recipes, among others, show that eating healthy fats is the answer to losing weight and achieving good health for a lifetime." --Eat Fat, Lose Fat: The Healthy Alternative to Trans Fats
OKay i read the link. I do agree with him, he has concluded that some people just aren't meant for this type of diet. Which I agree with. Some people are better geared towards processing carbs compared to fat. Compare endurance athletes to power athletes. Some people are just naturally thin with lower body fat %, some have higher and are more robust. There is genetic variance.
I just checked my diary, 81g of saturated fats out of 178, which is 46.% from saturated fats. A day when i ate just animal products 90g of fat out of which is 49% from saturated fats.
You do have a point though, it's something to monitor and keep track of(your blood markers).
But isn't the argument made by Eing (and other advocates of this way of eating) that this is our "natural" way to eat. If you have to monitor your blood work to ensure it isn't dangerous for you, that seems contradictory.
Of course, it's possible that you don't believe that this is a natural food pattern for humans, just one that promotes health for some and not others.0 -
The paper you cited never claimed that burning certain fats uses more energy than it creates - which you did. Nor did it claim that certain types of fat can't be eaten in excess - which you do.
And it should be obvious that the body can't derive energy from burning something that takes more energy to burn than it produces - which is also what you claimed.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »The things people do just to lose weight.... Why not just eat less food? Why the macro restriction? It just boggles my mind.
On an average day without trying i can only consume roughly 35g fat. I cannot even imagine consuming upwards of 100g of fat.
Besides, how on earth do you get enough micronutrients and fiber without eating enough vegetables (carbs)?
I mean, if it works for satiety while on a caloric deficit, fine, but surely eating this way is not sustainable?
Eating 25% less of everything doesn't work well for some, possibly many. Tell them to eat as much as they want while restricting carbohydrate and they choose to eat a lot less. You can argue it's more satisfying or it's just hard to find things to eat, but either way the intake on ad-lib low carb is inevitably low in most cases.
No idea why it wouldn't be sustainable, not that one needs to sustain a deficit for ever.
I eat in the top 10 or 20% of vegetable consumption on low carb, the crapatarians aren't eating lots of micros. Fiber isn't a clear benefit, soluble or insoluble ?
I understand it working as far as limiting your choices and making it easier to choose to eat a lot less. I get it.
When i'm referring to sustainable, i'm not speaking as far as calorie deficits go. I mean, once you switch over to maintenance, why would you choose to continue to cut out certain foods? I think it would be hard to maintain because most people enjoy carb-laden foods. I.e. pasta, buns/bread, fries, etc.
If someone got fat eating an excess number of calories (from carbs and otherwise) and they are not learning to control portion sizes, but instead restrict an entire food group, isn't the likelihood that someone will relapse into eating these foods again? Or atleast be tempted to? It's like excluding the portion of diet where you learn how much you can and cannot be eating for your goals. If you remove that portion, i imagine it's difficult to eat foods you enjoy later in life when you have no idea how much you can/cannot eat.
I'm also not speaking of anyone else's food choices so i'm not concerned with certain people who choose not to eat enough micros. My concern was that, eating this way, overtime, doesn't cause deficiencies? Is it healthy in the long term to cut out a large macronutrient in which most vitamins and minerals can be found?
Also, i suppose if you're consuming excessive (100g and up) amounts of fat fiber IS less important.
I'm just genuinely curious at this point why people choose to eat in this manner. Because it's easier to eat without counting calories? Because of satiety? It seems to me like most people i know who do keto do not realize that it is unnecessary to do so. They think eating only certain macronutrients is somehow a "magic" weightloss inducing diet.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions