Why do people insist that they need tons of fat for keto!
Options
Replies
-
rainbowbow wrote: »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?
Yes. But it doesn't matter - regaining weight happens at the same frequency and rate whether dieters choose the "eat everything, just less" or "eliminate entire food groups" paths.
There is no difference in long term outcomes.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Yes we are humans but we have adapted to different global regions which should also be taken in to consideration.
Which global regions are associated with requiring (or tolerating) large amounts of saturated fat and which ones aren't? I think this would be a key message for proponents of high saturated fat in the diet to get out there. The Weston A. Price website still includes language about their way of eating being suitable for people "worldwide." And didn't Price base his research on people in specific regions? If evolution based on region has made people vary so widely, how did he verify that his findings applied to all people and not just a subset?0 -
LovingLife_Erin wrote: »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?
I just want cheese curds. All day long. Sadly, you can't buy them here in England. Sigh...
You obviously live in the wrong country lol.
I'm in England and I have no idea what a cheese curd even is.
I did low carb for a while, and found I had to increase fats to get to my calorie goal.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »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?
Yes. But it doesn't matter - regaining weight happens at the same frequency and rate whether dieters choose the "eat everything, just less" or "eliminate entire food groups" paths.
There is no difference in long term outcomes.
Then why wouldn't someone choose to eat foods they enjoy in their diet?
If eating LCHF and eating less overall calories has the same outcome or rate of regain, what's the point? Punishment?0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »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?
Yes. But it doesn't matter - regaining weight happens at the same frequency and rate whether dieters choose the "eat everything, just less" or "eliminate entire food groups" paths.
There is no difference in long term outcomes.
Then why wouldn't someone choose to eat foods they enjoy in their diet?
Because it's easier for them to get to their first goal by choosing that path.
Because for many people, eliminating one type of food to maximize intake of another type of food is more pleasant than feeling like they're denying themselves "everything".
Because everybody's different.
0 -
where'd OP go?0
-
HF comes from LCHF. Are you proposing a HFLP alternative?
*Some* trials show what you claim. Unfortunately, real world results show that ad-libing a LCHF diet leads to just as much over-TDEE eating as any other diet.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »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?
Yes. But it doesn't matter - regaining weight happens at the same frequency and rate whether dieters choose the "eat everything, just less" or "eliminate entire food groups" paths.
There is no difference in long term outcomes.
Then why wouldn't someone choose to eat foods they enjoy in their diet?
If eating LCHF and eating less overall calories has the same outcome or rate of regain, what's the point? Punishment?
Some people do find restricting carbs helps with suppressing hunger signals.
Personally, I think it only works well in conjunction with conscientious calorie counting, so I sort of side-eyed Yarwell's mention of a 25% restriction of everything being problematic for some people but low carb being easy. Perhaps I overestimate the percentage of emotional or bored eaters in the general population, though. People eat for reasons other than hunger signals alone.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »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?
Yes. But it doesn't matter - regaining weight happens at the same frequency and rate whether dieters choose the "eat everything, just less" or "eliminate entire food groups" paths.
There is no difference in long term outcomes.
Then why wouldn't someone choose to eat foods they enjoy in their diet?
If eating LCHF and eating less overall calories has the same outcome or rate of regain, what's the point? Punishment?
My husband does choose to eat foods he enjoys. He LIKES pork sausages covered in melted cheese and dipped in mustard. More than he likes pasta or bread.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »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.
I hate pasta, and it's dead flesh texture if not hot, so have no inclination to "relapse" to that. All the luxurious fatty foods I eat meet my needs and desires perfectly, it's just a bit difficult sometimes in a carboholic society.
"Carbohydrate" as such has no micronutrients - it's either sugar or a sugar polymer. I can eat a pound of veg a day on LCHF, would that level concern you ? Which micronutrients should I panic about ?
Fiber doesn't have a 100% consensus in any case, for any issue. EFSA couldn't recommend a fibre intake value in the face of contradictory evidence. So I don't worry about it. Not being in the US I don't have the issue of fiber being regarded as part of "carbohydrate" but my veg, berries, nuts and seeds has a fair bit of it.
0 -
HF comes from LCHF. Are you proposing a HFLP alternative?
*Some* trials show what you claim. Unfortunately, real world results show that ad-libing a LCHF diet leads to just as much over-TDEE eating as any other diet.
Most likely. Then you have people like the OP who switch to eating foods that they don't typically find the most emotionally filling or satisfying and of course they'll eat much less of it. This in turn lowers their calorie consumption and then they magically lose weight.
The weight loss is a side effect of not having food they enjoy as much although higher fats can make you more satiated than other foods. I still think the point of this being sustainable is true for most people. Some people will succeed but this will end up as a crash and burn eventually.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »If eating LCHF and eating less overall calories has the same outcome or rate of regain, what's the point? Punishment?
The food is better, no low fat horrors or soulless chicken breast and salad.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Veggies don't seem to count for people who do low carb. At least from what I've seen when people talk about being low carb and focusing on eating lots of veggies instead of carbs lol.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LovingLife_Erin wrote: »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?
I just want cheese curds. All day long. Sadly, you can't buy them here in England. Sigh...
Aren't there cheese producing areas of England where you can buy them? I mean, I know you produce cheese, so surely the curds can be purchased too? Here in Chicago they sell them at farmer's markets (people come down from Wisconsin, where there is much cheese, which almost makes up for the Packers fans), although I recently realized you can also just buy them at WF.
"Makes up for the Packer fans." Haha! I'm a Detroit fan living in Wisconsin, so I hear you! Their cheese covers a multitude of sins though.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Veggies don't seem to count for people who do low carb. At least from what I've seen when people talk about being low carb and focusing on eating lots of veggies instead of carbs lol.
It's because the veggies have huge volume-to-calorie ratios. For the calories in one snickers bar, you're looking at several plates worth of green beans or have a dozen bowls of shredded cabbage. The numbers are so low they can be more or less ignored.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Personally, I think it only works well in conjunction with conscientious calorie counting, so I sort of side-eyed Yarwell's mention of a 25% restriction of everything being problematic for some people but low carb being easy. Perhaps I overestimate the percentage of emotional or bored eaters in the general population, though. People eat for reasons other than hunger signals alone.
In a recent TV competition the guy that lost in a head to head tried to restrict across his intake, and failed. The winner cut out beer and takeaways and won by a country mile.
There's psychology behind have restriction rules that are easy to implement, as opposed to portion controlling especially when eating out. If I have steak and salad there's less cals on the plate and I eat the lot, if I tried to eat less of the the steak and fries would I succeed ?
0 -
I eat low carb, low enough that I'm often in ketosis, and I eat a variety of nutritious foods. Low carb does not mean low nutrition. Going back through my diary this is what I ate this week:rainbowbow wrote: »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?
Vegetables: carrots, peppers, broccoli, potatoes, onions, cucumber, tomatoes, romaine lettuce, cabbage, garlic, sugar snap peas, black beans
Dairy: cream, cheddar, parmesan
Nuts: almonds, pistachios
Fruit: oranges, pears, blueberries, strawberries
Meat: beef, chicken, eggs, pork
Fats: olive oil, butter, coconut oil0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Veggies don't seem to count for people who do low carb. At least from what I've seen when people talk about being low carb and focusing on eating lots of veggies instead of carbs lol.
Isn't that where "net" carbs come in?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