Are you afraid of fats?

123578

Replies

  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.

    This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?

    Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.

    Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.

    The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.

    I didn't say that fat made you fat...I was pointing out that reducing fat in one's diet can be an efficient way of cutting calories...I pointed out that is 9 calories per gram because that is likely something one would want to know if they're trying to cut calories...your reading comprehension skills are off the charts...must be the keto brain fog...

    You will also note in my comment (or probably not because apparently you can't read) that I eat plenty of fat...

    Nice try, but I eat everything.

    If you want to cut calories, cut calories. Again, who cares about the calories per gram? If steak fills you up (lots of fat), and you need more calories of pasta (no fat) than steak to feel full, eat the steak and all its fat.

  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.

    This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?

    Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.

    Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.

    The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.

    Calories per gram might be important to someone who knows it's calories that lead to weight loss/gain.

    That makes no sense. What does calories per gram have to do with the number of calories you consume?

    I just gave an example of two breakfasts - the one that is loaded with fat has far fewer calories than the high-carb, high-sugar alternative.

    And if the USDA is no longer providing the number of fat calories, obviously it is not fat calories that make you fat.

    Calories per gram matters to volume eaters.
    selina884 wrote: »
    I am in the uk, and it's sugar they keep banging on about more not fat
    Anyway I don't track my fat intake or sugar

    yeah actually it was on the radio this morning.
    Food industries have a 5 year target to reduce sugars in their meals by 20%.

    ..but definitely low sugar is the most "recent" craze alongside "high protein" diets.

    I think it's confused the entire population and people don't understand whats good for them anymore.

    Anymore???

    What the heck is a "volume eater?"

    <<<<<This guy....

    You know...someone who prefers to eat a lot of volume...sorry, but some butter in my coffee isn't going to suffice as breakfast...a big bowl of oats, a few eggs, maybe 1/2 an avocado...sometimes a little sausage and a banana or something on the other hand is quite nice.

    How does eating a few eggs make you a "volume" eater?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,171 Member
    edited September 2016
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.

    This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?

    Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.

    Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.

    The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.

    I didn't say that fat made you fat...I was pointing out that reducing fat in one's diet can be an efficient way of cutting calories...I pointed out that is 9 calories per gram because that is likely something one would want to know if they're trying to cut calories...your reading comprehension skills are off the charts...must be the keto brain fog...

    You will also note in my comment (or probably not because apparently you can't read) that I eat plenty of fat...

    Nice try, but I eat everything.

    If you want to cut calories, cut calories. Again, who cares about the calories per gram? If steak fills you up (lots of fat), and you need more calories of pasta (no fat) than steak to feel full, eat the steak and all its fat.

    so your reading comprehension skills are just bad then...

    all i said was that reducing fat is an easy way to reduce calories when one wants to diet...dietary fat is essential...I never said people should be afraid of fat or to go low fat/no fat in their diet...and then you went weirdo...





  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Not a single person in this thread has answered that they were still worried about fats.

    But tens of millions are afraid of fats. That's the first thing they look for on the label. They think they can gouge on pretzels because they contain no fat (or little fat?).

    People buy 0% fat yogurt because it has no fat, not because it has fewer calories. And we have to stop that way of thinking.

    And there are millions of people like you who think carbs are evil...I'm not 100% vegetarian, but I'm substantially so...I eat a lot of carbs...lots of beans, legumes, oats and other whole grains, quinoa, brown rice, potatoes and sweet potatoes...an ermahgrd sometimes I even eat regular old pasta...and yeah...plenty of fat as well.

    Not all carbs are "junk" foods, refined grains, and sugar...like I said, I eat quite a few carbs...good, whole food carbohydrates...you're just as bad as the people who would say fat is what makes you fat...

    Carbs are evil? No, I said don't fear fats. And if you are not battling diabetes, eat all the carbs you like if it fills you up.
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,640 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Someone who likes to eat larger portions vs. smaller ones, who feels more satiated by eating a larger volume of food.

    Other than a salad, what food can you eat in "volume" that does not pack on calories? My assumption that "volume" eaters are not chowing down on salads.

    You have a lot to learn about different ways of eating. In the meantime, it's impolite to use someone else's thread as a soap box.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Someone who likes to eat larger portions vs. smaller ones, who feels more satiated by eating a larger volume of food.

    Other than a salad, what food can you eat in "volume" that does not pack on calories? My assumption that "volume" eaters are not chowing down on salads.

    You have a lot to learn about different ways of eating. In the meantime, it's impolite to use someone else's thread as a soap box.

    The thread is called, "Are You Afraid of Fats?" No I am not. But tens of millions of Americans are. And they shouldn't be. So how is this a soap box? I am totally on topic.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.

    This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?

    Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.

    Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.

    The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.

    I didn't say that fat made you fat...I was pointing out that reducing fat in one's diet can be an efficient way of cutting calories...I pointed out that is 9 calories per gram because that is likely something one would want to know if they're trying to cut calories...your reading comprehension skills are off the charts...must be the keto brain fog...

    You will also note in my comment (or probably not because apparently you can't read) that I eat plenty of fat...

    Nice try, but I eat everything.

    If you want to cut calories, cut calories. Again, who cares about the calories per gram? If steak fills you up (lots of fat), and you need more calories of pasta (no fat) than steak to feel full, eat the steak and all its fat.

    so your reading comprehension skills are just bad then...

    all i said was that reducing fat is an easy way to reduce calories when one wants to diet...dietary fat is essential...I never said people should be afraid of fat or to go low fat/no fat in their diet...and then you went weirdo...

    So is reducing carbs. So is reducing protein. So is reducing sugar. So I'm missing your point.
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,640 Member
    edited September 2016
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Someone who likes to eat larger portions vs. smaller ones, who feels more satiated by eating a larger volume of food.

    Other than a salad, what food can you eat in "volume" that does not pack on calories? My assumption that "volume" eaters are not chowing down on salads.

    You have a lot to learn about different ways of eating. In the meantime, it's impolite to use someone else's thread as a soap box.

    The thread is called, "Are You Afraid of Fats?" No I am not. But tens of millions of Americans are. And they shouldn't be. So how is this a soap box? I am totally on topic.

    Apparently, cwolfman13 is correct. You can't even make heads or tails of your own responses, let alone anyone else's. You're being argumentative with people who, in large part, are in agreement with you, and you don't even realize it.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,171 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Not a single person in this thread has answered that they were still worried about fats.

    But tens of millions are afraid of fats. That's the first thing they look for on the label. They think they can gouge on pretzels because they contain no fat (or little fat?).

    People buy 0% fat yogurt because it has no fat, not because it has fewer calories. And we have to stop that way of thinking.

    And there are millions of people like you who think carbs are evil...I'm not 100% vegetarian, but I'm substantially so...I eat a lot of carbs...lots of beans, legumes, oats and other whole grains, quinoa, brown rice, potatoes and sweet potatoes...an ermahgrd sometimes I even eat regular old pasta...and yeah...plenty of fat as well.

    Not all carbs are "junk" foods, refined grains, and sugar...like I said, I eat quite a few carbs...good, whole food carbohydrates...you're just as bad as the people who would say fat is what makes you fat...

    Carbs are evil? No, I said don't fear fats. And if you are not battling diabetes, eat all the carbs you like if it fills you up.

    Pretty much everyone in this thread has said there is nothing to fear in fat...what's your major malfunction? You're going on about nothing...
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.

    This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?

    Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.

    Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.

    The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.

    Calories per gram might be important to someone who knows it's calories that lead to weight loss/gain.

    That makes no sense. What does calories per gram have to do with the number of calories you consume?

    I just gave an example of two breakfasts - the one that is loaded with fat has far fewer calories than the high-carb, high-sugar alternative.

    And if the USDA is no longer providing the number of fat calories, obviously it is not fat calories that make you fat.

    Calories per gram matters to volume eaters.
    selina884 wrote: »
    I am in the uk, and it's sugar they keep banging on about more not fat
    Anyway I don't track my fat intake or sugar

    yeah actually it was on the radio this morning.
    Food industries have a 5 year target to reduce sugars in their meals by 20%.

    ..but definitely low sugar is the most "recent" craze alongside "high protein" diets.

    I think it's confused the entire population and people don't understand whats good for them anymore.

    Anymore???

    What the heck is a "volume eater?"

    <<<<<This guy....

    You know...someone who prefers to eat a lot of volume...sorry, but some butter in my coffee isn't going to suffice as breakfast...a big bowl of oats, a few eggs, maybe 1/2 an avocado...sometimes a little sausage and a banana or something on the other hand is quite nice.

    How does eating a few eggs make you a "volume" eater?

    Again...your reading comprehension skills are just stellar!!! I'm starting to think you're just trying to be an idiot on purpose...or you're just a troll...

    No troll. I don't understand the concept of a "volume" eater if you are trying to lose weight. Unless of course you eat volumes of quinoa.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,859 Member
    edited September 2016
    selina884 wrote: »
    I am in the uk, and it's sugar they keep banging on about more not fat
    Anyway I don't track my fat intake or sugar

    yeah actually it was on the radio this morning.
    Food industries have a 5 year target to reduce sugars in their meals by 20%.

    ..but definitely low sugar is the most "recent" craze alongside "high protein" diets.

    I think it's confused the entire population and people don't understand whats good for them anymore.

    Are you reading 20 year old newspapers (Daily Fail perhaps?) because fat is isn't the bogeyman (now) at all.

    No the entire UK population isn't confused - that's awful hyperbole!
    Just did a quick survey in my household and no-one here is confused and we all know what's good for us.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,171 Member
    edited September 2016
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    No...but reducing fat is also a good way of reducing calories...fat is 9 calories per gram. A lot of people consume too much fat...the SAD is basically a high fat, high carbohydrate diet...not a good combo...most people eating the SAD could stand to reduce both fat and carbohydrates...and more specifically carbohydrates coming from free sugars and other nutrient deficient sources.

    This is the myth that won't go away. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so it makes you fat. Really? Who cares how many calories per gram it has?

    Two jumbo eggs, a strip of bacon and coffee has a ton more fat than a bagel with low-fat cream cheese (or margarine) and 12 ounces of orange juice. So which breakfast has far fewer calories and may provide better satiety? That's right, the fatty bacon and eggs.

    Time to bury this myth about fat once and for all. Fat in in itself does not make you fat.

    The new US nutrition labels will no longer provide the number of fat calories. That proves it.

    Calories per gram might be important to someone who knows it's calories that lead to weight loss/gain.

    That makes no sense. What does calories per gram have to do with the number of calories you consume?

    I just gave an example of two breakfasts - the one that is loaded with fat has far fewer calories than the high-carb, high-sugar alternative.

    And if the USDA is no longer providing the number of fat calories, obviously it is not fat calories that make you fat.

    Calories per gram matters to volume eaters.
    selina884 wrote: »
    I am in the uk, and it's sugar they keep banging on about more not fat
    Anyway I don't track my fat intake or sugar

    yeah actually it was on the radio this morning.
    Food industries have a 5 year target to reduce sugars in their meals by 20%.

    ..but definitely low sugar is the most "recent" craze alongside "high protein" diets.

    I think it's confused the entire population and people don't understand whats good for them anymore.

    Anymore???

    What the heck is a "volume eater?"

    <<<<<This guy....

    You know...someone who prefers to eat a lot of volume...sorry, but some butter in my coffee isn't going to suffice as breakfast...a big bowl of oats, a few eggs, maybe 1/2 an avocado...sometimes a little sausage and a banana or something on the other hand is quite nice.

    How does eating a few eggs make you a "volume" eater?

    Again...your reading comprehension skills are just stellar!!! I'm starting to think you're just trying to be an idiot on purpose...or you're just a troll...

    No troll. I don't understand the concept of a "volume" eater if you are trying to lose weight. Unless of course you eat volumes of quinoa.

    I eat a lot of food...when I was trying to lose weight, a lot of that was vegetables to add bulk or tons of egg whites to my eggs to add bulk with minimal calorie hit...I'm not happy with tiny little portions of food...I lost my weight years ago and have been in maintenance for like 3.5 years, I think I know what I'm doing...and I do eat volumes of quinoa, beans, lentils, potatoes, etc...I eat like 3000 - 3500 calories per day.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    edited September 2016
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Someone who likes to eat larger portions vs. smaller ones, who feels more satiated by eating a larger volume of food.

    Other than a salad, what food can you eat in "volume" that does not pack on calories? My assumption that "volume" eaters are not chowing down on salads.

    You have a lot to learn about different ways of eating. In the meantime, it's impolite to use someone else's thread as a soap box.

    The thread is called, "Are You Afraid of Fats?" No I am not. But tens of millions of Americans are. And they shouldn't be. So how is this a soap box? I am totally on topic.

    Apparently, cwolfman13 is correct. You can't even make heads or tails of your own responses, let alone anyone else's. You're being argumentative with people who, in large part, are in agreement with you, and you don't even realize it.

    One thing I am arguing about is that people on this thread are concerned that their are 9 calories per gram in fat. Totally irrelevant when it comes to weigh loss.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    edited September 2016
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Someone who likes to eat larger portions vs. smaller ones, who feels more satiated by eating a larger volume of food.

    Other than a salad, what food can you eat in "volume" that does not pack on calories? My assumption that "volume" eaters are not chowing down on salads.

    You have a lot to learn about different ways of eating. In the meantime, it's impolite to use someone else's thread as a soap box.

    The thread is called, "Are You Afraid of Fats?" No I am not. But tens of millions of Americans are. And they shouldn't be. So how is this a soap box? I am totally on topic.

    Apparently, cwolfman13 is correct. You can't even make heads or tails of your own responses, let alone anyone else's. You're being argumentative with people who, in large part, are in agreement with you, and you don't even realize it.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Someone who likes to eat larger portions vs. smaller ones, who feels more satiated by eating a larger volume of food.

    Other than a salad, what food can you eat in "volume" that does not pack on calories? My assumption that "volume" eaters are not chowing down on salads.

    I consider myself a volume eater as well. For dinner tonight I'll have 2.5 chicken sausages (they come in packs of 5, and there's no point in letting that last link go to waste), two hot dog buns, and some vegetables that I roast. However, my serving of vegetables tonight is 330g of carrots. I was told on these forums that that is a ridiculous serving and way too much food for "most people" and is considered 3 or more servings of vegetables.

    *shrug*
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,171 Member
    edited September 2016
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Someone who likes to eat larger portions vs. smaller ones, who feels more satiated by eating a larger volume of food.

    Other than a salad, what food can you eat in "volume" that does not pack on calories? My assumption that "volume" eaters are not chowing down on salads.

    You have a lot to learn about different ways of eating. In the meantime, it's impolite to use someone else's thread as a soap box.

    The thread is called, "Are You Afraid of Fats?" No I am not. But tens of millions of Americans are. And they shouldn't be. So how is this a soap box? I am totally on topic.

    Apparently, cwolfman13 is correct. You can't even make heads or tails of your own responses, let alone anyone else's. You're being argumentative with people who, in large part, are in agreement with you, and you don't even realize it.

    The only thing I am arguing about is that people are concerned that their are 9 calories per gram in fat. Totally irrelevant when it comes to weigh loss.

    Nobody is concerned...it was just pointed out that it has a higher caloric density...ergo it's an easy thing to cut back on if you're trying to manage calories...that's totally relevant to counting calories...again...your reading comprehension skills...
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Someone who likes to eat larger portions vs. smaller ones, who feels more satiated by eating a larger volume of food.

    Other than a salad, what food can you eat in "volume" that does not pack on calories? My assumption that "volume" eaters are not chowing down on salads.

    You have a lot to learn about different ways of eating. In the meantime, it's impolite to use someone else's thread as a soap box.

    The thread is called, "Are You Afraid of Fats?" No I am not. But tens of millions of Americans are. And they shouldn't be. So how is this a soap box? I am totally on topic.

    Apparently, cwolfman13 is correct. You can't even make heads or tails of your own responses, let alone anyone else's. You're being argumentative with people who, in large part, are in agreement with you, and you don't even realize it.

    The only thing I am arguing about is that people are concerned that their are 9 calories per gram in fat. Totally irrelevant when it comes to weigh loss.

    Nobody is concerned...it was just pointed out that it has a higher caloric density...that's totally relevant to counting calories...again...your reading comprehension skills...

    It has no relevance. 500 calories of steak fills you up (lots of fat). 600 calories of pasta fills you up (no fat). Eat the steak. I question your reading comprehension skills.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,171 Member
    edited September 2016
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Someone who likes to eat larger portions vs. smaller ones, who feels more satiated by eating a larger volume of food.

    Other than a salad, what food can you eat in "volume" that does not pack on calories? My assumption that "volume" eaters are not chowing down on salads.

    You have a lot to learn about different ways of eating. In the meantime, it's impolite to use someone else's thread as a soap box.

    The thread is called, "Are You Afraid of Fats?" No I am not. But tens of millions of Americans are. And they shouldn't be. So how is this a soap box? I am totally on topic.

    Apparently, cwolfman13 is correct. You can't even make heads or tails of your own responses, let alone anyone else's. You're being argumentative with people who, in large part, are in agreement with you, and you don't even realize it.

    The only thing I am arguing about is that people are concerned that their are 9 calories per gram in fat. Totally irrelevant when it comes to weigh loss.

    Nobody is concerned...it was just pointed out that it has a higher caloric density...that's totally relevant to counting calories...again...your reading comprehension skills...

    It has no relevance. 500 calories of steak fills you up (lots of fat). 600 calories of pasta fills you up (no fat). Eat the steak. I question your reading comprehension skills.

    And yet again...all that was said that cutting some fat out of the diet is an easy way to cut calories...what is your malfunction? Nobody said fat was bad...nobody is concerned about fat...it was simply pointed out that it is a bit more calorie dense so again...and easy thing to cut back on if you want to reduce calories...sheesh!
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Someone who likes to eat larger portions vs. smaller ones, who feels more satiated by eating a larger volume of food.

    Other than a salad, what food can you eat in "volume" that does not pack on calories? My assumption that "volume" eaters are not chowing down on salads.

    You have a lot to learn about different ways of eating. In the meantime, it's impolite to use someone else's thread as a soap box.

    The thread is called, "Are You Afraid of Fats?" No I am not. But tens of millions of Americans are. And they shouldn't be. So how is this a soap box? I am totally on topic.

    Apparently, cwolfman13 is correct. You can't even make heads or tails of your own responses, let alone anyone else's. You're being argumentative with people who, in large part, are in agreement with you, and you don't even realize it.

    The only thing I am arguing about is that people are concerned that their are 9 calories per gram in fat. Totally irrelevant when it comes to weigh loss.

    Nobody is concerned...it was just pointed out that it has a higher caloric density...that's totally relevant to counting calories...again...your reading comprehension skills...

    It has no relevance. 500 calories of steak fills you up (lots of fat). 600 calories of pasta fills you up (no fat). Eat the steak. I question your reading comprehension skills.

    So, 500 calories of pasta isn't filling?

    Since when did satiety become the exact same for every human on the planet?