Are you afraid of fats?

123468

Replies

  • red99ryder
    red99ryder Posts: 399 Member
    Well ive.read the messages on this thread .. one.thing I have not heard mentioned is people's micros on fat calories .. mine like 55 grams is what MFP suggests i eat .. what would be concidered low fat ? Also yes low fat does not mean low calories ... same as no sugar does not mean low calories ..

    I'm a calorie guy myself
    Good luck
  • ugofatcat
    ugofatcat Posts: 387 Member
    Although all fat has 9 calories per gram not all fat behaves the same way in the body. For example, mono and polyunsaturated fats found in nuts, olive oil, fish, avocado, does not behave in the same in the body as does trans fat. The poly and mono fats have consistently been linked to lower risk of heart disease while trans fat is very strongly linked to heart disease. The FDA has banned trans fat from America.

    There is a lot of debate about saturated fats and if they are healthy or not, but most of the research I am familiar with has found that the more saturated fat you eat, the higher the risk of heart disease. I believe that is the American Heart Associations official stance as well.

    Even though nuts are so healthy I have to watch my portion so carefully because they will easily blow my calorie limit out of the water! Luckily you only need 1 ounce (28 grams) a day to receive the protective heart benefits.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    The FDA has not "banned trans fats" as far as I know, can you source that claim?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,191 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    This thread is confusing.

    image.png

    To summarize, suggesting that fat is calorie dense and thus an easy thing to cut back on if one were trying to reduce calories equates to fat makes you fat...
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    The FDA has not "banned trans fats" as far as I know, can you source that claim?

    Not quite "banned", but they been removed form the "generally recognized as safe" list. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm451237.htm
  • ouryve
    ouryve Posts: 572 Member
    Nope. I've done low fat before and lost slowly and didn't look great on it.

    I'm enjoying lovely, tasty fat, this time around, and have mostly cut calories by cutting down on added sugar. It's surprisingly easy and I have a lot more energy for it.
  • ouryve
    ouryve Posts: 572 Member
    newmeadow wrote: »
    Do people in the UK still get perms, wear gold lame parachute pants, sport shoulder-padded blouses, accessorize with forehead sweatbands, listen to boom boxes and read Leo Buscaglia books?

    Only on a Saturday night down the Bigg Market
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    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?[/b]

    Never said satiety is the exact same for every human being. I said knowing that fat has 9 calories per gram, and carbs have X calories per gram (what is X), is totally irrelevant.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    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?[/b]

    Never said satiety is the exact same for every human being. I said knowing that fat has 9 calories per gram, and carbs have X calories per gram (what is X), is totally irrelevant.

    But why the difference of 500 calories of one and 600 of another? Why is one a better choice than the other? What if I like pasta better than steak? What if I have 300 calories of pasta, 150 calories of pasta sauce and 150 calories of full fat cheese?

    I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON!
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 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.

    Volume eaters eat more lower calorie foods.


    Those who aren't volume eaters typically reach for higher calorie foods.

    I do both. Sometimes I want more food for my calorie buck, so I load up on lower calorie foods such as veggies. Other times, when I don't feel like eating in volume, higher calorie foods and snacks do the trick. I keep the same deficit and lose the same amount of weight. Being a volume eater does not affect weight loss.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    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?[/b]

    Never said satiety is the exact same for every human being. I said knowing that fat has 9 calories per gram, and carbs have X calories per gram (what is X), is totally irrelevant.

    But why the difference of 500 calories of one and 600 of another? Why is one a better choice than the other? What if I like pasta better than steak? What if I have 300 calories of pasta, 150 calories of pasta sauce and 150 calories of full fat cheese?

    I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON!

    It doesn't matter what you eat. The number of calories per gram in fat is totally irrelevant if you are trying to lose weight. This is 1+1 = 2 stuff.

    If you've been eating 800 calories of pasta, try 600 calories of pasta. If you've been eating 800 calories of steak, eat 600 calories of steak. That the pasta has no fat and the steak has fat is IRRELEVANT.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    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?[/b]

    Never said satiety is the exact same for every human being. I said knowing that fat has 9 calories per gram, and carbs have X calories per gram (what is X), is totally irrelevant.

    But why the difference of 500 calories of one and 600 of another? Why is one a better choice than the other? What if I like pasta better than steak? What if I have 300 calories of pasta, 150 calories of pasta sauce and 150 calories of full fat cheese?

    I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON!

    It doesn't matter what you eat. The number of calories per gram in fat is totally irrelevant if you are trying to lose weight. This is 1+1 = 2 stuff.

    If you've been eating 800 calories of pasta, try 600 calories of pasta. If you've been eating 800 calories of steak, eat 600 calories of steak. That the pasta has no fat and the steak has fat is IRRELEVANT.

    So then why are you bringing it up?

    As someone else mentioned, it can be easy to cut out small portions of higher calorie foods rather than large quantities of lower calorie food. It just so happens that fats are the most calorie dense when it comes to macros, so a lot of people tend to make their sacrifice there.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    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?[/b]

    Never said satiety is the exact same for every human being. I said knowing that fat has 9 calories per gram, and carbs have X calories per gram (what is X), is totally irrelevant.

    But why the difference of 500 calories of one and 600 of another? Why is one a better choice than the other? What if I like pasta better than steak? What if I have 300 calories of pasta, 150 calories of pasta sauce and 150 calories of full fat cheese?

    I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON!

    It doesn't matter what you eat. The number of calories per gram in fat is totally irrelevant if you are trying to lose weight. This is 1+1 = 2 stuff.

    If you've been eating 800 calories of pasta, try 600 calories of pasta. If you've been eating 800 calories of steak, eat 600 calories of steak. That the pasta has no fat and the steak has fat is IRRELEVANT.

    So then why are you bringing it up?

    As someone else mentioned, it can be easy to cut out small portions of higher calorie foods rather than large quantities of lower calorie food. It just so happens that fats are the most calorie dense when it comes to macros, so a lot of people tend to make their sacrifice there.

    Why? Fats are filling. Potato chips are not. Donuts are not (three bites and you're done). Cut the junk before you cut the fats.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited September 2016
    The fatty steak will have less volume than the pasta. That's what's relevant. The fact that fat has 9 calories a gram matters to volume eaters because you can get more food volume for the same amount of calories eating carbohydrates than you can eating fat. (2 grams of carbs to 1 gram of fat.)

    It doesn't have to do with FEARING fat, it has to do with eating what keeps you satisfied and sticking to your calorie goals.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,191 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    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?[/b]

    Never said satiety is the exact same for every human being. I said knowing that fat has 9 calories per gram, and carbs have X calories per gram (what is X), is totally irrelevant.

    But why the difference of 500 calories of one and 600 of another? Why is one a better choice than the other? What if I like pasta better than steak? What if I have 300 calories of pasta, 150 calories of pasta sauce and 150 calories of full fat cheese?

    I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON!

    It doesn't matter what you eat. The number of calories per gram in fat is totally irrelevant if you are trying to lose weight. This is 1+1 = 2 stuff.

    If you've been eating 800 calories of pasta, try 600 calories of pasta. If you've been eating 800 calories of steak, eat 600 calories of steak. That the pasta has no fat and the steak has fat is IRRELEVANT.

    So then why are you bringing it up?

    As someone else mentioned, it can be easy to cut out small portions of higher calorie foods rather than large quantities of lower calorie food. It just so happens that fats are the most calorie dense when it comes to macros, so a lot of people tend to make their sacrifice there.

    Why? Fats are filling. Potato chips are not. Donuts are not (three bites and you're done). Cut the junk before you cut the fats.

    A lot of "junk" is high in fat...potato chips and doughnuts are fatty foods. ..and fat is filling for you but not everyone. I find legumes and lentils and potatoes to be filing. ..eating an avocado is tasty. ..but not particularly filling.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Fats don't fill me up at all.

    I just had a big apple and a tea latte made with Fairlife 2% milk (extra protein) 3 hours ago.

    I'm still full. The combination of carbs and protein does it for me every time.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    Fats don't fill me up at all.

    I just had a big apple and a tea latte made with Fairlife 2% milk (extra protein) 3 hours ago.

    I'm still full. The combination of carbs and protein does it for me every time.

    That's great. But fat does it for me. To each his own. So why tell the world that there are 9 calories/gram, when I and others (including the 30,000 on the HFLC site here) get filled up by eating fat? It has no relevance for us.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,490 Member
    Fats provide me satiety.. especially with added protein.

    I am not afraid of fats.. now consuming 3 or 4 days worth in one day? Don't do that much anymore, but It happens.. I do like Dairy Queen Blizzards. :)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 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.

    For me, vegetables mostly. That doesn't usually mean salad, however, although it might.