Are you afraid of fats?

123457

Replies

  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,640 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.

    It may not be data that YOU USE to make decisions about what you eat, but it's not irrelevant. Not by a long shot. If it isn't relevant to you, then why are you obsessing and arguing about it? How about you kindly excuse yourself from a conversation that's NOT RELEVANT to you?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 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.

    What fills me up better than just the steak or just the pasta (and fits with the volume eater thing) is a regular serving of pasta (even a bit less), plus some lean meat (shrimp is good, but really anything), plus lots of vegetables (what's on hand) sauteed in some olive oil. Depending on calories available I may add olives or pinenuts or some goat cheese or the like, but those are for taste and variety, not satiety. The pasta/veg/lean meat is plenty (and typically less than 500 calories).

    I can do a vegetarian version too that works just as well.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 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.

    No, for many of us they are not.
    Potato chips are not. Donuts are not (three bites and you're done).

    Half the calories in potato chips and donuts are from fat. In that I rarely eat chips now (not usually worth the calories) and still eat lots of roasted potatoes (with just a touch of olive oil), my cutting out most chip consumption can be seen as cutting the fat.

    Donuts were never really my thing, so I don't have a relevant anecdote for that one, but I would agree that if you eat lots of low nutrient/high cal foods, that's a place to cut back. Mine included some things like cheese, which I don't think is without value, but I think it's rationalizing for me to claim I was eating it because it was good for me (the calcium!) or that I needed to eat as much as I sometimes did, so I cut back. Again, that was cutting fat. I'm not scared of fat and I still eat cheese, but cutting back was a rational decision.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited September 2016
    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.

    Did you read my post about it mattering to volume eaters?

    It's a consideration some people take into account, I really don't get what point you're making.

    Fat keeps you full, that's great. You still need to account for the 9 calories when you're planning your caloric intake, but since food volume doesn't matter to you and fat satiates you, that doesn't matter so much.

    For someone else, it matters.

    You're coming at this from your perspective, the person who mentioned the 9 calories/gram was coming at it from theirs.

    Isn't it just okay to leave this at the point where it's fine for people to be different in this regard?

    No one, by doing differently than you do, is saying your way is wrong. Different isn't wrong. It's just ... different.

    There is no one right way when it comes to satiety and macro balance preference.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    lemurcat12 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.

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

    I ate over 500 grams of broccoli the other night. Thankfully, I don't experience the usually effects most people do from cruciferous vegetables. Actually, I think my husband was probably happier about this than I was.
  • 85Cardinals
    85Cardinals Posts: 733 Member
    I ain't afraid of no fats!
  • Anvil_Head
    Anvil_Head Posts: 251 Member
    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

    That's fine, but for 30 years it has been drummed into the heads of Americans that fat makes you fat. So people spend more time trying to avoid fat than trying to consume fewer calories. It's maddening.

    But what about the fact that the WHO (World Health Organization) also advocates for reduction in the consumption of fats? Surely that's relevant?
    "Energy intake (calories) should be in balance with energy expenditure. Evidence indicates that total fat should not exceed 30% of total energy intake to avoid unhealthy weight gain (1, 2, 3), with a shift in fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats (3), and towards the elimination of industrial trans fats (4)."
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    Anvil_Head wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    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.

    Why are you so hung up on that? It's like you have intentionally ignored the rest of my post and my other posts and other people's posts and are weirdly hung up on that. ..you're a weird dude.

    I don't see the problem in stating the FACT that fat has 9 calories per gram, while carbs and protein have 4 calories per gram. It's a factual, truthful, relevant statement. Good for the 30,000 people on the HFLC group who are satiated by fat - that doesn't apply to everybody and it's not a FACT that fat is more satiating than PRO or CHO.

    The FACT is that foods which are high in fat are commensurately higher in calories and it's worth knowing and taking into consideration when meal planning and calorie counting. There's no reason to fear fats - they're essential to health in proper quantities - but it's good to be aware of the effect they have on calorie counts.

    It's a FACT that fat has 9 calories per gram, while carbs and protein have 4 calories per gram.

    It's also a FACT that the sky is blue and the grass is green.

    Foods which are high in fat are higher in calories? No they're not. A bagel with low-fat cream cheese has a lot more calories, but a lot less fat, than a 2-egg cheese omelet.

    Want to lose weight? Eat the fatty omelet. Who cares that it has 9 calories per gram?
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,938 Member
    People can eat what they want to eat. It's not something to argue over. Fat is a healthy and essential aspect of diet. No one is afraid of it. Everyone is doing ok. I add oil to my food to increase my calories. If I ever need to reduce my calories the first and easiest thing I will do is reduce some of the oil because it doesn't add any bulk to my food. It adds extra calories without adding anything extra that fills me up. Some people want to eat more volume of food. If I wanted to eat more volume I would reduce some of the oil. It's really that simple. Not something to argue over.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    edited October 2016
    Anvil_Head wrote: »
    Anvil_Head wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    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.

    Why are you so hung up on that? It's like you have intentionally ignored the rest of my post and my other posts and other people's posts and are weirdly hung up on that. ..you're a weird dude.

    I don't see the problem in stating the FACT that fat has 9 calories per gram, while carbs and protein have 4 calories per gram. It's a factual, truthful, relevant statement. Good for the 30,000 people on the HFLC group who are satiated by fat - that doesn't apply to everybody and it's not a FACT that fat is more satiating than PRO or CHO.

    The FACT is that foods which are high in fat are commensurately higher in calories and it's worth knowing and taking into consideration when meal planning and calorie counting. There's no reason to fear fats - they're essential to health in proper quantities - but it's good to be aware of the effect they have on calorie counts.

    It's a FACT that fat has 9 calories per gram, while carbs and protein have 4 calories per gram.

    It's also a FACT that the sky is blue and the grass is green.

    Foods which are high in fat are higher in calories? No they're not. A bagel with low-fat cream cheese has a lot more calories, but a lot less fat, than a 2-egg cheese omelet.

    Want to lose weight? Eat the fatty omelet. Who cares that it has 9 calories per gram?

    We could play that game and move the goalposts around the field all day long, and say absolutely nothing in the process. That 2-egg cheese omelette has a lot more calories than a whole bag of broccoli. So what? Sometimes I like broccoli (usually with my steak), sometimes I like a cheese omelette. Sometimes I like a bagel with cream cheese. Sometimes I like a donut. They all have different calorie values and nutritional values and I don't eat any of them to the exclusion of all other foods.

    I'm not afraid of fat in the least. I get plenty of it in my diet. But I also don't buy the ketovangelist "sugarz iz da debilz" stuff either. Each of them can have a place, in proper amounts, within the context of an overall well-rounded diet.

    Keto is your gig. I get it. That doesn't mean it's a universal truth that everybody should adopt and cling to religiously. There are plenty of ways to eat which still promote optimal health and nutrition, in the proper context.

    Nope. I had egg plant and spaghetti for dinner tonight. Never said anything about keto, never said anything about giving up carbs. What I did say, and I will say again, is to stop worrying about calories per gram. It is a completely worthless measure if you are trying to lose weight.
  • tlflag1620
    tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358 Member
    Anvil_Head 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

    That's fine, but for 30 years it has been drummed into the heads of Americans that fat makes you fat. So people spend more time trying to avoid fat than trying to consume fewer calories. It's maddening.

    But what about the fact that the WHO (World Health Organization) also advocates for reduction in the consumption of fats? Surely that's relevant?
    "Energy intake (calories) should be in balance with energy expenditure. Evidence indicates that total fat should not exceed 30% of total energy intake to avoid unhealthy weight gain (1, 2, 3), with a shift in fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats (3), and towards the elimination of industrial trans fats (4)."

    I think this is why people get so confused. It doesn't matter if your fat calories are at 30% or 50% (or whatever), so long as you are eating at, or below, maintenance you will not gain weight. With an organization like the WHO implying that fat is somehow magically fattening if you go above some arbitrary threshold, regardless of overall calorie intake, no wonder people just don't get it. I was eating roughly 70% of calories from fat while losing 50 lbs and have maintained that loss at around 60% of calories from fat... Wonder what the WHO thinks about that....

  • Chadxx
    Chadxx Posts: 1,199 Member
    Low fat is the biggest myth that has been pushed on us. Low fat this and low fat that, full of refined carbs. Sugar is fat free but we sure wouldn't base a diet on eating sugar.

    Fats are a great source of energy and some fats have other benefits as well. They also don't have the effect on blood sugar that carbs do.

    Of course, we obviously don't want to go crazy eating a bunch of fats, simply because that would be a lot of calories.
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,938 Member
    Looks like the person that started this thread is banned from mfp.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Anvil_Head wrote: »
    Anvil_Head wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    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.

    Why are you so hung up on that? It's like you have intentionally ignored the rest of my post and my other posts and other people's posts and are weirdly hung up on that. ..you're a weird dude.

    I don't see the problem in stating the FACT that fat has 9 calories per gram, while carbs and protein have 4 calories per gram. It's a factual, truthful, relevant statement. Good for the 30,000 people on the HFLC group who are satiated by fat - that doesn't apply to everybody and it's not a FACT that fat is more satiating than PRO or CHO.

    The FACT is that foods which are high in fat are commensurately higher in calories and it's worth knowing and taking into consideration when meal planning and calorie counting. There's no reason to fear fats - they're essential to health in proper quantities - but it's good to be aware of the effect they have on calorie counts.

    It's a FACT that fat has 9 calories per gram, while carbs and protein have 4 calories per gram.

    It's also a FACT that the sky is blue and the grass is green.

    Foods which are high in fat are higher in calories? No they're not. A bagel with low-fat cream cheese has a lot more calories, but a lot less fat, than a 2-egg cheese omelet.

    Want to lose weight? Eat the fatty omelet. Who cares that it has 9 calories per gram?

    We could play that game and move the goalposts around the field all day long, and say absolutely nothing in the process. That 2-egg cheese omelette has a lot more calories than a whole bag of broccoli. So what? Sometimes I like broccoli (usually with my steak), sometimes I like a cheese omelette. Sometimes I like a bagel with cream cheese. Sometimes I like a donut. They all have different calorie values and nutritional values and I don't eat any of them to the exclusion of all other foods.

    I'm not afraid of fat in the least. I get plenty of it in my diet. But I also don't buy the ketovangelist "sugarz iz da debilz" stuff either. Each of them can have a place, in proper amounts, within the context of an overall well-rounded diet.

    Keto is your gig. I get it. That doesn't mean it's a universal truth that everybody should adopt and cling to religiously. There are plenty of ways to eat which still promote optimal health and nutrition, in the proper context.

    Nope. I had egg plant and spaghetti for dinner tonight. Never said anything about keto, never said anything about giving up carbs. What I did say, and I will say again, is to stop worrying about calories per gram. It is a completely worthless measure if you are trying to lose weight.

    Actually for those who calorie count, measuring the calories per gram of all foods consumed, irrespective of macros, is a vital component of the actual calorie counting part

    And this is...dah,dah,daaaaahhhhhh...a calorie counting website

    I, and I'm pretty sure many others, have no idea why you continue to post comments that are simply not rational arguments of anything

    We all know there are other ways to achieve your calorie goals ...which include not even noticing the calories