Are you afraid of fats?
Options
Replies
-
BinaryPulsar wrote: »Looks like the person that started this thread is banned from mfp.
Her and a friend like to
the forums, that'll be why 1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Therealobi1 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....
Same is true for sugar, yet look at some of the people posting on these boards, convinced that sugar is gonna kill ya, make you fat, give you a whole medical book full of diseases and kick your dog.
When the WHO is talking about percentages they don't mean "of maintenance calories", cause they don't expect everyone to count their calories, but "of the calories you eat" or rather "of the foods you eat", keeping it lower can reduce the chance of overeating, keeping your total calorie intake lower.2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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
If you count calories and get great results, that is fantastic. Don't know how you do it, but good job.
This site is called Myfitnesspal, not Mycaloriecountingpal. There are 30,000 people on the HFLC group who are not counting calories.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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
If you count calories and get great results, that is fantastic. Don't know how you do it, but good job.
This site is called Myfitnesspal, not Mycaloriecountingpal. There are 30,000 people on the HFLC group who are not counting calories.
You speak for every memeber of LCD?
ALL of them, and not one of them thinks CICO matters? I think that's a stretch.3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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
/quote]
Why? If a calorie is a calorie, what difference does it make what the calories per gram are? I honestly do not understand the concept.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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
If you count calories and get great results, that is fantastic. Don't know how you do it, but good job.
This site is called Myfitnesspal, not Mycaloriecountingpal. There are 30,000 people on the HFLC group who are not counting calories.
Good for them! I mean that. But it needs to be understood that *any* weight loss comes down to CI being less than CO, however you wish to achieve that. There is no magic in a HFLC diet. It is just one of many ways to possibly manage weight.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Therealobi1 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....
Same is true for sugar, yet look at some of the people posting on these boards, convinced that sugar is gonna kill ya, make you fat, give you a whole medical book full of diseases and kick your dog.
When the WHO is talking about percentages they don't mean "of maintenance calories", cause they don't expect everyone to count their calories, but "of the calories you eat" or rather "of the foods you eat", keeping it lower can reduce the chance of overeating, keeping your total calorie intake lower.
I agree with the first part of what you said. The WHO quote that was cited, however, said not to let fat exceed 30% of total energy intake. Total energy intake is total calories. What I'd like to ask the WHO is what difference does it make if fat calories make up 20%, 40%, or 70% of total energy intake, so long as total energy intake isn't excessive in the first place? They are making it out as though fat is somehow uniquely fattening. You and I both know that it's not. Too many calories, regardless of source, is what contributes to excessive weight. Their statement on fat is nonsensical and only contributes to the confusion people have (not to mention it perpetuates the whole fat phobia thing the OP was talking about). If people aren't counting calories, but keeping fat low, they can still get fat. And if people aren't counting calories, how would they have any clue as to what percentage of their total energy comes from fat?
0 -
My mum has been on the low Fat trip since i was about 5 years old, im now 50 and she is over 70, she is still on the trip and i am fed up of trying to educate her..she just wont listen...0
-
Knowing that fat has more calories per gram might help you estimate calories.
For example, since you seem to be rather obsessed with bagels, an Einstein's plain bagel has 260 calories for 103 grams. Most of that is from the 55 g of carbs (it also has some protein and a small amt of fat) -- the carbs add up to about 210 calories.
Should I add butter, then in 2 tbsp (28 g), you get 200 calories and about 22 g of fat. If you understand that fat is calorie dense, that butter has so many calories in just a little bit will not be surprising, and you will realize that one way to cut calories easily might be to reduce the amount of butter added, reduce the fat in dressings (more vinegar or mustard, less oil), to cook with less oil. Sure, you don't need to know the numbers to do that, but it's interesting information for a lot of us to know.
I did think it was standard knowledge that things like oils, butter, cheese were usually extremely calorie dense by volume, but from reading MFP that seems less commonly known and people express surprise at such things as the calories in fried or oily foods.
I also think that if you know about the source of calories the fact that a dense food like a bagel tends to have more calories than other lower-fat bread products, even when looking quite small, is not surprising either.
If it doesn't help you, ignore it, but that doesn't mean it's not of interest or helpful to others, and I think it was perfectly appropriate for cwolfman to mention it, as part of his overall post that seems to have set you off.2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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
If you count calories and get great results, that is fantastic. Don't know how you do it, but good job.
This site is called Myfitnesspal, not Mycaloriecountingpal. There are 30,000 people on the HFLC group who are not counting calories.
What HFLC groups do or don't do is not relevant to me, so if people could stop posting about it that would be great.
You know, since it is irrelevant to ME and all.4 -
Yet the centerpiece of the website is a tool to log your food and count your calories/macros. And they have a mechanism whereby you can input your data and it calculates a calorie goal for weight loss.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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
If you count calories and get great results, that is fantastic. Don't know how you do it, but good job.
This site is called Myfitnesspal, not Mycaloriecountingpal. There are 30,000 people on the HFLC group who are not counting calories.
Oh, and it's also not named MyLCHFpal either.
You don't know how people do it simply because you refuse to see/acknowledge that CI<CO is the fundamental principle behind weight/fat loss. If you'd open your eyes to that well-established scientific fact, it would be much easier to understand.If you count calories and get great results, that is fantastic. Don't know how you do it, but good job.3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Anvil_Head wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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
If you count calories and get great results, that is fantastic. Don't know how you do it, but good job.
This site is called Myfitnesspal, not Mycaloriecountingpal. There are 30,000 people on the HFLC group who are not counting calories.
The foundation of this website is a calorie counting database. I'm not sure why it's so surprising to you that people get great results from counting calories, since the fundamental requirement for anyone to lose weight is to be in a calorie deficit, and counting calories using a tool like MFP is a simple way to achieve that deficit.
30,000 members in that group and not a single one counts calories? Or have they just chosen a way of eating that satisfies them or helps with a medical issue but for weight loss they know that CI<CO is still what matters? Even the most vocal proponents of LCHF on this site recognize that and bring it up in threads, I'm surprised you think none of them are actually counting calories...3 -
I'm not afraid of fats at all but that doesn't make them unlimited either, I keep my meals between 1200 - 1400 calories per day. I get plenty of fats every day with the rest of my meals. I stay away from sugar though.1
-
stephenmoralee wrote: »My mum has been on the low Fat trip since i was about 5 years old, im now 50 and she is over 70, she is still on the trip and i am fed up of trying to educate her..she just wont listen...
Haha My mum is the opposite, she has always put thick slices of butter on her bread (i mean ultra thick), and eats large amounts of cheese and milk everyday, cooks in copious amounts of olive oil, I don't think she's ever eaten anything low fat in her life! She's 76 and healthy as a horse!3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions