why do people watching their weight obsess over fat content?

[jman19]

This thread is full of fail.

 

[TheNinja]

Simple carbs and sugars are actually far worse for you than most fats. However as Fritzo mentioned, carbs + fat in the same meal is actually worse, but really that's getting down to nitty gritty details.
If you want to lose weight of course it's calories in vs calories out, but not every calorie is created the same. I'd be much more worried about sugars and simple carbs than I would be about fat when it comes to weight loss.

 

[Zebo]

They obsess over fat content because there is so much misinformation about weight loss. .

Because there is billions being made off lazy and dumb people when a heart rate monitor only cost $50 and includes a watch.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I am not really watching my weight, but I have found that things with higher fat content taste better, so I obsess a bit over it because I like delicious tasting food. I make sure never to buy low fat imitations of food.

 

[scott916]

Because it's easier than running

/thread lol

 

[JM Aggie08]

Just don't eat like an asshole.

That's my philosophy. And i typically don't eat meals after 6. I lost 20lbs doing that after i gained my freshmen 15 last year.

 

[Arkaign]

Fat = high calories + no fiber + high absobtion. If you eat 100 calories of fat and 100 calories of carbs, you will retain more of the fat calories because your body breaks down fat last. This is why fat + carb foods are so bad for you (ie- french fries and other fried starches). You burn off the easy carbs first, and the fat just sits there and eventually goes into storage because it's not needed.

This is half-true, but the part about the fat is a little bit off. Fat consumed in food cannot be stored as energy (body fat), without being broken down and then converted into fat cells. The process of breaking down fat takes a sufficiently high amount of energy that you cannot convert it to body fat effectively without the help of carbs/sugars.

In short, you can eat a tub of lard three times a day, and if that's all you eat, you will quite literally starve to death. Your body will start ketosis, and you will use up the available energy converted by burning fat cells into fatty acids as a substitute for glucose. This is a very hard process on the body, the liver in particular, and it is not recommended for any extended period of time.

You cannot get fat from fat alone, nor from protein. I tried an extreme low-carb diet about 6 years ago, I was into a lot of weight and strength training as a teen and in my early 20's, but after getting an office job and getting lazy, my ~250-260lb weight of almost all muscle (I averaged 4-6% body fat) steadily turned into a 250-260lb weight with a lot of fat, and my body fat tripled to 15% over about a year. I was too busy (and too lazy) to work out enough to cut the fat down, so I tried an extreme low-carb diet that had worked for my brother.

I ate basically as much protein and greens as I wanted, and a large amount of fat, and the weight dropped off of me like mad. I lost about 60 lbs of fat in less than two months, and I actually got a lot of muscle definition even with very minimal weight training. It was far from fun though, I constantly had a fever and felt 'wobbly'. But I could eat steaks, double burgers with cheese and bacon (no sauce or bread), gobs of beef jerky, etc, and even with many/most days of 3,000-4,000 calories the weight dropped off like mad. It proved for me that fat and protein cannot be consumed and converted to body fat alone in an efficient manner. Combined with carbs, however, I think it's a recipe for disaster.

The caveman-style diet really is good for you to a point, but it's good to get some carbs in with it, naturally occuring sugars and carbs from vegetables are very healthy in a balanced diet.

Since that experience, I am never going to do the extreme low carb attack again, but it's a lot easier to manage my weight by watching carbs and ignoring fat. Consuming the right kinds of fat is actually critical to your well-being, particularly the fatty acids that benefit your brain and reduce the shrinkage that occurs with age (and has been shown to contribute to things like early onset alzheimer's and dementia).

 

[SunSamurai]

Becuse they are dumbfucks that just want everyone to think they are trying to do something about it.

People that actually want to do something about things do not obsess over them. They simply do it.

 

[Zebo]

This is half-true, but the part about the fat is a little bit off. Fat consumed in food cannot be stored as energy (body fat), without being broken down and then converted into fat cells. The process of breaking down fat takes a sufficiently high amount of energy that you cannot convert it to body fat effectively without the help of carbs/sugars.

In short, you can eat a tub of lard three times a day, and if that's all you eat, you will quite literally starve to death. Your body will start ketosis, and you will use up the available energy converted by burning fat cells into fatty acids as a substitute for glucose. This is a very hard process on the body, the liver in particular, and it is not recommended for any extended period of time.

You cannot get fat from fat alone, nor from protein. I tried an extreme low-carb diet about 6 years ago, I was into a lot of weight and strength training as a teen and in my early 20's, but after getting an office job and getting lazy, my ~250-260lb weight of almost all muscle (I averaged 4-6% body fat) steadily turned into a 250-260lb weight with a lot of fat, and my body fat tripled to 15% over about a year. I was too busy (and too lazy) to work out enough to cut the fat down, so I tried an extreme low-carb diet that had worked for my brother.

I ate basically as much protein and greens as I wanted, and a large amount of fat, and the weight dropped off of me like mad. I lost about 60 lbs of fat in less than two months, and I actually got a lot of muscle definition even with very minimal weight training. It was far from fun though, I constantly had a fever and felt 'wobbly'. But I could eat steaks, double burgers with cheese and bacon (no sauce or bread), gobs of beef jerky, etc, and even with many/most days of 3,000-4,000 calories the weight dropped off like mad. It proved for me that fat and protein cannot be consumed and converted to body fat alone in an efficient manner. Combined with carbs, however, I think it's a recipe for disaster.

The caveman-style diet really is good for you to a point, but it's good to get some carbs in with it, naturally occuring sugars and carbs from vegetables are very healthy in a balanced diet.

Since that experience, I am never going to do the extreme low carb attack again, but it's a lot easier to manage my weight by watching carbs and ignoring fat. Consuming the right kinds of fat is actually critical to your well-being, particularly the fatty acids that benefit your brain and reduce the shrinkage that occurs with age (and has been shown to contribute to things like early onset alzheimer's and dementia).

How tall are you? Unless you're 6'6"+ or look like Arnold did in 1977 no way you were 260 with 4% body fat.

I am 6'4" 33" waist with about 8% body fat and 240..and run 6x a week for 45 min in zone 4 on HRM.

 

[DrPizza]

There was a study done about a year ago, it was reported in a couple of the resources I read daily/weekly. Essentially it boiled down to this: If you consume more calories than you burn, you'll gain weight. If you burn more calories than you consume, you'll lose weight. The rest of the diet advice is, for the most part, a bunch of bullshit. (The study was announced in a physics journal or some related site.) Once it passes through your pie hole, the only difference is how much is absorbed by your body's digestive system before it passes out the other end - most of it.

 

[Fritzo]

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/31/magazine/susan-powter.html?pagewanted=1

Low fat diets have been around since at least the 70's. I don't think Susan started it.

 

[JEDI]

I went to subway for lunch today and noticed that they're like all about fat content in their food and I don't get it. low-fat, non-fat, etc... if you're trying to lose weight, does fat content even matter versus calories and, to a lesser extent, simple carbs?

if only there was a Health and Fitness forum...

i dont know why people obsess about fat content. it's total calories. you just need to burn off more than you take it to lose weight.

 

[Tiamat]

They should be more concerned with the sugar content.

 

[Arkaign]

How tall are you? Unless you're 6'6"+ or look like Arnold did in 1977 no way you were 260 with 4% body fat.

I am 6'4" 33" waist with about 8% body fat and 240..and run 6x a week for 45 min in zone 4 on HRM.

I'm 6'4" as well, but I have an unusually large rib cage (classic barrel chest, lol) and very large hands/feet and just a generally large bone structure. Size 15 shoes are a bitch to find.

I had a bit of chemical help (Anadrol, Testreds, Creatine, some other misc stuff, along with heaps of high-protein shakes and foods), and a lot of stupidly pure obsession.

EDIT : Wanted to clarify this a bit. As evidenced by my inability to maintain a good healthy condition after dialing back on the supplements and extreme workout schedule, nobody should ever undertake severely artificial means in order to gain above a normal weight range. I am much healthier at 220-230lbs than at 250+. Carrying that much weight is just hard on anyone's heart after a while. Excess weight kills in the long run, be it muscle OR fat.

 

[wyvrn]

Most of the research (by Ansel Keys) has been debunked. This is the research that the US govt founded their 4 food groups recommendation on. In short, Ansel tried to do a multivariate study without a computer (he did this in the 60's), and he did not follow through on the analysis correctly. Therefore, he made a lot of incomplete assumptions. Therefore, most of what the govt has published in regards to diet is flawed. Also, the marketing of various special interest groups has served to perpetuate this knowledge, when sound and clear research disputes it.

In short, fat should be a major part of your diet. Carbs should not. Do the research. Don't listen to 'recommendations' or believe biased, non-scientific studies. If you look at the science illuminated by $300 million worth of government money, then you will find the truth. There is a ton of information out there. The government basically disproved most of Key's research, but they have not significantly altered their diet recommendations. There is too much money tied up in agricultural subsidies and special interestes for the politicians to let it go. They live off of that money.

I'll start with a simple, great research piece on high fructose corn syrup. This is a scientific, fact-based look at this sweetener. It also has lots of good information about high carbs and tryglicerides (sp?) that is not common knowledge. Fruit juices, sodas, and other products with high corn syrup components should be cut out of the diet. Fructose is metabolised like ethanol, and you get 8 of the 12 harmful effects from drinking too much fructose as you do drinking alcohol. Sucrose (table sugar) is much more easily handled by your liver than fructose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Also do a search on google for fat studies. You will find that eating fat satiates the body much faster than other types of foods. It REDUCES your total caloric intake. Both fats and vegetables are important staples. Carbs are not and should be limited. Some carbs inhibit leptin, which is your signal to your brain to stop eating.

In addition, there are good parts to LDL (the 'bad' cholesterol). Therefore, just looking at LDL levels is not an accurate predictor of cardiovascular disease. There are some LDL particles that are very healthy for you. In addition to healthy HDL.

In addition, your brain and nervous system survives on fat and cholesterol. So they are not bad for you by themselves unless you just ate nothing but fat all day. There are also studies that show countries with high intake of fat and low intake of carbs have lower levels of heart attack, Type II diabetes, and obesity. This is also true in the United States. Before Keys research, America had LOWER levels of cardiovascular disease, Type II diabetes, and especially obesity. The high carb, low fat diet is the main reason obesity has shot up in both the US and abroad in countries that have adopted the Western Diet.

In addition, the true scientific research shows that your cholesterol should be between 160 and 240. 200 was a number used in a research study as a SELECTOR of the population, but had nothing to do with a scientific study of cholesterol levels. The researchers just wanted to have enough subjects, and choosing a lower level would not have gotten enough for the study. Below 160, neurological problems start to manifest. In fact, there is very strong research that indicates cholesterol below 160 kills more people than cholesterol above 200. 240 is the cutoff for heart disease, where the odds go way up. So don't kill yourself if you are at 200 or 210. You could reduce it some, but the better move would be to exercise and cut carbs.

Also there is strong research in humans and animals that show polyunsaturated fats (vegetable oils, canola oil (which is actually rapeseed oil - a mustard plant), safflower, etc..) are not healthy. They do not raise LDL, but they do nothing for HDL. They have longer chain fatty acids that are harder for your body to break down. They also go rancid more easily when cooked, and in the body. This is a carcinogenic effect, so you could be raising your chances at having cancer.

Warm oils, such as coconut oil, do not go rancid when heated. They store much longer. Coconut oil will store for 5 years in your pantry. They have medium chain fatty acids, which are burned more easily in your body. And the saturated fat content makes you feel satiated much faster, thereby reducing your overall intake of food. Animal studies show that the ag industry stopped using coconut oil in their livestock because they got THINNER and LEANER. Ag industry uses corn and other grains because the animals will eat more and will get fatter. Humans do the same thing in response to vegetable oils and grains.

Lastly, not all fruits are good for you. Many fruits (bananas, grapes, others) are very high in sugar. The berries (strawberry, blackberry, blueberry) are low in sugar. This will help you regulate your sugar intake and insulin response and keep you from Type II diabetes. In addition, both corn and potatoes are very high in starch, which turns to sugar in the body. You get the same sugar content from a potato as you do from a soda pop. Don't think that you can eat any fruit or vegetable you want. That is simply not true. You have to know which fruits and vegetables are healthy for you.

I could go on and on, but trust me the scientific research is there. What you may think is the truth is probably just good advertising by those who stand to make money off of grains and sugars.

 

[wyvrn]

Fat per gram has more calories so if you have two items that weigh the same, but one has more fat the higher fat one will have more calories... but yea people obsess about that stuff way too much.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. WRONG!

Not wrong information, but incomplete and the wrong way to think about it. Fat is used in the body, but carbs (sugar) is more easily stored. This leads to obesity and Type II diabetes.

Calories do not equal calories. It is the type of calorie and how your body handles it. Fats make you satiated faster, and reduce your caloric intake. In addition, your body uses them in more healthy ways. Carbs are the main cause of obesity in our diets.

Research proves this.

 

[wyvrn]

This is pretty much the reason. One gram of carbs or protein has 4 calories, but one gram of fat has 9 calories. Foods with more grams of fat will therefore tend to have more calories on average.

At the end of the day it all comes down to calories in vs. calories out, however. You could get fat eating nothing but broccoli if you ate enough of it.

Completely proven false by scientific research. Big gigantic red X on this post. Completely uneducated. (But most likely the way most people think about food).

 

[wyvrn]

Because they're stupid and they think by simply watching fat content they can make a miracle diet that allows them to lose tons of weight. Weight loss is NOT, I repeat NOT as simple as just eating low-fat foods.

In fact, weight loss has NOTHING to do with eating low fat foods. NOTHING.

Here is a good outline article on the subject in the NY Times. I have many more links, but not on this computer 🙂 This is just one I remembered off the top of my head.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=1

 

[Kaido]

Mostly lack of education. I eat all kinds of crap, but because I eat right most of the time, I've lost a lot of weight. Good fats like peanut butter are good for you, bad fats are not. But bad fats in moderation are fine. And so on. I don't count calories - I hate numbers. SociallyChallenged has a great thread in H&F with all the good kinds of food you can eat to lose weight.

I've found there are 3 routes to losing weight:

1. Eating right
2. Exercising a ton
3. Or a mix - eating pretty good & exercising some

If you simply eat right (4 foods - lean meats, good carbs, good fats, sodium), you will lose weight automagically. If you exercise for like 2 hours a day and eat like crap, you will also lose weight (look at all the runners you know, or swimmers like Michael Phelps @ 12,000 calories a day + 6 hours of workout). Or you could do a balance and eat pretty good, most of the time, plus do a little exercise, so you don't have to deprive yourself. It's not rocket science, but there is a lot of hype to cut through to get to the right information, and it ultimately it requires change: a dietary change or doing exercise, or a combo of both plus moderation.

 

[wyvrn]

if only there was a Health and Fitness forum...

i dont know why people obsess about fat content. it's total calories. you just need to burn off more than you take it to lose weight.

Wrong. Too simplistic.

 

[wyvrn]

Mostly lack of education. I eat all kinds of crap, but because I eat right most of the time, I've lost a lot of weight. Good fats like peanut butter are good for you, bad fats are not. But bad fats in moderation are fine. And so on. I don't count calories - I hate numbers. SociallyChallenged has a great thread in H&F with all the good kinds of food you can eat to lose weight.

I've found there are 3 routes to losing weight:

1. Eating right
2. Exercising a ton
3. Or a mix - eating pretty good & exercising some

If you simply eat right (4 foods - lean meats, good carbs, good fats, sodium), you will lose weight automagically. If you exercise for like 2 hours a day and eat like crap, you will also lose weight (look at all the runners you know, or swimmers like Michael Phelps @ 12,000 calories a day + 6 hours of workout). Or you could do a balance and eat pretty good, most of the time, plus do a little exercise, so you don't have to deprive yourself. It's not rocket science, but there is a lot of hype to cut through to get to the right information, and it ultimately it requires change: a dietary change or doing exercise, or a combo of both plus moderation.

Define #1 a little better. Particularly good fats and carbs. There are some fairly good carbs in moderation, such as rices. Bread, not so much. Also what do you consider good fats and bad fats? I'd be willing to bet I can prove you wrong.

 

[wyvrn]

Simple carbs and sugars are actually far worse for you than most fats. However as Fritzo mentioned, carbs + fat in the same meal is actually worse, but really that's getting down to nitty gritty details.
If you want to lose weight of course it's calories in vs calories out, but not every calorie is created the same. I'd be much more worried about sugars and simple carbs than I would be about fat when it comes to weight loss.

Better but still too simplistic. For me, because I have become a food Nazi. Hey, I have 40 more lbs to lose!

 

[Kaido]

Define #1 a little better. Particularly good fats and carbs. There are some fairly good carbs in moderation, such as rices. Bread, not so much. Also what do you consider good fats and bad fats? I'd be willing to bet I can prove you wrong.

There's a great list in H&F: (see Complex Carbs & Fiberous Carbs in the list)

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=162171

I eat a ton of good carbs (for grains - whole wheat breads, brown rice, oatmeal, etc.), but ANYTHING in excess isn't good for you, obviously. I eat a ton of bread every day and lost a ton of weight over the last year, I just cut out white breads & white rice. My formula is simple: lean protein + good carbs + good fats + sodium. Eat 5 - 7 small meals a day. Worked great for me :awe:

 

[DrPizza]

wyvrn - agreed with much of what you said, except what you've said about HFCS vs. Sucrose (table sugar)

Perhaps you need to read up more about it first. There have already been several threads where it's been discussed ad nauseum. The sucrose of table sugar is nearly immediately broken down into equal parts glucose and fructose. Thus, table sugar is 50% fructose.

The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 45% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in many foods and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 58% glucose.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup#cite_note-3

So, your claim that HFCS is worse than table sugar because of fructose is inherently wrong. First, I hope we all agree that sweetened beverages should be cut from the diet completely (except for occasional (once or twice a month) treats.) Thus, if we ignore consumption of sweetened beverages such as colas, then a diet that uses table sugar rather than HFCS will actually consume MORE fructose. If you're going to paint fructose in a negative light, then your conclusion does not follow.

<side note: I thought everyone in ATOT knew by now that HFCS does NOT mean 100% pure fructose.>

 

[DrPizza]

double-post