7 ms·

Fat is calorie dense. There's ~380 calories per 100g of sugar but 880 calories per 100g of olive oil. 70% of the US population is overweight. Being overweight

Fat is calorie dense. There's ~380 calories per 100g of sugar but 880 calories per 100g of olive oil. 70% of the US population is overweight. Being overweight is bad for you. If your diet contains a lot of fat, you're consuming more calories than if you substituted the fat with something else (e.g. by avoiding deep fried foods, and eating leaner meat). If you are not overweight, then feel free to eat as much fat as you like, but know you are unusual.

thesis 11y ago
Once upon a time I did the ketogenic diet which bases the bulk of your daily calories from healthy natural fat. No carbs allowed except for carbs from fiber. I, along many other people who have did this diet have lost a lot of weight. It's simply not true that you can't lose weight by eating primarily fatty foods.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  Most Americans could not sustain a ketogenic diet for any amount of time, so it is pointless for the purposes of a national health body.
  - mason240 11y ago
    >Most Americans could not sustain a ketogenic diet for any amount of time Why not?
    - LanceH 11y ago
      Because they grew up with a ton of grains on the bottom of the officially government sponsored food pyramid.
      - Spivak 11y ago
        That isn't the real reason, it's that the bottom of that food pyramid is cheap, they're used everywhere as fillers, and they make that cheap food more palatable. It can't be national policy because there's a huge portion of the population that couldn't afford that diet.
    - acconrad 11y ago
      Because most people of any culture can't stick to restrictive diets [1]. Restricting calories is ultimately the goal - how you do it is largely irrelevant, outside of eating mostly whole, unprocessed foods. When you apply further restrictions, people (up to 66% of them) rebound and gain the weight back (or more). [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469900 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469900
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    A national health body is pointless in the context of the US health care system. Nobody here is going to fix that problem. But we can still self-experiment based on dietary hypotheses. An anecdote is not data, but it can be a counterexample! When someone says, "You can't lose weight by eating mostly fat," and someone else says, "I lost X weight on a diet that was 60% fat," that casts strong doubt upon the validity of the hypothesis. Even so, this is yet another rehash of the "food energy hypothesis" poster versus "body chemistry hypothesis" poster. We have seen it before, both on HN and in other places. I have never observed this particular debate to yield useful results, anywhere. I am, personally, a "body chemistry hypothesis" person. I don't think humans are glorified bomb calorimeters. And I don't think that the "food energy hypothesis" folks provide useful guidance to people who are currently overweight. So what; who cares? That's just, like, my opinion, man. Hypotheses are judged by the experiments that support or refute them, not by the number of people who believe they may be true. So don't be like the national health bodies. Let the science speak for itself. Nobody should be touting any sort of dietary maxims when the available evidence is still inconclusive, especially when they have no meaningful accountability if they get it wrong.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Our energy metabolism isn't that mysterious. Like, we know how various macro nutrients are broken down into constituents and the pathways that are then used to convert them into energy that is available to cells. The problem with the food energy hypothesis as a path to weight loss is that it is a lot of work to accurately count and limit calories, and that it is difficult to accurately estimate calorie consumption (a good way is to count calories for a long time and calculate consumption based on the corresponding change in weight). Once there is an accurate estimate of consumption, sustaining intake below that level will result in weight loss.
      - logfromblammo 11y ago
        As far as I am aware, the only useful application of the food energy hypothesis to practical obesity management are the recommendations that people increase their daily physical activity, do resistance training to build muscle mass (thereby raising resting metabolic rate), and eat specific foods that may increase resting metabolic rate. Notable examples would be caffeinated black coffee and unsweetened tea, which provide nearly zero food energy while the caffeine temporarily boosts metabolism. Compounds found in Capsicum peppers are suspected of temporarily increasing metabolic rate (though the effect diminishes as the body acquires tolerance). The resveratrol in berries and grapes is also suspected of causing white adipose cells to temporarily become "beige", where they mimic brown adipose cells. That third recommendation is, in essence, to take [non-caloric, herbal] drugs to boost metabolism. As you suggested, the element that makes it useless for practical adiposity management is the fact that human bodies adjust resting metabolic rates, psychological impulses to consume food, and psychological impulses to adjust physical activity levels in response to dietary intake. One person drinks a sweetened beverage and starts bouncing off the walls for the next two hours, burning off that extra energy. Another drinks an identical portion, then becomes lethargic and turns every last sugar molecule into stored lipids. We don't [yet] have a model that can predict a structured diet for a specific person that can reliably produce the desired effect. The labels on food packages and the calorie counting websites get their numbers from nutritional assays, rather than in vivo measurements in actual humans. The latter would be prohibitively expensive, would produce results that are far less precise, and offer foods suppliers no competitive advantage. This is why diet plans that don't require calorie counting are relatively popular. People just want to follow a diet where they can consistently lose excess adipose tissue without either literally working their asses off for hours a day, or constantly suppressing the psychological impulse to eat more than is allowed by the plan. Whatever other mechanisms may be in play, some diets work best for some people for just one reason: they can feel satiated and stop eating at a caloric intake level consistent with fat loss, without having to constantly do math during their day.
Jdoemk2 11y ago
Fatty foods are often more satiating than carbs, meaning you eat less overall. All things being equal calorie-wise fat is better for weight loss than carbs are.
- acconrad 11y ago
  This is simply not true. You are oversimplifying the issue. As an example, I'd like you to go take a shot of olive oil and tell me you feel fuller than having a cup of steel cut oatmeal with a cup of blueberries. In fact, in 1 shot of olive oil, that's 3 tbsp, which is roughly 360 calories, whereas the oatmeal and berries clocks in around 250 calories. "All things being equal", I just put fat against carbs and the oatmeal just won because 3 tbsp of olive oil will not satiate the way 2 cups of carbs will.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    The experiments that measure satiety generally have the subjects eat a measured amount of a certain food, wait a specified period of time, then eat from a buffet wherein subjects may eat pre-measured portions of whatever they like. In such experiments, certain foods do have a significant impact upon the calories later consumed from that buffet. Some foods are more filling than others. I forget the exact results, other than the one that was surprising to me: whole boiled potatoes were the grand champion of fullness, and 3 times as filling as a calorie-equivalent portion of french fries. So do your experiment for real, with some volunteers. You will need to make some oatmeal, and pour some oil shots, and have a buffet ready. And you will have to continue the experiment for multiple days, so you can get same-person comparisons for different foods. Please actually do the experiment before you declare your hypothesis confirmed. For what it's worth, I think it probably would be, but there is always the possibility that we will be surprised by the results. Naturally, to avoid accusations that your experiment cherry-picked specific foods that are not representative of their fat/carb classes, you would also have to test other foods, like coconut oil, glazed doughnuts, rendered beef suet, dry white toast, butter, and bananas. But wait. That's still oversimplifying the issue. Boiled white potatoes are three times as filling as plain white bread. If some carbs are more filling than other carbs, how can you meaningfully compare all carbs against all fats? I guess you can't. The experiment would have to serve isolated food components. Rather than olive oil, serve a shot of caprylic acid, or stearic acid, or DHA. Rather than oatmeal, serve pure starch, or pure glucose syrup, or fructose. Maybe also test the effects of added MSG, aspartame, or table salt. Everyone is oversimplifying the issue.
wang_li 11y ago
>70% of the US population is overweight. Being overweight is bad for you. So? Americans are not subjects, they are citizens. They do not belong to you or the government or any other institution that has a constitutional basis to be telling them to be healthy. If someone chooses to be fat too bad. If you a freaking out because it's going to cost you so much money to deal with their health problems, you should have thought of that before you voted for someone who promised you universal health care.
GordonS 11y ago
Yes, fat is more calorie dense - but it also makes you feel fuller for longer than carbs, so if you switch carbs for fat you eat less by weight. I don't think I'd be physically capable of eating the same weight in fat as I used to eat in carbs.

thesis 11y ago

Once upon a time I did the ketogenic diet which bases the bulk of your daily calories from healthy natural fat. No carbs allowed except for carbs from fiber. I, along many other people who have did this diet have lost a lot of weight. It's simply not true that you can't lose weight by eating primarily fatty foods.

alextgordon 11y ago
Most Americans could not sustain a ketogenic diet for any amount of time, so it is pointless for the purposes of a national health body.
- mason240 11y ago
  >Most Americans could not sustain a ketogenic diet for any amount of time Why not?
  - LanceH 11y ago
    Because they grew up with a ton of grains on the bottom of the officially government sponsored food pyramid.
    - Spivak 11y ago
      That isn't the real reason, it's that the bottom of that food pyramid is cheap, they're used everywhere as fillers, and they make that cheap food more palatable. It can't be national policy because there's a huge portion of the population that couldn't afford that diet.
  - acconrad 11y ago
    Because most people of any culture can't stick to restrictive diets [1]. Restricting calories is ultimately the goal - how you do it is largely irrelevant, outside of eating mostly whole, unprocessed foods. When you apply further restrictions, people (up to 66% of them) rebound and gain the weight back (or more). [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469900 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469900
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  A national health body is pointless in the context of the US health care system. Nobody here is going to fix that problem. But we can still self-experiment based on dietary hypotheses. An anecdote is not data, but it can be a counterexample! When someone says, "You can't lose weight by eating mostly fat," and someone else says, "I lost X weight on a diet that was 60% fat," that casts strong doubt upon the validity of the hypothesis. Even so, this is yet another rehash of the "food energy hypothesis" poster versus "body chemistry hypothesis" poster. We have seen it before, both on HN and in other places. I have never observed this particular debate to yield useful results, anywhere. I am, personally, a "body chemistry hypothesis" person. I don't think humans are glorified bomb calorimeters. And I don't think that the "food energy hypothesis" folks provide useful guidance to people who are currently overweight. So what; who cares? That's just, like, my opinion, man. Hypotheses are judged by the experiments that support or refute them, not by the number of people who believe they may be true. So don't be like the national health bodies. Let the science speak for itself. Nobody should be touting any sort of dietary maxims when the available evidence is still inconclusive, especially when they have no meaningful accountability if they get it wrong.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Our energy metabolism isn't that mysterious. Like, we know how various macro nutrients are broken down into constituents and the pathways that are then used to convert them into energy that is available to cells. The problem with the food energy hypothesis as a path to weight loss is that it is a lot of work to accurately count and limit calories, and that it is difficult to accurately estimate calorie consumption (a good way is to count calories for a long time and calculate consumption based on the corresponding change in weight). Once there is an accurate estimate of consumption, sustaining intake below that level will result in weight loss.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      As far as I am aware, the only useful application of the food energy hypothesis to practical obesity management are the recommendations that people increase their daily physical activity, do resistance training to build muscle mass (thereby raising resting metabolic rate), and eat specific foods that may increase resting metabolic rate. Notable examples would be caffeinated black coffee and unsweetened tea, which provide nearly zero food energy while the caffeine temporarily boosts metabolism. Compounds found in Capsicum peppers are suspected of temporarily increasing metabolic rate (though the effect diminishes as the body acquires tolerance). The resveratrol in berries and grapes is also suspected of causing white adipose cells to temporarily become "beige", where they mimic brown adipose cells. That third recommendation is, in essence, to take [non-caloric, herbal] drugs to boost metabolism. As you suggested, the element that makes it useless for practical adiposity management is the fact that human bodies adjust resting metabolic rates, psychological impulses to consume food, and psychological impulses to adjust physical activity levels in response to dietary intake. One person drinks a sweetened beverage and starts bouncing off the walls for the next two hours, burning off that extra energy. Another drinks an identical portion, then becomes lethargic and turns every last sugar molecule into stored lipids. We don't [yet] have a model that can predict a structured diet for a specific person that can reliably produce the desired effect. The labels on food packages and the calorie counting websites get their numbers from nutritional assays, rather than in vivo measurements in actual humans. The latter would be prohibitively expensive, would produce results that are far less precise, and offer foods suppliers no competitive advantage. This is why diet plans that don't require calorie counting are relatively popular. People just want to follow a diet where they can consistently lose excess adipose tissue without either literally working their asses off for hours a day, or constantly suppressing the psychological impulse to eat more than is allowed by the plan. Whatever other mechanisms may be in play, some diets work best for some people for just one reason: they can feel satiated and stop eating at a caloric intake level consistent with fat loss, without having to constantly do math during their day.

Jdoemk2 11y ago

Fatty foods are often more satiating than carbs, meaning you eat less overall. All things being equal calorie-wise fat is better for weight loss than carbs are.

acconrad 11y ago
This is simply not true. You are oversimplifying the issue. As an example, I'd like you to go take a shot of olive oil and tell me you feel fuller than having a cup of steel cut oatmeal with a cup of blueberries. In fact, in 1 shot of olive oil, that's 3 tbsp, which is roughly 360 calories, whereas the oatmeal and berries clocks in around 250 calories. "All things being equal", I just put fat against carbs and the oatmeal just won because 3 tbsp of olive oil will not satiate the way 2 cups of carbs will.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  The experiments that measure satiety generally have the subjects eat a measured amount of a certain food, wait a specified period of time, then eat from a buffet wherein subjects may eat pre-measured portions of whatever they like. In such experiments, certain foods do have a significant impact upon the calories later consumed from that buffet. Some foods are more filling than others. I forget the exact results, other than the one that was surprising to me: whole boiled potatoes were the grand champion of fullness, and 3 times as filling as a calorie-equivalent portion of french fries. So do your experiment for real, with some volunteers. You will need to make some oatmeal, and pour some oil shots, and have a buffet ready. And you will have to continue the experiment for multiple days, so you can get same-person comparisons for different foods. Please actually do the experiment before you declare your hypothesis confirmed. For what it's worth, I think it probably would be, but there is always the possibility that we will be surprised by the results. Naturally, to avoid accusations that your experiment cherry-picked specific foods that are not representative of their fat/carb classes, you would also have to test other foods, like coconut oil, glazed doughnuts, rendered beef suet, dry white toast, butter, and bananas. But wait. That's still oversimplifying the issue. Boiled white potatoes are three times as filling as plain white bread. If some carbs are more filling than other carbs, how can you meaningfully compare all carbs against all fats? I guess you can't. The experiment would have to serve isolated food components. Rather than olive oil, serve a shot of caprylic acid, or stearic acid, or DHA. Rather than oatmeal, serve pure starch, or pure glucose syrup, or fructose. Maybe also test the effects of added MSG, aspartame, or table salt. Everyone is oversimplifying the issue.

wang_li 11y ago

>70% of the US population is overweight. Being overweight is bad for you. So? Americans are not subjects, they are citizens. They do not belong to you or the government or any other institution that has a constitutional basis to be telling them to be healthy. If someone chooses to be fat too bad. If you a freaking out because it's going to cost you so much money to deal with their health problems, you should have thought of that before you voted for someone who promised you universal health care.

GordonS 11y ago

Yes, fat is more calorie dense - but it also makes you feel fuller for longer than carbs, so if you switch carbs for fat you eat less by weight. I don't think I'd be physically capable of eating the same weight in fat as I used to eat in carbs.