Your take on fat

[Songwriter]

Do you concern yourself at all with fat or just disregard it? Like, do you ever skim fat off of things you cook. In other words, did PP change the way you view fat or do you continue to do "low fat" things?

I am noting that fat makes some things taste much better but the old low fat way means you try to rid the diet of it where you can. OTOH, fat is high in calories.

In my low fat days, I would trim every bit of fat off a steak that I could but not now. I don't eat chunks of fat (because it's yucky) but I don't trim near as close as I used to. Some fat on steak makes it taste so much better. Same for hamburger meat. I don't drain fat off now, like when I am making taco meat. I wonder if I should.

[LisaS]

for me, the answer is "it depends". I don't avoid fat if it adds to the taste of the dish or if it is something I like. However, I still do things like remove the excess when browning ground meat. I'll get plenty of fat in that meal from avocados & sour cream and I don't like the greasy-ness if I don't drain it off. It might be a visceral hold over from low-fat, but right now, for me, having the fat there takes away from enjoying the dish so I remove it.

I'd still chill and skim stock if I were making it - but that's to get a clear stock or broth, not because I dislike fat.

[Zuleika]

Second to sugar, I love fat (anyone just have a donut flashback?). When I was losing successfully before, I didn't pay that much attention to it. But I was a very slow loser. So if you want to speed up, you might want to watch it. I think this is the whole theory behind K*mk*ns. Low-carb and low-fat. All in all, if you're happy with the way your eating and losing at a pace you like, I wouldn't worry about it.

[Anniesnan]

the only thing I think about with fat is to make sure it's not a trans fat.

I love bacon, and relish being able to eat it.
I don't eat the fat on steak, but I never did - and never ate the steak, either.
I don't eat the fat on pork chops.

But I enjoy butter on my veggies, and fry my eggs in it, too.
I saute with olive oil for lunch and dinner, sometimes add a drop of butter to that, too.

The cuts of ground beef that we can buy around here are so low in fat that it is really hard to get any with much flavor. It's all very lean and I end up having to add fat to my ground meat when making meatloaf or burgers (sour cream, cheese, etc) to get it to taste better.

I won't buy any yogurt or milk or cheeses unless they are NOT fat free of any kind, 'cos often they add sugars to them to make them taste better and even if they don't - it's one more step of processing.

[laughingW]

I don't do "low fat" processed things either. I eat the fat that comes naturally in the food.

Actually, refined fat creeps me out almost as much as refined starch and sugar. The whole idea of separating food and refining it.

But I do like a little butter and olive oil when I sautee veggies.

[maxlharris]

I don't pay attention to fat. I don't trim steaks often. It's a lot of good monosat fat (the same as in EVOO). I don't eat anything with transfat if I can help it (I don't eat a lot of packaged anything anymore). And I don't eat the "eye" of the prime rib either. But, the fat is good for you.

RE: K*mk*ns: Dr. Atkins, Dr's Eades, and many others promote LC as a high fat diet. Dr. A specifically says you shouldn't try to do LC + low fat in DANDR. This was based on years of clinical practice. Ditto on the Eades. K*mm*r, the founder of that diet which shall not be named, is not a doctor with years of clinical practice. She's a woman who lost a lot of weight. That's great, but who can say if it's safe. FWIW: there are different levels of plans, but I would think really long and hard before cutting calories very low like 3 or 4 of her five plans. Really long and hard.

[laughingW]

K*mm*r, the founder of that diet which shall not be named, is not a doctor with years of clinical practice. She's a woman who lost a lot of weight. That's great, but who can say if it's safe. FWIW: there are different levels of plans, but I would think really long and hard before cutting calories very low like 3 or 4 of her five plans. Really long and hard.
Just in the interest of getting facts right -

All of the plans over there are just support for following earlier doctors' books. (I joined when it was cheap, just out of curiosity).
One is Stillman, very similar to Thin So Fast and the thinking back then.
One is Atkins 1972, before DANDR and the green light on franken carbs.
One adds exercise to Atkins 1972, and one is for vegetarian.

Also, PP is more for overall health and the other place is for fast fat loss, period. So it's not a level comparison.

I do PP at minimal protein levels, intervention carb levels, don't watch the fat, and end up "very low calorie". It doesn't take much good dietary fat to meet nutritional needs. I do supplement with fish oil for the inflammation that comes with obesity.

When nutrition is met, and hunger is satisfied, and exercise is supported, why go higher in fuel? I personally have a zillion grams of fuel in the form of fat available right on my body if I allow fat utilization to occur.

[maxlharris]

Laughing:

Some folks over there are eating 300-500 calories a day. The question is first about health, but more in my field of study... sustainability. People don't sustain low calorie on low fat without extraordinary will power or motivation (people don't sustain at all without some), so why are we to believe that people will continue to eat low calorie forever. We are well studied in metabolism to the point where we understand that you can't go back to "normal" eating after a low calorie diet. We know about rebounding and hoarding. So, what makes anyone think it's sustainable?

Kimkins is for fast loss. How they protect lean body mass, I do not know. Only one plan emphasizes exercise at all. And you're not gonna lift much heavy on low cal.

It's all about your goals. If your goal is to move the scale, regardless of the composition, I'm sure Kimmer has a plan for you. If, on the other hand, you care about the content of the person as much as the number on the scale, I think you probably have to lift some things or move around more than a little. And that's gonna take some extra fuel.

Nevermind the research regarding metabolic rates and "fuel burn." If I stall, I eat more, not less. Keep the fire burning hotter, rather than slow trickle. But, it's a question of goals, like you said.

[laughingW]

Thanks for your patience and open-mindedness. I'm not really trying to defend that - I DO do PP after all - but I think they are doing a good job challenging some of our assumptions about fat loss for the morbidly obese.

Some folks over there are eating 300-500 calories a day.
Yes I know. But the mainstream is more like 800-1200. Any plan has edge people doing it their way. The guidelines, say to have adequate protein for your size, vitamins, enough fat to make your recipes work and taste good, and greens.

The question is first about health, but more in my field of study... sustainability. People don't sustain low calorie on low fat without extraordinary will power or motivation (people don't sustain at all without some), so why are we to believe that people will continue to eat low calorie forever.
Ah but that is the whole point of divorcing sustainability from short-term. Everyone knows you have to find something livable, and so now, all diets except this one try to do both fat loss and sustainability. This makes us think all plans have to do both. But that plan cares only about fat loss. Further justified because it's so fast, the time on it is short.
And why would it be supported for post GBS if it were not medically justifiable? (not that THAT means health, I know!!! )

We are well studied in metabolism to the point where we understand that you can't go back to "normal" eating after a low calorie diet.
Can you point me to any studies using the morbidly obese, when adequate protein, EFAs, vitamins and minerals were provided? I don't know of any. Experientially, the folks there say the slowdown is from 100% (normal) to about 80%, like when you are sleeping, and it kicks up again when you start eating again, just like we rev up when we wake up. And, they are obviously willing to accept the slowdown. If the slowdown is a total shutdown, then why do not the morbidly obese just sit there, fat, while medically supervised doing very low cal?

We know about rebounding and hoarding.
Again I would say the research has not been on the morbidly obese. It has been done with with true starvation (inadequate nutrients). And with non-morbidly obese people (no excess body fat).

So, what makes anyone think it's sustainable?
no one even claims that it is.

Kimkins is for fast loss. How they protect lean body mass, I do not know. Only one plan emphasizes exercise at all. And you're not gonna lift much heavy on low cal.
Check out Stephen Phinney and Westman on protein-sparing very low cal diets. It is a legit approach and has been for years.

As to lifting heavy, for the morbidly obese it is like a person like you, putting on a fat suit that weighs 200 pounds and THEN lift heavy. In an audio interview posted here a while ago, both of these low-carb heavyweight researchers say that the exercise response for the morbidly obese is NOT the same as for others; something to do with the inflammation response, says Phinney. I did some research on that and you can check out a starting article by googling "ATP problems in the furnace" for a start on how the burn side of the equation is different.

If, on the other hand, you care about the content of the person as much as the number on the scale, I think you probably have to lift some things or move around more than a little. And that's gonna take some extra fuel.
Well, that is why I do PP myself. And I do not need "extra" fuel beyond what PP says, for a well-rounded movement program (mobility every day, "hard" whole body 2x per week, yoga twice).

Nevermind the research regarding metabolic rates and "fuel burn." If I stall, I eat more, not less. Keep the fire burning hotter, rather than slow trickle. But, it's a question of goals, like you said.
Having experienced both approaches, I personally believe what you say is true for healthy metabolisms not that overweight.

But - and I may be the only person besides Phinney that thinks this way - turning up the fire and adding fuel to support harder work, can backfire with some morbidly obese. Because you are taking a stressed system and stressing it harder. Result, adrenal fatigue (happened to me) and exhaustion.

To me it feels much better to lighten up. For a sick burning system, backing off of the demands on it, paradoxically produces better performance.

[maxlharris]

Laughing:

That other diet is marketed at all dieters, not just the morbidly obese. So, if there are differences between the super morbid and the rest of us (my BMI was 34, so I was on the border of Morbid Obesity, not super morbid and beyond which would be 200 extra pounds).

My questions about the other diet mainly stem from the founder. It's a slickly marketed repackaging of the work of Doctors and researchers like Atkins, Eades, Vernon, Stillman, etc by a person who goes by a pseudonym. If she can't have your real name out (much less any research of your own), what makes her the guru with all the answers. Why not me? Why not Jimmy LaVida Low Carb, one of her most ardent (paid) supporters? Why not my cat?

I dunno about the differences between the obese, the morbid, the super morbid, etc. Not my cross to bear. I have a mostly healthy metabolism that runs better on protein and fat than it does on carbs and fat. I suspect that most people will probably run better like that.

The last thing: For me, in talking to anyone, it's about composition and destination. If the destination is to get the scale say you weigh less, and you don't care about composition, a tight calorie diet, low fat or low carb or both, is probably a worthwhile solution. But, IMO, that destination is like getting to the top of a mountain. You move the scale and then what? It doesn't seem like there's a plan to stay there. If, OTOH, you have an interest not just in moving the scale, but moving the tape measure, improving the health, looking good, feeling good, etc, at some point, you're gonna worry about muscle, or at least about preserving it. And while protein sparing may preserve it, at some point, you're probably gonna have to lift stuff. Now, if you're 200 lbs overweight, you might not care about preserving muscle just yet. Last, that's not my particular burden, so I don't have a lot to say about it.

[Zuleika]

I'm no expert on K*mkins, but my concern from what little I know about it is like maxlharris'. It doesn't seem sustainable. Even the Eades point out in PP, that extremely low-carb diets can be nutritionally adequate, so I'm not going to claim its unhealthy on that front.

I can see how you'd lose weight, but it doesn't seem realistic to keep up the same way of eating in maintenance, so you'd need something else. I think that's true of any extreme plan.

Anyway, Songwriter, getting beyond the old low-fat mentality is tough. Everyone and their mother will tell you how you're killing yourself, how this can't be good for you, they're concerned about your health. So you won't get much reinforcement except around here. Eating fat does not make you fat.

[Songwriter]

Dr. Mike has blogged about sat fat. I don't have it memorized but I think there was talk about it being about a 180 -- that sat fat is not only not bad for you but is GOOD for you. That blood lipids (and other things) improve with sat fat. I seem to recall that.

It's just more fuel to the fire... that whatever mainstream anything says... do the opposite. Because mainstream anything is about one thing. And that is... making money.

[maxlharris]

that whatever mainstream anything says... do the opposite. Because mainstream anything is about one thing. And that is... making money.

Hrm. I don't buy this. EFA's are mainstream. Vitamins are mainstream (and as Mike Eades says, No one's getting rich on Vitamin E). Monounsat fats are mainstream. Polyunsats for the most part too. And Transfats Bad is mainstream now.

There's money in the mainstream. But there's money in the counter culture (Q.V. discussion of Kimkins, a counter culture diet that costs more bucks than a trade paperback to get). It's money on both sides.

[Anniesnan]

I'm with Max on this...

just because something is mainstream, doesn't mean it's bad (or good).

I think of PP as PPLP - a true life plan. The way humans were meant to eat. Fruit when you come across a tree and the fruit is ripe. Same with veggies.

But, and it's a big but, for me, the fat is what makes this not just a diet for me, but a life plan. I tried low carb, low fat and I lasted as long on that as I did on high carb, low fat ... until about 10 AM:cool:

[maxlharris]

Thanks Anniesnan:

I forgot the most compelling bit. Fat tastes good. It's filling, it's energy rich, and it makes the difference between boneless skinless chicken breasts and grilled chicken thighs.

I don't begrudge anyone their Kimkins approach.

Last thing: For me, sustainability is not just about the long term usefulness of the program. It also incorporates a measure of compliance. Since, in the recent JAMA published study of major diets, LC had the best compliance, and Dean Ornish had the worst, I'd put more eggs in the traditional high fat, adequate protein, low carb approach than anything that reduces fat as the primary means of loss.

[laughingW]

And then there is the "what do you mean by high fat".

I do minimal protein and intervention carb levels, and minimal fat just because I only like just the fat that comes with meat plus a little refined fat like olive oil or coconut, and by percent wise, it's 60% + fat. So some people would call that high fat.

By grams, it's about 30+ per fitday, so that would be "low fat" in the context of a 2000 cal high carb diet like the govmint says: ~ 15% .

So Sometimes for naysayers I say I do both low and high fat. LOL

[maxlharris]

Laughing:
What you are up to is called low calorie. By absolute metrics (grams per day), it's probably low everything, maybe save protein.

By High Fat, we are talking about as a portion, relative to other macros. So, I would describe what you're up to as Low Cal, low carb.

Must work for your particular set of goals. I don't think it would fit mine (either from an end point view or a compliance and sustainability point of view). Rock on.

[laughingW]

Laughing:
What you are up to is called low calorie. By absolute metrics (grams per day), it's probably low everything, maybe save protein.

By High Fat, we are talking about as a portion, relative to other macros. So, I would describe what you're up to as Low Cal, low carb.
I call it simply Protein Power - it just happens to work out low cal, low carb because I'm short with a small LBM.

Must work for your particular set of goals. I don't think it would fit mine (either from an end point view or a compliance and sustainability point of view). Rock on.
Thank you! It feels marvelous as you can imagine - that's PP for you. My own set of goals does include healing adrenal fatigue and that's why I'm on the "lighten up" end of things. No big volume of strenuous exercise and thus no big volume of food.

[Lyn]

Hey guys,
Here is my two cents. I wrote in last week about feeling bad. The advise I got was to step up the fat in my diet and make sure I was eating enough, so I say YES to fat! I feel 100% better now and it was a quick fix for me.Without it, it would be hard to eat 1200 calories a day.

Lyn

[Mitra]

Glad to hear you're feeling better, Lyn.

[AleX-69]

Concerning Fats..

You know that a high fat ingestion leads to an high fat uptake of the beta-cells which therefore leads to celldeath of the beta cells...?

Moreover insulin is required to keep the beta-cells "healthy".

Furthermore did you know that:

(1) Many people have insulin resistance but never become diabetic
(2) Many diabetics have beta cell dysfunctions but NO insulinresistance

So someone car to explain why a high fat content or an ultra-low carb approach is still advisable?

Alex

[Gaelen]

Hi, Alex...
There are lots of research citations on this forum that substantiate why a diet rich in healthy fats and which controls carbs is not only advisable, but is the healthy approach. :)

Care to post any research citations to support the assertions in your post?

[laughingW]

Concerning Fats..

You know that a high fat ingestion leads to an high fat uptake of the beta-cells which therefore leads to celldeath of the beta cells...?

Moreover insulin is required to keep the beta-cells "healthy".

Furthermore did you know that:

(1) Many people have insulin resistance but never become diabetic
(2) Many diabetics have beta cell dysfunctions but NO insulinresistance

So someone car to explain why a high fat content or an ultra-low carb approach is still advisable?

Alex
Also please define "high fat" and "ultra low carb" in grams per day per LBM.

[AleX-69]

hi,

i do have some medical research material which support my statements, though most of them are in german language. I will post them nevertheless if you want?

@Gaelen

I agree that an diet approach reduced in carbs, and moderate in healthy fats will be benefical for ones health (in gerneral) but most people seem to go overboard with fats, when they read things like "fat is not evil". Eating high amounts of saturated fats (or maybe fats in generall) will be contaproductive at least concerning the development of Type II Diabetes.
On the other side latest research has shown that nutrition seems to play only a minor role in developing diabetes and genetic predisposition is more of a concern.

Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus has reached epidemic proportions world wide and is also becoming increasingly important in pediatrics.
Family studies and twin studies have shown that the genetic predisposition has an important impact on the development of type 2 diabetes. Genome-wide linkage studies and association studies have identified various candidate genes that are thought to be involved in the development of type 2 diabetes. Polymorphisms in the PPARγ gene, the KCNJ11 gene, and the insulin re cep tor sub strate 1 gene and others are associated with an elevated risk of develop ment of type 2 diabetes. In addition, these studies also sugest that the genetic predisposition to type 2 diabetes differs in differ ent populations. Elucidation of the molecular basis of monogenetic forms of diabetes associated with insulin resistance or disturbed insulin secretion has also added to our under standing of the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes.

Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterised by the combination of insulin resistance and insulin secretion deficiency, which in tensify each other. T2DM is caused by genetic predisposition, physical inactivity, and obesity. Adipose tissue produces multiple adipocytokines, which are closely related to insulin resistance. A vicious circle is set up with the insulin resistance in adipose tissue, mus le and liver together with the resultant decreased glycolysis and glycogen synthesis and increased gluconeogenesis intensifying the insulin resistance.
Consequences of the resulting hyperglycemia are micro vascular complications such as retinopathy and damage to kidneys and the nervous system. Dyslipidaemia and hypertension are frequently associated with
T2DM, but macrovascular complications must also be expected.

@laughingW

Ultra low carb for me is everything below 50g Carbs / day.
high Fat for me is more than 40% of your daily calorie intake coming from fats whereas most of them are saturated.

[di-zee]

back to fat.... I find you if you leave on and use reasonable fats you will eat less because fats do satisfy the appetite. Yes, trim a steak because big globs of it are not nice in the mouth, take the fatty bits of chicken off, but leave the crispy bits etc... the fat is what helps to make you feel full. A salad with olive oil dressing and avocado and cheese is a meal. without them you feel like you are making do with a side dish.
as a health issue... if you only eat good fats, PP says your body cannot physically store it. of course that depends on whether you are being good about the rest of your lc day. The absolute lethal combination is a lc meal with fat and then going off the rails and taking in extra carbs as well.
cheers, Di.

[laughingW]

Concerning Fats..

You know that a high fat ingestion leads to an high fat uptake of the beta-cells which therefore leads to celldeath of the beta cells...?

Moreover insulin is required to keep the beta-cells "healthy".

Furthermore did you know that:

(1) Many people have insulin resistance but never become diabetic
(2) Many diabetics have beta cell dysfunctions but NO insulinresistance

So someone car to explain why a high fat content or an ultra-low carb approach is still advisable?

Alex
Okay, you said that more than 40% of calories from fat is "high fat."

Take me for example. If I ate 2000 calories a day and 25% of them were from fat, supposedly a healthy amount, that would be 500 calories from fat, or roughly 55 grams of fat.

If I choose to cut calories by reducing carbs from 1000 calories to 200, (from 50% to 16% or 50g carb), those exact same 55 grams of fat are now 42% of my calories.

How do you figure, the same exact amount of fat is healthy in the context of high carbs, but unhealthy in the context of lowered carbs?

Insulin resistance and diabetes can be thought of as on the same continuum. Depending on lifestyle and personal body, I can see where some people can stay at the insulin resistant stage (or slowly move to diabetes) where others zip on out to the full diabetes.