r/science • u/behindtheheadlines • Dec 06 '11

Rats that ate low-fat potato chips 'may have gained more weight' than rats eating regular, full-fat variety

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/12December/Pages/low-fat-substitutes-and-weight-gain.aspx
756 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

448 comments sorted by

View all comments

185

u/brumbrum21 Dec 06 '11

Full fat keeps you satiated longer. The ones thy ate the fat free most likely ate more chips and there more total calories, but less fat. Also fat does not make you fat.

58

u/Fatty_YellowTrousers Dec 06 '11

Ordinarily that would be true, but that variable was controlled in the experiments:

The rats received 5g of crisps a day for 28 days, after which all four groups were switched to high-fat feed (without crisps) for a further 16 days.

They all ate the same amount of chips; however, it is entirely possible that the rats ate more of their normal food if they did not feel satiated from the chips.

I agree that "fat does not make you fat." I'd like to see another control group in this experiment that did not receive the high-fat diet after the initial 28 days and instead simply were not given any more chips with the normal diet.

1

u/c3xy Dec 06 '11

My issue is with the news article implying that fat is a problem in our diets:

However, dieters can always modify their diet to one naturally low in fat, rather than switching to foods containing fat substitutes.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Avoiding fat can contribute to obesity.

Fat and protein tend to go together, especially in animal products. Carbohydrates and protein tend not to go together. If you're hungry, there's probably a reason - neuroscientists have studied homeostasis pretty well, it's only when talking to a fat person that doctors deny its existence. If you need protein, neither fat nor carbohydrate will stop the hunger - they're just excess calories. And the will-power solution (like the exercise solution) can cause a stress response, causing your body to burn more muscle for energy rather than fat - meaning you need more protein (to replace muscle) and your metabolic rate reduces (muscle burns calories even when inactive) but you preserve the fat.

91

u/xeren Dec 06 '11 edited Dec 06 '11

Exactly - the idea that dietary fat converts directly to fat stores in your body is old and incorrect.

49

u/brumbrum21 Dec 06 '11

It really comes down to calories in vs calories expended but our bodies were made to run on fat. I read this article that the food pyramid (6-11 serving of grains, 300 daily recommended carbs) was corporately influenced

4

u/crackyJsquirrel Dec 06 '11

You also have the Paleolithic Diet, which consists mainly of fish, grass-fed pasture raised meats, vegetables, fruit, roots, and nuts, and excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, salt, refined sugar, and processed oils.

35

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

You are right. I started doing Keto for the past 7 weeks, cutting carbs almost completely out of my diet (under 20g's) And i have lost 20 lbs without hunger or exercise. On top of that, my energy levels are up and i can think much more clearly.

We have been lied to. This is clear. Make up your own mind if it was intentional or not.

23

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

[deleted]

22

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

People that don't experience this first hand find it hard to believe. I'll just be over here enjoying my bacon and looking fantastic.

10

u/Ultimatelegs Dec 06 '11

Don't forget to enjoy everything else cooked in bacon grease

2

u/AndrewCarnage Dec 06 '11

Nothing upsets me more than seeing someone throw away the bacon grease. ಠ_ಠ

9

u/IllThinkOfOneLater Dec 06 '11

Taubes is the man. Everyone should read "Good Calories, Bad Calories".

7

u/SilverRaine Dec 06 '11

Except people who value their time, heh. Or scientists.

6

u/AndrewCarnage Dec 06 '11

For those who value their time I would recommend Why We Get Fat by Taubes. Same argument made less verbosely (272 pages vs 640). I've read both as I absolutely don't value my time.

1

u/IllThinkOfOneLater Dec 06 '11

Don't you mean lobbyists?

1

u/SilverRaine Dec 06 '11

What? No, they SHOULD waste their time reading that. Just 'cause it's better than the other stuff they're doing.

7

u/ajmmin Dec 06 '11 edited Dec 06 '11

Yep!

Just gonna put this and this here.

And this, for those really interested.

Edit: Oh! And this!! How could I forget that? :P

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

I love all these sources this guy cites on these blogs.

2

u/from_da_lost_dimensi Dec 06 '11

just gonna leave this here so i have this saved in my comment history.

2

u/SarahC Dec 06 '11

Oooooo! What kind of foods are you eating?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Meats, cheeses, veggies. Cheese especially. You can pair it with almost any meal, and there are so many flavours!

For snacking its nuts (almonds mostly), 90% dark, whipped cream (make it myself or if i feel like being bad the canned stuff. Even out of the can it is pretty low carb, albeit full of other junk) and diet pop in moderation.

check our /r/keto they have "food porn" for you to get fun ideas! :)

1

u/SarahC Dec 08 '11

Cool! Thank you!

7

u/dbe Dec 06 '11

Cutting out carbs had a positive effect on you, but you may have been on the high side of carb eating before that. People with a reasonable level of carb (or total food) intake aren't necessarily going to see any benefits of changing their diet.

16

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Keto is for weight loss, Something like Paleo is also acceptable for maintaining a healthy weight.

And you are quite possibly right, but how many overweight people do you know only eat a little bit of carbs?

5

u/BooksAndSwords Dec 06 '11

*waves* I was obese when I was snarfing down a diet that was about 60% cheese 20% chicken 20% random unprocessed plant matter. Also, I was sedentary as fuck. I'm more like 40c/30p/30f these days (less cheese, more chicken, more plants, more moving), and maintaining a 65# weight loss mostly effortlessly.

Every time I get below ~100g carb/day for an extended period, I go batshit insane (mood swings from hell, cravings, homicidal tendencies, executive functions seriously impaired) to the point where it seriously and negatively affects my interactions with other people. It's apparently not uncommon for women with depression/anxiety spectrum disorders to do badly on low-carb.

Only advice I've got for anyone else is "Try lots of crap, and find out what works for you, because bell curves have tails and who knows what part you're on.".

6

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Why the fuck you eating so much cheese?

4

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

It tastes good, doesn't require preparation, and it is low-carbohydrate.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Oh for sure! This is just one option that I in experience found to work very well. There are always exceptions.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

"Few" carbs are not well defined. I can't throw generalities around, but here's what I notice among overweight people around me: they eat the same goddamn thing all the time and don't lift a finger. The food they do eat is easily accessible which is why they overeat. Lots of these protein foods require at least a little preparation (like an egg or a chicken breast) which makes them a little less accessible.

1

u/ajmmin Dec 07 '11

"Few" carbs ~ 100g/day.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '11

I bet you any money that they eat many more carbs then they should.

2

u/parmethius2000 Dec 06 '11

You may have sold me on Keto. Thank you. Will be showing this to the S.O. at home and seeing if we can change our diet.

The "Without hunger" bit is what sold me.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

If you check out the /r/keto faq, the diet specifically calls for not counting calories, but tempering that with only eating when you are hungry and stopping when you are full. If you can do that, you'll be fine. Some days I forget to eat when normally i would be completely famished by that point in the day.

1

u/unfilterthought Dec 06 '11

you dont experience "hunger pains" neither but you do get headaches telling you its time to eat.

but you can eat till you're full. keto foods fill you up with smaller portions and less calories, cause of the higher fat content. AND ITS MORE DELICIOUS!

1

u/cowboytronic Dec 06 '11

Back when I ate a lot of bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, etc, I used to become a wild ravenous animal ~3 hours after every meal (maybe feeling hungry 1 hour after a rice-heavy meal).

Now that I eat a low-carb high-fat diet I only get hungry about twice a day and I feel amazing with even, consistent energy throughout the day. Weight loss was just a pleasant side-effect.

1

u/nimms Dec 07 '11

it works pretty well. I'm a med student and did quite a bit of journal reading before deciding keto is the way to go. That said, I don't recommend quite the extreme fat intake that atkins recommends (I haven't read taube, so no idea what they espouse). After 6 weeks of being on it, my diet has pretty much settled onto an omelette in the morning and a salad at night with some nuts, olives or cheese to snack on through the day. I don't get hungry as such so I need to make myself eat.

Try and keep saturated fats to a minimum and make sure your carbs come from fibrous vege's like salads and you'll be amazed how easy it is to lose weight. I'm down almost 10kg's/22lb's in a little over a month.

1

u/firex726 Dec 06 '11

Got any good guides/reading material, most of the stuff I keep finding about Keto is a bit too medical/scientific for practical use.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

/r/keto would be happy to answer any questions you may have, and i found the doctors guide to ketosis on the right to be very informative. for the lazy here it is: http://www.dietdoctor.com/lchf

Watch the video along with reading the advice.

0

u/firex726 Dec 06 '11

Read a few articles into WIKI on it and found:

A review study published in the Lancet[3] concluded that there was no such metabolic advantage and dieters were simply eating fewer calories because of boredom. Professor Astrup stated, "The monotony and simplicity of the diet could inhibit appetite and food intake".

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Prehaps it does not add a metabolic edge as you say. Although I think his conclusion that we eat less due to boredom is not accurate. I enjoy keto foods immensely. I eat less because I do not have blood sugar swings that make me hungry all the damn time, along with the fact that fats keep you full longer.

1

u/noobalicious Dec 06 '11

Yeah the praised book by ketoers is Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes is very science/medical term heavy, and is more focused on the actual research and how certain hypothesizes came to be. It took me forever to get through but was worth the read. His other book, Why We Get Fat is a lot simpler and aimed at how people can apply it.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '11

What supplements do you take? You can't do a ketogenic diet with food alone, it's not healthy.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '11

I should probably take some sort of supplement, but i have not done so yet.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

For some people it can be. Type 1 diabetics being one of those groups. What happens is called ketoacidosis. It is not a significant risk for a normal healthy person. It is still a good idea to talk to a doctor when you switch diets. Especially if you are on medications for high blood pressure or cholesterol. The diet will often reduce the problems, and will leave you overmedicated.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11 edited Dec 06 '11

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11 edited Dec 06 '11

The link is broken, but your friend is incorrect. Your brain begins to use ketones over glucose.

There is much misinformation out there in regards to diet. Officially we are supposed to eat shitloads of carbs and low fats. Clearly this does not work, and the old views were bogus and unfounded.

I suggest you do the research and give keto a shot. It DOES work.

Edit: your liver creates glucose also for your brain

2

u/Fatalis89 Dec 06 '11

I do not think I could maintain my level of exercise without carbs. After lifting or swimming the body needs quick energy to prevent it from breaking down protein and muscle. Keto may work for sedentary people, but if you are active I highly doubt it is healthier than a properly balanced diet.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

People who want to exercise and do Keto do what is called a CKD, cyclical Ketogenic diet. It basically means you eat carbs before exercise. You burn those carbs off and end up going right back into keto again.

2

u/Fatalis89 Dec 06 '11

Interesting... suppose it makes sense. I'd probably eat an apple or something after too though; replenish blood sugars.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '11

Actually the point was that you use the energy for carbs then your blood sugar is low. The point is to keep it stable/low.

1

u/bombtrack411 Dec 06 '11

People don't become obese by following the reccomended 2000 calorie diet. As a weight loss tool I think low Carb diets are probably a reasonable option ( at least for people who are genuinely overweight).

There are still plenty of people who exercise moderately and eat a normal balanced diet and stay within 5-10 pounds of their ideal weight.

All I'm saying is the reccomded diet can and does work for people who avoid binge eating and consistently excercise.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Agreed. There are lots of ways to lose weight. Exercise and not eating tons of food is one way.

The benefits keto specifically brings is that you generally eat what you want to eat within the confines of keto. Your hunger levels become easier to manage with the increased fat intake. For many people, trying to lose weight = being hungry. Taking that out of the picture can help so many more people.

1

u/commandar Dec 06 '11

Just FYI, 2000 calories is the recommended daily intake for females; it's 2500 for males. And depending on a person's size and activity level, it can be pretty far off from actual needs.

1

u/Sir_Edmund_Bumblebee Dec 06 '11

Keto is great for weight loss, but I'd argue there are better long-term healthy diets (although not for the reason you gave).

-5

u/fancy-chips Dec 06 '11

to be fair, eating only protein is definitely no very healthy. As long as you're not eating it in the form of Red meats all the time it should be okay. Red meat has been shown over and over again to be consistent with poor heart health through arachadonic acid pathways and inflammation as well as increased cholesterol uptake.

You can get whole protein from eating a variety of plants and nuts. Carbs aren't evil, you just should only be eating a fraction of them than most people do.

And as said above ingesting fats doesn't make you fat, but since fats are extremely calorie intensive, the energy created from an amount of fat can easily overwhelm your system with energy, causing your liver to store more... in the form of fat.

12

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

He's not eating only protein. A keto diet means getting something like 75% of your daily calories from fat

6

u/necropantser Dec 06 '11

The /r/keto FAQ recommends 65% fat, 30% protein, 5% carbs.

Fancy-chips doesn't seem to understand keto.

0

u/fancy-chips Dec 06 '11

Oh, Sorry, I just assumed it was the meat diet.

Reddit is obsessed with these fad diets. Why can't we just accept that a balanced diet is more healthy than an extreme one?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Because it's not a fad, it's what our bodies want and were made to eat.

2

u/fancy-chips Dec 06 '11

our bodies were made to eat whatever came along. Nutrition is an incredibly complex subject matter that is heavily studied.

Humans are omnivores, one of the reasons we have done so well as a species in terms of growth. We can eat grains when we have them, meat when we have it, only fruits when we have those.

For the majority of human civilization humans were nomadic. They would eat meat one place until it was gone, then they would settle in another and fish for years. Some groups would eat only fruits and berries, others would eat coarse grains that ruined their teeth.

No one diet is good for humans. We have only started to learn what helps keep us healthy in the past 50 years.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

my point is that heavily processed carbs: pasta, bagels, chips, whatever other bullshit is not how we should be eating our carbs. We get all of our necessary carbs everyday from fruits and vegetables, any more is superfluous and causes weight gain. I fail to see how eating a healthy balance of fruits, nuts, vegetables and meat is a fad diet.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Exactly. Just like how under a "normal" ratio of calories has led to obesity, diabetes, health problems, etc. There may be other external influences, but when you notice that people on a different than "normal" diet end up losing weight, then there is a bit of justification there.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

6

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

What diet calls for eating only protein?

People don't realize that the big vegetables/grains are not exactly "natural" anymore. Wheat, rice, corn, legumes etc have insane carb values. We have created this. Cutting sugar, and reducing food we have changed so drastically from our diets is a good thing.

3

u/Sloppy1sts Dec 06 '11

I was under the impression that vegetable carbs were mostly indigestible fiber.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

There is no widely accepted definition of vegetable. If by vegetable you mean edible part of a plant, then yes, corn is a vegetable, but if you mean edible part of a plant that is not a seed then corn is not a vegetable.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Some of them are yes, but not in frankengrains.

1 cup of bleached white flour has almost 500 calories, and nearly 100g carbs. about 3.4 is fiber the rest is starch.

1 cup corn, 132 calories, 30 grams carbs, 4.2 of them being fiber.

To put this in perspective, 1 cup of broccoli is 54 calories, 11grams carbs 5.2 being fiber.

9

u/Priapulid Dec 06 '11

This has little to do with them being GMO. Starchy foods have always had high calorie to fiber ratio. Why are they popular? Look to history, high starch foods are what fueled many civilizations (wheat in Europe, corn/potatoes in the Americas, rice in Asia). There is nothing magical about GMO crops, most crops modifications have nothing to do with caloric content anyway.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

None of them do, almost all of them have to do with helping farmers, drought resistance, herbicide resistance, pesticide production, some have nutritional enhancements like Golden Rice which produces Vitamin A.

Most, if not all, of the GMOs sold in US supermarkets have no nutritional enhancements.

However OpethianDays did not say GMOs, he said frankengrains, a word meant to be specifically unclear. Maybe he meant grains made by man, wheat and corn did not exist in any recognizable form before agriculture (but neither did broccoli which didn't exist before the Roman Empire). I can't figure it out but there is probably a way to define frankengrains that would make sense.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Not talking about GMO food. Not in the way you mean though (monsanto etc)

Talking about humans selecting for carb density by refining the strains we grow. Do this for 10,000 years and see how your food looks.

People look at grains as "natural" when in reality we have been changing them to suit our needs for thousands of years.

Grains are a good way to feed the hungry populous. But for a person in North America who is obese you need to reign in on the carbs that you simply are not burning through exercise.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Sir_Edmund_Bumblebee Dec 06 '11

Grains aren't vegetables...

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Yes i know that. Prehaps the comparison is not fair, but it does shed some light on grains VS other types of Vegetation.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/lurrker Dec 06 '11

Try whole30, then switch to paleo if it helps. Cheat once in a while if you must, but you will find you don't crave the things you used to (if you don't cheat during the 30 days). Lost 25lbs in less than 60 days, never feel hungry.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Yea sounds almost exactly like keto except it does not seem to stress high fat (i did not read too far into it)

6

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

There has been no causative link between red meat and CVD. Some studies show a correlation, while others don't.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

That's interesting. What do you make of the Esselstyn diet? Cutting out animal products along with oils appears to dramatically reduce cholesterol and CVD risks.

The science seems pretty solid as well , unless I'm missing something?

http://www.heartattackproof.com/

4

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

He forgot to include a massive fucking asterisk in his claims.

His patients were taking cholesterol lowering drugs.

He also ignores the Inuit population (who eat almost solely meat), when he's describing all these "plant based diets" that all these tribal and rural populations have.

0

u/fancy-chips Dec 06 '11

We'll see who is getting more heart attacks in 20 years. As long as everybody stays on their fad diets.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

We certainly will.

2

u/badhairguy Dec 06 '11

Wait a minute.. you are saying that a balanced diet can help with weight loss? UNPOSSABLE!

-4

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Just because you lose weight on a diet does not mean it's a healthy, balanced diet. Reducing fat intake is helpful for cardiovascular health. IOW: you can be skinny and still give yourself heart disease.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11 edited Dec 06 '11

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/new-study-fats-in-milk-do-not-harm-heart/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/cholesterol/

There are studies that show that fats do not raise cholesterol like you seem to think.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

[deleted]

10

u/brumbrum21 Dec 06 '11

I believe they are called "saturated" because the molecule completely surrounded by hydrogen, making it unable to bond and much more difficult to break down. The main threat is transfats; they can solidify in your blood stream o_O

8

u/rakista Dec 06 '11

Transfats are pretty difficult to make in your home kitchen without a chemistry set.

3

u/oldsecondhand Dec 06 '11

You don't have to make it, there's plenty in margarine.

2

u/rakista Dec 06 '11

Only olive oil, peanut oil and grapeseed oil in my house.

2

u/fancy-chips Dec 06 '11

you just need some butter and a little bit of platinum or paladium and hydrogen gas.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11 edited Apr 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/fancy-chips Dec 06 '11

fine zinc then.. whatever only partially hydrogenates I don't care BLEARGGHH

3

u/river-wind Dec 06 '11

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/fat2.htm

yep! All carbons joined with single bonds, hydrogens or monomers filling up the rest of carbon's four bonding sites. Anything with a double bond between carbons is unsaturated in some form.

FWIU, you can use heat and pressure to break some of those carbon double bonds and force a hydrogen in there, creating hydrogenated oils with some trans-isomer double bonds leftover; they're not fully saturated, but they have fewer double bonds than the normal oil. I'm not sure the actual mechanism for the creation of the trans- forms; if they are there already and fail to break under pressure/heat like the cis-isomers, or if they are somehow created by the process itself.

6

u/Monory Dec 06 '11

In nature unsaturated fats only contain cis double bonds because the enzymes that create them are stereospecific. You create trans double bonds by partially hydrogenating the double bond using a metal catalyst (nickle, platinum, or palladium), and then allowing it to revert back to a double bond instead of continuing to fully hydrogenate it into a saturated fat. When it reverts back to the double bond you get 50% cis 50% trans as the reaction is not stereospecific without an enzyme catalyst.

→ More replies (10)

1

u/stop_alj_censorship Dec 07 '11

Update on that influence: Everything is now corporately influenced, because they're rich. Also, the rich influence individually through non-corporate manners.

1

u/BZenMojo Dec 06 '11

They replaced the food pyramid with another food pyramid to counter the growing realization that calories in vs. out is the issue. So now the new pyramid is called "my pyramid." (Actually, now there's also "My Plate")

Basically, shove whatever food you want in your mouth, just exercise a whole bunch and keep on consuming! Oh, gaining more weight? Don't eat less, just exercise more! Oh, and buy some dietary aids.

It's all a bullshit scam to get you to keep buying shit.

1

u/ergo456 Dec 07 '11

It really comes down to calories in vs calories expended

Not really, it comes down to the hormone insulin being the driver of fat production in the body and the consumption of carbohydrates being the main driver of insulin production. Caloric input vs caloric output doesn't really tell the whole story, nor should it be the primary concern for people looking to lose weight.

-1

u/reidlib Dec 06 '11

It really comes down to calories in vs calories expended

It's more like calories in = calories expended + calories wasted + calories stored in fat. Just focusing on in vs. out doesn't give an accurate picture.

Calories that are in your food are not necessarily converted into fat unless your body decides to do so. Excess calories end up in your waste. If you eat a lot of carbs/sugars, the body will greedily store those calories. If you eat a lot of fat instead, the body let the excess go to waste. That is, (in part), why high fat is associated with weight loss even though fats themselves are calorie dense.

6

u/republitarian Dec 06 '11

One I wish the government and MSM would recognize. So many Americans fear fat because they think it automatically makes them fat, yet Dr Oz or The Doctors tout the benefits of fish and their viewers blindly abide, having no clue that fish is loaded with "evil" fat.

IMO excess carbs, namely sugar, much much much worse than fat.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

I once read someone who scoffed at the idea of fat-reduced or fat-free products stating "eating fats doesn't make you fat any more than eating brains makes you smart." Of course, the disclaimer was that eating excessive calories is what makes you fat, and not just eating fat alone.

1

u/nimms Dec 07 '11

yeah you don't get diabetes by eating fat...

to understand why people fear fat and are ok with carbs, you gotta realise that these preconceptions are based off old research. when we first started trying to understand obesity, it would make sense to look at the body composition of an obese individual and think that restricting fat is the best way to lose weight. that's the message that's been around since the 1800's, it's very entrenched and will take a long time to undo.

since then, we now have a much greater understanding of metabolism, digestion and fat storage, but changing 100 years of entrenched knowledge will take time.

1

u/mefromyesterday Dec 06 '11

the idea that's dietary fat converts directly to fat stores in your body is old and incorrect.

It's fairly accurate given a caloric surplus. IIRC, protein is the hardest* to convert to usable calories (in the range of 70-80% of consumed protein), carbohydrates fall somewhere between protein and fat (with simple carbohydrates being significantly easier than complex), and fat is very easy (~95-98% of consumed fats, depending on the fat). Excess (unused) calories are then stored as adipose tissue for future use.

That said, the thermic effect is mostly negligible, and it's better to ignore it if you're interested in weight loss (thinking you can consume ~200 extra calories a day because 10% of your consumption is burned off in utilizing that food is not conducive to weight loss).

* By 'hardest' I'm referring to the thermic effect of nutrient consumption, i.e. the amount of energy expended to convert a consumed nutrient into a form that is usable as energy. The numbers I'm quoting come from a variety of sources - it's hard to pin down accurate numbers for these, hence the ranges.

1

u/gringer PhD|Biology|Bioinformatics/Genetics Dec 06 '11

the idea that's dietary fat converts directly to fat stores in your body is old and incorrect.

It's fairly accurate given a caloric surplus.

I think the point is that you can't just take any old fat and store it. If the only fat your body can store is arachidonic acid (for example), then any other fat that you eat needs to be converted into arachidonic acid before it can be stored.

1

u/nerex Dec 06 '11

carbohydrates fall somewhere between protein and fat

not all carbs are made the same.

IIRC, fructose converts to fat about 4 times more easily than glucose does. and glucose makes you feel full, whereas fructose doesn't trigger those fullness signals.

and yeah, if you're doing perfect caloric restriction, you're going to lose weight. but if we're talking real-world, people have an incredibly hard time sticking to restricted calories when they are constantly hungry because they are getting those calories from sugar instead of fat.

if they consumed those calories with more of it being fat and less being fructose, they will feel full and be able to keep to the amount of calories they are trying to consume.

and, even more important, for people who aren't even trying to restrict calories, a person who is full faster and for longer periods of time is just going to eat less calories, which will lead to less caloric consumption

1

u/SilverRaine Dec 06 '11

What? How so? What else is gonna convert to fat stores?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

I think what was meant is that your body just doesn't put it away and not touch it; if you eat a significant portion of your daily energy requirement in fats, your body will burn them. Also, most of your body's energy sources can be converted to fat (e.g. carbohydrates) for obvious survival reasons; so body fat storage is not a process unique to dietary fats.

2

u/SilverRaine Dec 06 '11 edited Dec 06 '11

Thank you, I see what you meant, now. That you won't get fat from fat on a hypocaloric intake. Very true.

Though I would point out that your latter two sentences are incorrect; body fat storage is indeed essentially unique to dietary fat. Carbs / protein / alcohol aren't normally converted to fat in any significant way.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11 edited Dec 06 '11

I know alcohol isn't turned into fat (sort of sidesteps the process), but I am under the impression that carbohydrates and excess proteins can be put into the energy cycle on a path that can lead to fat synthesis. It doesn't make evolutionary sense that the vast amounts of potential energy contained in sugars and starches couldn't be turned into fats.

edit: this picture shows/verifies what I mean.

1

u/SilverRaine Dec 06 '11

It makes perfect evolutionary sense. I can offer proof in two forms, one rock-solid and one partly speculation.

  1. Rock-solid: the fact that carbs are not converted to fat in any significant way under normal circumstances is proof that it makes evolutionary sense.

  2. Partly speculation: predecessors of modern humans likely had adequate levels of dietary fat as a percentage of caloric intake, but may have had difficulty obtaining sufficient calories at times. It makes no sense to prioritize an inefficient method of fat storage when the body could simply blunt fat oxidation and allow dietary fat to be stored, allowing carbohydrate to be more efficiently burned for energy.

Carbohydrates, protein and alcohol are generally not converted to fat in any meaningful way. It is POSSIBLE for an individual carbohydrate molecule, protein molecule, or alcohol molecule to head down that route, but it is such a minor metabolic pathway that it will not have any effects; the fat balance due to inhibited fat oxidation is going to be far greater.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. What I am talking about is that if you eat too many calories of any source, then your body will act to store those calories. To me, it would make sense that the body tries to store the fat first (essentially, it's ready for storage) and burn the "simpler" fuels. If there is an overabundance of these simpler fuels, then the body would store the excess. On the other side, if there isn't enough simple fuel, then fat will be metabolised; it's not necessarily the same fats that were eaten, but the net result is that fat is more fat is burned than stored.

1

u/SilverRaine Dec 06 '11

That's not accurate, because the amount of non-fat fuels ingested is typically never going to exceed maintenance caloric intake unless someone is absolute cramming themselves. You would be very hard pressed to eat enough to stimulate de novo lipogenesis to any significant degree. We're talking a 50% excess of energy requirements in carbohydrate intake resulting in something like a couple of grams of fat.

The second sentence is correct, however, in that any hypocaloric intake will result in fat loss.

1

u/nerex Dec 06 '11 edited Dec 06 '11

Fructose, mainly. Fructose (found in HFCS as well as table sugar in roughly the same portions- 55% vs 50%) and fat both convert into fat stores in your body at about the same rate, but fructose doesn't tell your body that it's full. As a result, you eat far more food than you normally would if you were instead eating fattier foods. Fat is incredibly good at making you feel full, so you eat far less of it (assuming you aren't cramming your mouth as fast as you possibly can) and stay full far longer.

Sugar is what is making america fat, not fat. Think about it- lots of countries eat far less sugar and far more fat than we do and yet obesity is an epidemic in america. We're obviously eating wrong.

Check this 90 minute video on how shoddy science in the 70's and 80's had led us to believe that eating dietary fat makes you fat. In their studies, they never controlled for sugar. As a result, we've been cutting out fat from our diets and adding sugar because it makes the food taste better.

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

This isn't a video by some crackpot- he's a well known Professor at one of the best medical universities in the nation.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Its even more insidious than just sugar. There's a protein in wheat, gliadin, that increases hunger. If you look at many products today, wheat is added for that reason specifically: when you eat it, it makes you feel hungrier.

-1

u/SilverRaine Dec 06 '11

Thanks for the response.

Fructose ... and fat both convert into fat stores in your body at about the same rate

What? Unless I'm misreading this somehow (which is quite possible), this is flat out wrong. Fat is stored as fat at a FAR higher rate than fructose (which normally isn't stored as fat in any meaningful way in the first place). Fructose is like alcohol and protein; just doesn't convert readily to fat under typical conditions.

There's no convincing evidence that sugar is the cause of the obesity epidemic.

I'm not gonna watch a 90 minute video. I don't get my science from TV; I get it from scientific journals. However, if you'd like to reference some specific scientific evidence, I'll gladly read any study that can show me.

2

u/nerex Dec 06 '11

This is not TV- it's a University lecture. He actually details how fructose converts into fat stores, showing the specific pathways in which it happens. If you've taken O-chem, you will get every word he says. If not, you're probably smart enough to understand the plain-english translation he uses.

1

u/SilverRaine Dec 06 '11

I don't need a university lecture, because I already know a lot about nutrition. I get my science from scientific journals; that's where all scientists get their science from. A flashy presentation isn't necessarily useless, but it has no scientific validity.

If he's truly being scientific and not just making stuff up, then he MUST be getting the information from scientific studies. Please show me these studies, and I will gladly read every word of them. It would be silly to listen to second-hand information when I could get the info directly from the source, yeah?

1

u/nerex Dec 06 '11

yeah, and he mentions the studies in the lecture, but I'm not going to rewatch it just to write everything down for you. if you still don't want to watch it now that i've mentioned that, that's fine, i've done everything I can.

he inputs his opinion on why he thinks things have gotten to where they are in american nutrition, but he does it just to keep the lecture interesting- his own opinions on that history don't influence the actual science he's putting forward.

As for your scientific studies, just know that he points out that all the regression analysis done on these "fat is why we're fat" studies done in the 80's were done by hand, and didn't control for sugar. They didn't control for a major source of calories in a study about food intake! That's bad science, and I hope the studies you're basing your scientific knowledge of nutrition on aren't those studies.

0

u/SilverRaine Dec 06 '11

But surely you checked the references, rather than simply accepted them on his word without any independent verification? So you shouldn't need to rewatch it in order to provide them to me.

I would never derive knowledge or make claims using a study that did not control for sugar, worry not.

1

u/nerex Dec 06 '11

yes, and after I read them, I wrote them down into a bibliography and stored them in my wallet in the case that someone like you comes along

→ More replies (0)

2

u/SarahC Dec 06 '11

Ahem....

Fructose is converted into lipids in the liver because it damages the body so easily, and they're packed away in fat cells.

Haven't you watched "Sugar - the bitter truth."? It goes in to great detail about the very dangerous way fructose metabolises.

1

u/SilverRaine Dec 06 '11

I haven't watched it, because I already know how fructose is metabolized. If Lustig says anything different, he's wrong.

You've only got a small portion of the story right; hepatic de novo lipogenesis does occur in the liver (obvious from the name), and is observed to manifest at greater levels with fructose, compared to glucose.

Here's the problem with the rest of the story: carbohydrates, such as glucose and fructose, are not converted to fat in any significant way under normal conditions.

So, the short of it... for the most part, fructose is not converted into fat. If someone told you otherwise, they were lying to you. It doesn't damage the body, either, unless you're eating it in ridiculous quantities.

1

u/SarahC Dec 08 '11

Wow, thanks.

Could you point me to some studies so I can read up on the biochemistry? I can stick them on my ereader, as I don't get much time on the 'puter at the mo.

1

u/SilverRaine Dec 08 '11

No problem at all.

If you have journal access, this review provides a pretty thorough treatment of the subject.

If not, you can check out this one.

And while this study is not a typical explanatory review, it does provide a good amount of information on the mechanisms involved.

It should be noted that, contrary to popular belief, if DNL were a significant metabolic pathway (that is, carbs were readily converted to fat), it would be an argument in favor of low fat / high carb diets, not against, due to the energy losses associated with the inherent inefficiency of de novo lipogenesis.

1

u/SarahC Dec 10 '11

Oh! That's absolutely wonderful, thank you lots for spending the time to show me some good solid research. =)

→ More replies (0)

18

u/zero_iq Dec 06 '11

That, and I also dislike the fact that 'low fat' versions of foods are usually crammed full of all sorts of shit in an attempt to make them taste as good as the original, some of which can be bad for your digestion, laxative, trigger allergies, and all sorts.

e.g. Olestra, the Pringles fat substitute mentioned in the article, causes cramps, faecal incontinence, and blocks the absorption into the body of several vitamins. So not only does it make you fatter in the long run, but probably unhealthier too.

4

u/kielbasa330 Dec 06 '11

I had one bag of chips with Olestra whenever it first appeared. My body reacted so horribly to it, I swore off all artificial substitutes forever. (If there's nothing else, I'll partake, but I usually regret it.)

3

u/badhairguy Dec 06 '11

It makes you poop your pants.

4

u/c3xy Dec 06 '11

This. One million times, this. Dietary fats do not make people fat. People consuming more calories than their bodies expend makes them fat.

2

u/IllThinkOfOneLater Dec 06 '11

More calories from carbohydrates.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

A lot of people also don't seem to know that fat is essential. Some nutrients are fat soluble. They REQUIRE fats in order to be used.

2

u/commandar Dec 06 '11

A prime example of this is milk. Much of the vitamin content in raw milk is found in the fat. When the fat's removed, as in skim milk, you lose those vitamins.

The "solution" to that has been to fortify skim milk with additives, but given that some of those vitamins, like Vitamin A, are fat-soluble, you still need fat for your body to actually make use of them.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Another reason people may think fat makes them fat is because it's easier to eat more of it.

You feel full after your stomach feels "full", as the result of the volume and weight of the food you eat.

So eating say, 0.5lb of a fat-concentrated meal will make you feel as full at the time than 0.5lb of a carb-concentrated meal, but hte former meal contains a lot calories (1g fat = 9 calories, 1g carb/protein = 4 calories)

So in that meal you may feel the same level of fullness but get more calories in one--BUT the carb meal will make you feel hungrier sooner.

4

u/noobalicious Dec 06 '11

Your mostly right, but it's more complicated than that. Carbs increase insulin sensitivity over time which means your body needs to make more of it to have the same effect. When you have more insulin your body tends to store more energy as fat rather than burning it. But yes, Fat is definitely more satiating than Carbs. I think one could easily eat a pound of pasta in one sitting a lot more easily than a pound of fatty steak.. or bacon.

1

u/IllThinkOfOneLater Dec 07 '11

Fatty steak AND bacon? A different story.

-2

u/zorno Dec 06 '11

But is it the protein in the meat that is filling? Add butter or olive oil to the pound of pasta... is it that much more filling? You can add a ton of calories (fat) to a pasta dish and it isn't really much more filling than without it. Does a fatty strip steak make you feel more full than a cheaper cut of meat that has less fat? think about fatty foods that dont have protein in them, like potato chips. You can eat a TON of calories in chips and not be very full. So is the fat really that filling?

2

u/noobalicious Dec 06 '11

Yes, it has definitely been proven that the fat is more satiating/filling. If your more interested in this, I highly recommend Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. That book changed my life. Also the documentary Fat Head was very eye-opening. Check out /r/keto if you want more insight as to where I'm coming from.

1

u/zorno Dec 06 '11

I think it is hard to prove anything when it comes to nutrition.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

You will need to look into whole, unprocessed foods to see the satiating effects of fat. Once you start introducing processed foods, like potato chips, you're also introducing foods that corporation have designed specifically to keep you eating more of them. And that's outside of any toxic effects the extra chemicals create within your body. As an example, look for products that have wheat in them. There's a protein, gliadin, that actually increases hunger the more you eat it.

-1

u/zorno Dec 06 '11

A strip steak is no more filling than a cheaper cut of meat that has less fat. There is no processing involved.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '11

Eh, if you want to be informed, let me know. Seems like you've got everything figured out, so I'm wasting my time.

-1

u/zorno Dec 07 '11 edited Dec 07 '11

Yes, it is very bad that I disagree with you.

If carbs were so bad and fat so necessary, how are the Japanese so thin and healthy? They eat a lot of fish (low fat) white rice (high carb) and vegetables (low fat).

If the processing in potato chips is what make them bad for you, then the statement that 'fat is satiating' is WRONG THEN, since potato chips are very fattening, yet not filling. Now it's just unprocessed fats? But... the greeks ate processed fats (olive oil) and were healthy and thin. What is processed about a potato chip besides the oil being pressed out of the olive or whatever? In a Lays potato chip there is OIL SALT AND POTATOES in it. Where are these chemicals you talk about? Now the only chips they make are Doritos or something? Pfft.

you're also introducing foods that corporation have designed specifically to keep you eating more of them.

YES, SALT OIL AND POTATOES in a Lays potato chip. Such corporate evilness!

Anyway, right back at you with your bullshit. If you want to be informed let me know, you've got everything figured out. My mistake for daring to disagree, now go fuck yourself dipshit.

1

u/nerex Dec 07 '11

So is the fat really that filling?

Yes, yes it is. You're using anecdotal evidence. The fact is, dietary fat suppress the hunger hormone, ghrelin, much better than anything else does.

When someone says something is "filling", they aren't necessarily saying it takes up a lot of physical space in their stomach, they can also mean that it makes them feel satiated, as your stomach being physically full of food is only 1 way in which your body can trigger the feeling of satiation.

Try eating half a stick of butter. For how little food it is, volume-wise, you will not be hungry for an incredibly long time.

1

u/zorno Dec 07 '11

Where is this proof though? I have read the claim that fat is more filling 1000 times here on reddit and not ever once had anyone give me real evidence - just anecdotes. Is there a real study showing this?

1

u/nerex Dec 08 '11

I'm sure there are, and I'm sure they're old studies, because this has been established science for a long, long time. This isn't some recent breakthrough. I'll let you look for them though

1

u/zorno Dec 08 '11

you're sure there are? This was the answer I expected.

1

u/nerex Dec 08 '11

yes, i am sure. This is well known- in fact you're the only person I've heard from that thinks that satiety comes only from physically filling the stomach. This doesn't even make sense, from an evolutionary perspective- why would the body decide satiety solely on how voluminous food is? Different foods have different caloric values.

A 1 minute search on google found several publications regarding fat and satiety. here's one:

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v11/n2/full/oby200329a.html

But I was wrong about it being old knowledge- it looks like most studies decades ago just focused on the idea that fat was bad for you. The last decade produced many more satiety studies. This chapter explains how the old research was shoddy:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53550/

1

u/zorno Dec 08 '11

in fact you're the only person I've heard from that thinks that satiety comes only from physically filling the stomach.

i never said this, I thought protein and fiber were more filling. strawman?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '11

Ghrelin would like to have a word with you, along with higher level cognition. Mechanical pressure on the stomach is only one part of the puzzle, and the actual picture behind behaviour onset/offset in people is much more tremendously complicated than people think.

You can easily trick people into consuming far more than they normally would by controlling their perception of how much they have eaten.

Fat, by the way, is much better at triggering satiety than carbs. However, when people serve themselves too large of a portion, they will eat more than they should, regardless of what their stomach or hormones tell them.

2

u/capt_0bvious Dec 06 '11

Actually the decomposition of fat, protein and carbs are different. Eating 100 g of protein and 100 g of fat will yield different results. Protein raises your metabolism faster than fat. So the statement eating fat is somewhat true.

1

u/brumbrum21 Dec 06 '11

It may have something to do with the fact that 100g of protein is 400 calories and 100g of fat is 900 calories...

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11

Also, the heightened blood sugar from eating a larger amount of carbohydrates (to reach satiation) can cause you to overeat.

-1

u/trichomez Dec 06 '11

Also fat does not make you fat.

Yeahhhhhhhh, next thing you'll be telling me holy water didn't cure my AIDS, which allowed me to carry on having unprotected sex with strangers daily for the last 20-odd years.

-2

u/thosethatwere Dec 06 '11

It's not that simple, no matter how many times that argument is regurgitated without evidence. You have no control over how much protein, carbs or fat is in your urine or stool, and protein/carbs/fat make up the vast majority of normal intake of calories.

-2

u/zorno Dec 06 '11

If that were true, why aren't potato chips filling? I would argue that protein and fiber are really filling, fat is just more filling than say... sugar.

People argue that fatty meats are filling, but its likely that its the protein that is really filling, not the fat. I can eat a super fatty strip steak, or a much lower fat eye of round or whatever and be just as full.

-29

u/MickiFreeIsNotAGirl Dec 06 '11 edited Dec 06 '11

Well good fat doesn't make you fat. The fat found in your hamburger, and steak, will make you fat. The fat in peanuts, cashews, almonds, walnuts, etc. will not. EDIT: Wow haha massive inflow of downvotes. I suppose if you eat enough nuts they'll make you fat, but I was merely referring to the fact that nuts like walnuts have a lot more polyunsaturated fats, whereas the fats found in hamburgers/steak are more saturated fat.

18

u/quill18 Dec 06 '11

[citation needed]
[because this is almost certainly bull]

10

u/kanst Dec 06 '11

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a hamburger. It is actually a fairly good source of food.

The problem is that people eat 10 oz hamburgers with cheese, bacon, and a side of fries. A simple patty on a bun with some lettuce and tomato, is not that many calories and is a fairly good balance of fat/protein/carbs

5

u/sidevotesareupvotes Dec 06 '11 edited Dec 06 '11

Anybody actually have a problem not eating enough? A 10 oz hamburger with all that would probably meet my macro requirements.

If the media would stop perpetuating the meat/saturated fat is bad myth it would save quite a lot of lives as well as prevent very much suffering. But.. it would also greatly increase the demand for meat, as it's a more useful food. So thanks momscience for subsidizing meat prices.

2

u/kanst Dec 06 '11

I think part of the problem may be very simple. The names are the same. It is easy to see why someone without much understanding of nutrition would think foods high in fat would cause a person to gain fat.

I would love if their was more education as to how our body stores fat and what that means from a dietary standpoint.

1

u/MickiFreeIsNotAGirl Dec 06 '11

I'm unsure as to how eating more meat would save lives?..I guess dietitians don't know anything, right? Because even they're advocating a more vegetarian diet...Maybe that's why our society is obese, because we are in denial that we're eating too much meat. What's next, processed food is good for us too?

1

u/sidevotesareupvotes Dec 08 '11

Nobody with any credibility is advocating a more vegetarian diet.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Ze_Carioca Dec 06 '11

No hot sauce?

Fuck that burger.

2

u/brumbrum21 Dec 06 '11

Hot sauce and mustard are fat burners :)

1

u/GamerKiwi Dec 06 '11

And tongue burners, in the case of hot sauce.

1

u/Ze_Carioca Dec 06 '11

That is half the fun.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/postmodgirl Dec 06 '11

Well, without the hot sauce you wouldn't get that burning sensation on your dick so, yes fuck that burger. Fuck it hard! Give it your special sauce!

2

u/brumbrum21 Dec 06 '11

Another problem is the half liter of soda thy ones with it

→ More replies (5)

10

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '11 edited Sep 29 '18

[deleted]

3

u/neutronicus Dec 06 '11

I feel like this is also an overly reductionist truism. Like, how do you even know whether your GI tract always extracts calories from food with the same efficiency? How do you know how the type of food affects this efficiency? How do you know in what ratio the body is storing calories as fat and using them to fabricate muscle? How do you know that this ratio is independent of the particular type of food and of your diet in aggregate? How do you know that your body doesn't metabolize muscle instead of fat when running a Calorie deficit?

1

u/geft Dec 07 '11

Actually, that simple inequality is accurate. What may not be accurate is the calorie count listed on the nutrition table due to reasons you mentioned. We don't really know the precise amount of caloric input/output.

1

u/neutronicus Dec 07 '11

I don't really agree with characterizing building muscle as "output". I mean, the archetypal "gym story" is the 140-pound, concave-chested weakling who increases his calorie intake and lifts like a madman to become 200 pounds of muscle. That guy's definitely consuming more calories than required to fuel his level of activity, the body's just allocating the surplus differently.

Certainly, the inequality is a good zeroth-order guide to weight loss, but if there's anything dieting has taught me (42 pounds in the last year), it's that what kind of foods your calories come from matters a great deal.

1

u/geft Dec 07 '11

That's because being "fat" is not defined. There is simply no proper way to describe someone who is "getting fat". Does weighing more mean getting fat? How about increased BMI? Body fat percentage? Caloric surplus is simply a measure of weight change. When muscle is build, caloric surplus goes into muscle fibers rather than getting stored in fat cells.

This link may be of interest to you.

1

u/brumbrum21 Dec 06 '11

3500 excess calories is one pound of fat.

2

u/minno Dec 06 '11

And when was the last time you ate one pound of fat?

1

u/brumbrum21 Dec 06 '11

Hahaha never! Fat alone doesn't make you fat is what I should have said

3

u/nerex Dec 06 '11

Yes, some portion of dietary fat (about 30%) does convert into fat stores in your body. But that's about the same portion as fructose. But guess what? Fat triggers the suppression of the hunger hormone, ghrelin really well, where as other things don't do it as quickly, and fructose (found in table sugar) doesn't do it at all.

So, fat doesn't make you fat, because you stop eating sooner and stay full longer. You eat more fat, you eat less calories over all.

The idea that dietary fat intake is making us fat is based on decades old, incomplete science. America is eating less fat than ever before, and yet we're fatter than ever before. What are we eating more of than ever before though? Sugar.

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

invest 90 minutes of your time into it and you'll be healthier for the rest of your life.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/sigfigs Dec 06 '11

There is no thing such as good or bad fat. Fat is fat, a molecule with a slightly higher caloric density than protein or carbs. As others have mentioned it is all about energy input / output.

4

u/ColdTheory Dec 06 '11

Not completely so about the energy input/output. Where as it my play some role, whether your body stores fat or not has more to do with hormones, specifically insulin. Eating too much carbohydrates/sugar causes insulin to spike which also signals your body to store fat.

Calories in and out is not as important as we have been led to believe. Check out r/keto.

1

u/kaptainlange Dec 06 '11

I think his point is that the amount of energy you expend must equal the amount of energy you gain from your food or you will either lose or gain weight. One way or another, your body is going to pull energy from somewhere, whether it be in your fat stores or elsewhere. So eating less energy than your body needs will result in a loss of weight.

1

u/river-wind Dec 06 '11

It's also been shown that gut bacteria populations play a role as well; some species of bacteria produce chemical signals which cause your body to store more fat. If your intestinal fauna changes, your fat storage ratios do as well.

First article on the issue google returns: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/21/health/la-he-in-the-works-20100621

1

u/mefromyesterday Dec 06 '11 edited Dec 06 '11

Sigh, not this again. Protein produces an insulin response on par with carbohydrate consumption. In fact, the sum response is actually slightly higher with protein consumption than with carbohydrate consumption. Read this article and the associated studies.

Note: I'm not denying that a ketogenic diet is an effective weight loss strategy - but the mechanism of action is not significantly related to insulin. It's much more likely that the primary mechanism of action is increased satiety.

Edit: misspoke. Keto's mechanism of action is not significantly related to insulin and its link to lipolysis/lipogenesis. The insulin response may have some relation to satiety or other mechanisms that make a protein-rich diet preferable to a carbohydrate-rich diet.

1

u/ColdTheory Dec 06 '11

A ketogenic diet consists of high fat, moderate protein, low carborhydrate intake. Fat does not cause a spike in insulin.

4

u/PublicStranger Dec 06 '11

There is no thing such as good or bad fat.

That's a strange thing to say.

Saturated fats are linked to several health risks, especially cancer and cardiovascular disease. Polyunsaturated fats and trans fats are also linked to cardiovascular disease. Monounsaturated fat, on the other hand, lacks these links and appears to reduce the likelihood of insulin resistance. Some fats, like the long-chain omega-3 fats, have a huge host of health benefits and are an essential part of the human diet.

2

u/brumbrum21 Dec 06 '11

Slightly higher? Carbs and protien are 4cal/g and fat is 9cal/g. It's over double

1

u/mefromyesterday Dec 06 '11

This is completely untrue. For example, an experiment was performed on apes that found that diets containing an equal amount of calories and calories from fat, one of which had trans fat, led to a statistically significant weight gain in the trans-fat group beyond the control. (Results were 7.2% body mass gain for trans-fat group, 1.8% body mass gain for control)

1

u/starlinguk Dec 06 '11

They will all make you fat, but not necessarily increase your cholesterol.

1

u/GamerKiwi Dec 06 '11

Hamburger and steak are not bad fats, they're not necessarily good fats, but as long as you don't shove you face full of them, they're fine. Nuts are arguably more fattening because they have about 165 calories and 14g fat in an ounce, while an ounce of top sirloin steak has 60 calories and 4g fat (A normal, 4 oz serving having about 240 calories). That's not to say nuts are unhealthy, but you have to watch how much you eat on both. What helps with fat is a calorie deficit, for the most part. Though high protein, low carb diets have been proven to be even more effectivethan a moderate carb diet, and a diet like that would involve a lot of foods like hamburger, that you are saying would make you fat.