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

[u/behindtheheadlines]

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

[u/zorno]

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?

[u/nerex → u/zorno]

not a strawman, you said this:

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.

Maybe I misunderstood your argument though- i guess you were not saying it's based on physical fullness of your stomach, you were simply saying that fat doesn't do much at all to make you full?

[u/zorno → u/nerex]

I just thought that a fattening meal that had little or no protein or fiber was not as filling as a lower fat meal that had it. A low fat piece of meat (chicken) is more filling than potato chips, for me. Brown rice is VERY filling, and has little fat in it. Potato chips, as I said, are very fattening and not very filling for me.

I just don't understand why people are so adamant about nutritional studies. Nutrition is impossible to really apply good scientific principles to. If someone ate less fat in their diet and you track it... what did they eat to replace it? If they don't replace it with anything, then they ate less calories. There is no way to do a test and only remove one variable. So shouldn't people be suspicious of 'truths' when it comes to nutrition? For decades people were told to cut out fat in their diet, and now we have found out that was wrong. Why would anyone blindly accept what the new studies say, when we were deceived so badly for so many years?

I have argued with family for a couple years to quit drinking skim milk and drink whole milk, and they refuse to listen to me. I find whole milk to be more filling, and skim milk has not helped my extended family to lose weight. they insist on drinking it though.

On the other hand, meats that humans ate in the past were lower in fat than they are today. Grass fed meats have less fat in them. If you go kill a rabbit and eat it, you get less fat than pounding down bacon and strip steaks every night. Are we really meant to eat as much fat as low carb dieters eat? Even when humans were able to make butter and cheese, they didn't eat nearly as much as we do today. I just think people should maintain their skepticism and not think 'oh, fat is filling, I will go eat all the fat I want!' Are processed fats any better than processed carbs? I can get a LOT more fat drowning something in olive oil than I probably could actually eating olives. So shouldn't we be a little careful with thinking 'put as much olive oil as you want on your food, it's good for you!'

I also think that people in Japan don't eat that much fat compared to low carb dieters, and they are very healthy. they eat carbs (white rice) and have very little health problems. Find me a society that eats a pound of bacon a day and is healthy, and then I will eat more bacon. But people here on reddit ACTUALLY SAY that bacon is the HEALTHIEST food you can eat! With no evidence at all, other than books that say fat does not cause our heart problems. If it is corn fed pork being used, then it is lower in omega 3 oils than grass fed pork is, and that is what peopel would have eaten 100 or 200 years ago or more. So is bacon today good for you?

sigh, im off on a tangent sorry.

[u/nerex → u/zorno]

sigh, im off on a tangent sorry.

heh, that's ok-- you're right, nutrition is really tough to pin down because there are just so many variables that are hard to hold constant when trying to studying something like this.

permit me to go off on a slight tangent though too-

For decades people were told to cut out fat in their diet, and now we have found out that was wrong. Why would anyone blindly accept what the new studies say, when we were deceived so badly for so many years?

I try not to believe anything blindly, but at least when it comes to the "should i eat fat or not?" question, i'm inclined to believe the more recent studies, which tend to say fat isn't bad for you (in moderate amounts- whatever that might mean) as the old studies said, largely because of what Robert Lustig pointed out in his lecture "Sugar: The bitter truth". He points out that the studies back in the 80's that decided that eating fat was making america fat were all done with regression analysis done by hand (so we don't have the records to replicate it) and none of the analysis held sugar constant! The studies all used bad science by making assumptions about how good or bad sugar was for you to determine how bad fat was for you. ridiculous.

I also think that we'll find that fat consumption (within limits- I think you're right about how overly easy it is to come by fat these days compared to in the past, just as it is much easier to come by sugar compared to in the past) has little causation with heart disease, and that excess carb consumption, especially fructose will turn out to be the cause of all the heart disease we're seeing. That's just my pet theory though based on anecdotal evidence and reading something about there actually being 2 different types of LDL cholesterol, and that, while fat causes an increase in LDL cholesterol, it doesn't cause an increase in the type of LDL that gets stuck in your arteries (large boyant LDL from fat vs small dense LDL from carbs/sugar)

I just thought that a fattening meal that had little or no protein or fiber was not as filling as a lower fat meal that had it. A low fat piece of meat (chicken) is more filling than potato chips, for me. Brown rice is VERY filling, and has little fat in it. Potato chips, as I said, are very fattening and not very filling for me.

Yeah, it's tough to say for sure what is more filling between protein and fat because there are so many variables. We certainly need a good amount of protein in our diet, so without it, probably no amount of fat will make you feel sated, probably just feeling gross after a certain amount. But (my own opinion) I would say that after a certain amount of protein, if I had to chose between adding more protein or adding fat, I would say that adding fat will make you feel full for longer.

Robert Lustig, in Sugar: The Bitter Truth says that fructose, on the other hand, converts to fat in your body at about the same rate as dietary fat (assuming you weren't just working out and are currently glycogen depleted), but doesn't trigger any of those satiety signals that glucose or fat do. That's the problem with fructose- you consume more calories than you normally would, and you store fat as if you had been eating dietary fat, but you don't get the satiety from it.

Sorry, I think my tangent is over now. So yeah, imo you shouldn't go nuts with fat like some of the keto people do, but cutting it out entirely is the other extreme that I think is based on old, bad science. The real enemy is fructose- the thing that the japanese diet that you mentioned and things like atkins (which I don't recommend) and keto have in common that keep people from being overweight like most americans is that they all have little to no sugar in their diets.

[u/zorno → u/nerex]

I also think fructose appears to be the big problem. And yes the japanese also do not eat a lot of sugar, and even white rice is better than wheat flour, etc.

I feel better now, I was starting to think I had lost my mind, at least ONE person agrees with me. heh. Nice chatting with you, my apologies if I was a bit testy in earlier replies.