The war on fat

[slkinsey]

Missing my point.  If one can metabolise more calories it takes in from consumption, fat will be burnt as energy.  One will lose weight not matter what one eats, as long as more calories are burnt as eaten.  If your body can't keep up with its demand of sugars/flours as energy, it will resort to its fat reserves as energy as well as oppositely store excess calories as fat.

Dave, have you read this entire thread? We have been over this ground before. Extensively.

To compare metamucil (fibre) to veggies and fruits and beans and grains is lame and plain stupid.  I said fiber, not drugs.  Get past this corporate, USA'ite mentality. 

My use of metmucil was to make an example was in response to KNorthrup's post of July 9 2003, 11:05 AM to the effect that he had been told by friends that "gram-for-gram, fat is more filling than fiber, so you'll lose more weight filling up on fat than filling up on fiber." Since metamucil (stand-in for pure fiber) is obviously more filling than olive oil (more or less pure fat) on a gram-for-gram basis -- as my example showed -- I think we can conclude that KNorthrup's friends were not correct.

You can eat whatever and as much as you like as long as your body metabolises it.

No, I think just about any medical person would not agree with this. If you take in just the right number of calories every day mostly in fully saturated fats and trans fats, there are certain health problems you are likely to have that you are less likely to have if you take in the same number of calories in mostly protein, carbohydrates and monounsaturated fats.

[KNorthrup]

From the front page of the morning paper : The state (Oregon) received a $2.2 million grant from the feds to combat obesity via education, psa's, etc. Apparently we're the worst in the West. The legislature turned it down on the basis of it being a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Elissa]

Here a good Slate piece by Ed Finn about trans vs. saturated fats.

One thing that helps keep LDL in check is the "good cholesterol" indicator, high-density lipoprotein, which carries cholesterol back to the liver. This is where saturated fat starts looking better: It increases cholesterol indicators across the board, so HDL levels rise as well. Trans fat, however, raises LDL while reducing HDL levels, and this dangerous double whammy has set nutritionists on alert

[Stone]

there's a blurb on CNN this morning in which a doctor briefly explains that because proteins are a less efficient food than carbs, the body has to burn more calories metabolizing a gram of protein than a gram of carbs. He suggests that if you are tryng to lose weight, you'd get a better result by eating a higher percentage of proteins. (He did not discuss or endorse an "Atkins" diet.) It cited studies in journals showing that people who consume the same amount of calories lost weight if they consumed more calories in the form of protein, than carbs. It also suggested, however, than some benefits from an Atkins diet comes simply because by cutting out carbs, most people take in less calories. (I.e, they don't substitute the bun, fries or side of pasta with other food.)

Edited August 12, 2004 by Stone (log)