Are low fat diets dead?

I recently heard some proactive defenses of the low fat diet.

These pretty much boiled down to:

1. Studies "debunking" low fat diets did not look at truly low fat
diets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low fat diets are diets where 10% or fewer calories are from fat.
Participants were not sufficiently monitored to ensure compliance.


2. Most Americans never went on low fat diets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. # 1 from the previous paragraph.

2. People just added low fat foods to their diets without taking
other foods out. I heard this at a conference from Jeff Novick, head
of the Pritikin centers. He had many graphs from research he did ( I
don't have citations ) showing that during the low fat craze people
just added more food ( low fat) to their usual diets. Interestingly,
he said people did something similar in the hey day of low carb diets.
They just ate more.


3. Not all low fat diets are equal
-----------------------------------------------------

1. Low fat diets should have been composed of high bulk ( naturally
high in water and fiber together ) unprocessed foods. This would
have kept calorie counts down and taken advantage of it being very
difficult for a human body to convert excess carbohydrate calories
into fat.

These arguments piqued my interest and I decided to google around on
"low fat".

Almost every hit was some anecdotal account or pop journalist
interpretation of studies that show that "low fat diet do not work".

I only found one site that explained low fat diets ( fatfree.com ).

I am wondering if this is just due to the low fat diet going out of
fashion before the web became really big and/or the low fat dieters
out there are simply not putting up low fat diet sites?

Your opinion?

On Aug 15, 11:12 am, Steve <veganstir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These arguments piqued my interest and I decided to google around on
> "low fat".
>
> Almost every hit was some anecdotal account or pop journalist
> interpretation of studies that show that "low fat diet do not work".
>
> I only found one site that explained low fat diets ( fatfree.com ).

What's there to explain, really?

> I am wondering if this is just due to the low fat diet going out of
> fashion

If you want to leave to fashion something as important as your health,
that's your choice.

But is it really out of fashion? Where I live (Vancouver, Canada) the
supermarket scene offers lots of fat reduced or fat-free products. You
can find a low-fat version of everything, and often in two or three
competing choices for each thing. These products are there because
people are buying them. Retailers, and in particular retailers of
perishable goods, generally do not stock that which doesn't move.

> before the web became really big and/or the low fat dieters
> out there are simply not putting up low fat diet sites?

Also note, for instance, how there is next to zero traffic in
alt.support.diet.low-fat, not counting spam. This isn't because low-
fat eating is unpopular, but because it's a complete ``no brainer'',
and easy to do, not requiring support. When you eat lower-fat versions
of the same food, your body simply does not miss the fat, and so you
do not feel deprived.

> Your opinion?

Well, just look at what the institutions are recommending, such as the
American College of Sports Medicine, or the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. They have not changed their long-standing recommendations
to limit fat in the diet. Try to find a single university textbook on
exercise physiology or nutrition which recommends anything other than
a high carbohydrate, decent protein and low fat diet.

``Gurus'' who recommend low-fat eating:

Dr. Michael Colgan: http://www.colganinstitute.com

Clarence Bass: http://cbass.com

Tom Venuto: http://www.fitren.com

As an Atkins kind of guy, I wish low fat were dead. From my perspective, as
low carb loses more and more popularity, low fat seems to be the rekindled
fad. My mom loves to buy low fat products filled with trans fats.

Calories are the true key to weightloss. Behavioral change may involve
various eating strategies. If low fat works for you, I figure your body
just creates whatever fat it needs itself.

Personally, this week Fitday shows that I averaged 73% fat by calories.

Cubit
190/157.5/160

"Steve" <veganstirfry@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187201560.007872.180870@a39g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
>I recently heard some proactive defenses of the low fat diet.
>
> These pretty much boiled down to:
>
> 1. Studies "debunking" low fat diets did not look at truly low fat
> diets.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Low fat diets are diets where 10% or fewer calories are from fat.
> Participants were not sufficiently monitored to ensure compliance.
>
>
> 2. Most Americans never went on low fat diets
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. # 1 from the previous paragraph.
>
> 2. People just added low fat foods to their diets without taking
> other foods out. I heard this at a conference from Jeff Novick, head
> of the Pritikin centers. He had many graphs from research he did ( I
> don't have citations ) showing that during the low fat craze people
> just added more food ( low fat) to their usual diets. Interestingly,
> he said people did something similar in the hey day of low carb diets.
> They just ate more.
>
>
> 3. Not all low fat diets are equal
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Low fat diets should have been composed of high bulk ( naturally
> high in water and fiber together ) unprocessed foods. This would
> have kept calorie counts down and taken advantage of it being very
> difficult for a human body to convert excess carbohydrate calories
> into fat.
>
> These arguments piqued my interest and I decided to google around on
> "low fat".
>
> Almost every hit was some anecdotal account or pop journalist
> interpretation of studies that show that "low fat diet do not work".
>
> I only found one site that explained low fat diets ( fatfree.com ).
>
> I am wondering if this is just due to the low fat diet going out of
> fashion before the web became really big and/or the low fat dieters
> out there are simply not putting up low fat diet sites?
>
> Your opinion?
>

On Aug 15, 11:12 am, Steve <veganstir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I recently heard some proactive defenses of the low fat diet.
>
> These pretty much boiled down to:
>
> 1. Studies "debunking" low fat diets did not look at truly low fat
> diets.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*---------------------------
> Low fat diets are diets where 10% or fewer calories are from fat.
> Participants were not sufficiently monitored to ensure compliance.
>
> 2. Most Americans never went on low fat diets
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. # 1 from the previous paragraph.
>
> 2. People just added low fat foods to their diets without taking
> other foods out. I heard this at a conference from Jeff Novick, head
> of the Pritikin centers. He had many graphs from research he did ( I
> don't have citations ) showing that during the low fat craze people
> just added more food ( low fat) to their usual diets. Interestingly,
> he said people did something similar in the hey day of low carb diets.
> They just ate more.
>
> 3. Not all low fat diets are equal
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Low fat diets should have been composed of high bulk ( naturally
> high in water and fiber together ) unprocessed foods. This would
> have kept calorie counts down and taken advantage of it being very
> difficult for a human body to convert excess carbohydrate calories
> into fat.
>
> These arguments piqued my interest and I decided to google around on
> "low fat".
>
> Almost every hit was some anecdotal account or pop journalist
> interpretation of studies that show that "low fat diet do not work".
>
> I only found one site that explained low fat diets ( fatfree.com ).
>
> I am wondering if this is just due to the low fat diet going out of
> fashion before the web became really big and/or the low fat dieters
> out there are simply not putting up low fat diet sites?
>
> Your opinion?

I've been eating a very low-fat diet now for over 3 years. I lost a
lot of weight and am able to eat much more food (by weight, not
calories) since fat has 9 cal per gram of weight and carbs and protein
each have 4 cal/g. If the name of the game is to try and eat as much
food as possible (hey that IS my game), then this makes sense. I also
lost 95 pounds going from 230 to 135. I also eat fewer calories and
work out, but as you know it's the calories you eat that are the main
culprit. In other words, if you are grossly overweight, you need to
eat fewer calories. Exercise alone might eventually allow you to lose
the weight, but it would take several years if all you did was
increase your exercise level. My BP is 110/55 and my heart rate is
48....pretty good for an old codger not on any meds except one low-
dose aspirin a day. I'm also vegetarian (for 3 years) and have a very
high carb intake....cereals and breads are my mainstay...and of course
fruits and vegetables, but not very much fruit. I eat a ton of
lettuce, cucumbers, celery, radishes and cauliflower though. I eat
just barely adequate protein...about 55 grams, but that supports a
pretty good muscle mass. For me, this diet is convenient and easy to
follow. Plus it includes the food I LOVE, so I won't change it, nor do
I need to. Does low fat work. It sure did for me...along with calorie
control and increased exercise. My basic health stats indicate I am
healthier, but who knows. I'm also not saying Atkins is less healthy,
but I think it is. dkw

Steve <veganstir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Almost every hit was some anecdotal account or pop journalist
> interpretation of studies that show that "low fat diet do not work".

Low fat diets work for some people, not for others. Try a
low fat plan and see if you're constantly hungry and make
sure to follow any of its non-obvious advice (that is likely
to keep hunger from appearing).

> I am wondering if this is just due to the low fat diet going out of
> fashion before the web became really big and/or the low fat dieters
> out there are simply not putting up low fat diet sites?

Low fat has been a "fad" since the 1970s.

> Your opinion?

The idea that low fat is the one and only valid diet type is
a major evil perpetrated by so-called nutritionists. For the
people low fat works on, it's valid. For the ones it doesn't,
some other plan type is the way to go.

Competitions between low carb and low fat tend to have
low carb show 5% better results after 6 months, the same
results after a year. Not a big difference across a population,
a giant difference from person to person.

I tried in vein to do low fat for 20 years and gained 50 pounds
during that time. It isn't for me. But I know some folks who
do fine on it so I'm not going to say that since it fails for me
therefore it must fail for everyone. There is strength in
diversity.

"Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote

> Also note, for instance, how there is next to zero traffic in
> alt.support.diet.low-fat, not counting spam. This isn't because low-
> fat eating is unpopular, but because it's a complete ``no brainer'',
> and easy to do, not requiring support. When you eat lower-fat versions
> of the same food, your body simply does not miss the fat, and so you
> do not feel deprived.
>

You seem to be stating that cutting fat our of your diet is a no-brainer way
to lose weight and not feel deprived. Surely you jest.

Every diet, for many people, requires some sort of support structure. If you
cut calories by eating less fat, yes, you do feel deprived. Without a real
plan being followed, nobody will lose weight on any sort of diet, period.

Stuffing a pound of low-fat snacks down one's face is the same as stuffing a
half-pound of high-fat snacks into the same place. Anybody who thinks or
believes differently, more power to you! See you at the scales.

"Cubit" <no@not.not> wrote

>
> Calories are the true key to weightloss. Behavioral change may involve
> various eating strategies. If low fat works for you, I figure your body
> just creates whatever fat it needs itself.
>

Hmmmmm...... How about: Behavioral change is the true key to weight loss.
Cutting calories may involve various eating strategies...

> Cubit
> 190/157.5/160

Impressive! Good work.

"em" <i...@dun.no> wrote:
> "Kaz Kylheku" <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Also note, for instance, how there is next to zero traffic in
> > alt.support.diet.low-fat, not counting spam. This isn't because low-
> > fat eating is unpopular, but because it's a complete ``no brainer'',
> > and easy to do, not requiring support. When you eat lower-fat versions
> > of the same food, your body simply does not miss the fat, and so you
> > do not feel deprived.
>
> You seem to be stating that cutting fat our of your diet is a no-brainer way
> to lose weight and not feel deprived. Surely you jest.

There is a percentage of the population who do not feel cravings
from reduced fat diet. For these people it is true - Teach them
how to count fat grams and what their daily limit will be and
they will be able to succeed.

But Kaz's assumption that everyone knows how to count fat
content is false. Far too many folks have no clue whatsoever
what is in any food. Watch for newbies asking what carb or
fat grams or calories are. For some people the ingredients of
recipes seem to be - the can, the contents of the can. Even if
you were one of those people who can go low fat without hunger,
it isn't a no brainer until you've learned to count fat grams.

> Every diet, for many people, requires some sort of support structure.

That's correct. For many or most, but not for all. Oh to be one
of those few lucky ones for whom it's that easy to go low fat.
But in a way I am lucky - I am one of those who find low carb does
not trigger hunger.

> If you
> cut calories by eating less fat, yes, you do feel deprived. Without a real
> plan being followed, nobody will lose weight on any sort of diet, period.

Notice how you made some logical jumps? What's true for you must
be true for all? It isn't true for all:

If *I* cut calories by eating less fat, *I* do feel deprived. Without
a real
plan being followed, *I* will not lose weight on a *low fat diet*,
period.
In fact I gained 50 pounds while trying to go low fat for 20 years.

If *I* cut calories by eating less carbs, *I* do not feel deprived.
Without
a real plan, I still don't know how many carbs to cut ...

Neither of those apply to everyone.

> Stuffing a pound of low-fat snacks down one's face is the same as stuffing a
> half-pound of high-fat snacks into the same place.

Many "low fat" products have the same sort of downfall that many
"low carb" products had. So what that a box of rock candy is "zero
fat"? Junk is junk. All too many low fat products get that way by
substituting extra carbs for the fat with no calorie difference.

Ah, but if you lock the subjects in a cage and measure out their calories...

"em" <i@dun.no> wrote in message news:B21xi.94453$6K3.66698@newsfe10.phx...
>
> "Cubit" <no@not.not> wrote
>
>>
>> Calories are the true key to weightloss. Behavioral change may involve
>> various eating strategies. If low fat works for you, I figure your body
>> just creates whatever fat it needs itself.
>>
>
> Hmmmmm...... How about: Behavioral change is the true key to weight loss.
> Cutting calories may involve various eating strategies...
>
>> Cubit
>> 190/157.5/160
>
> Impressive! Good work.

"Steve" <veganstirfry@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187201560.007872.180870@a39g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
>I recently heard some proactive defenses of the low fat diet.

Certain fats are not only good for you, but essential for best health. I
eat plenty of fat, from sources like nuts, peanut butter, flax, olive oi,
and avocados. Fat helps me feel full longer. I don't believe in any diet
that is so strict it is difficult to follow, or excludes certain things,
because I don't believe it's sustainable or realistic. I believe in
balance. Mostly good, a little splurge here and there.

"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote

> Notice how you made some logical jumps?

Well, that's the magic of usenet :-]

"determined" <determined@comcast.nest> wrote in message
news:g72dnYZj9fYwUlnbnZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Steve" <veganstirfry@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1187201560.007872.180870@a39g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
>>I recently heard some proactive defenses of the low fat diet.
>
> Certain fats are not only good for you, but essential for best health. I
> eat plenty of fat, from sources like nuts, peanut butter, flax, olive oi,
> and avocados. Fat helps me feel full longer. I don't believe in any diet
> that is so strict it is difficult to follow, or excludes certain things,
> because I don't believe it's sustainable or realistic. I believe in
> balance. Mostly good, a little splurge here and there.
>

I've been thinking about this & have been getting curious. Is a lf diet
similar to a lc diet, in that you count grams of fat & that's pretty much
it? In other words, is a low-fat diet a "don't count calories" diet?

"em" <i...@dun.no> wrote:
> "determined" <determi...@comcast.nest> wrote:
>
> > Certain fats are not only good for you, but essential for best health.

Since the human body makes glucose from both fat and protein,
dietary carb is not essential. There exist Inuits who still live the
traditional hunting lifestyle on the ice and they go months eating
closer to true zero carbs than anyone in America or Europe is
ever likely to. And they don't drop dead from lack of carbs. On
the other hand the nasty stuff they need to eat to stay healthy
is extreme in its own right.

Carbs may not be essential, but the metabolism does better with
some. Eat too low too long and T3 levels start to drop once you
no longer have at least some threshold of stored fat. Leptin
hormone levels also fall. So there's no harm in viewing maybe
20-50 grams daily as essential even though they technically aren't.

> > I
> > eat plenty of fat, from sources like nuts, peanut butter, flax, olive oi,
> > and avocados. Fat helps me feel full longer.

That's a big advantage to low-carb, high-fat diets for me.
Low carb keeps the cravings away, high fat keeps the
hunger from coming back longer. Portion control is easier
for me.

> > I don't believe in any diet
> > that is so strict it is difficult to follow, or excludes certain things,
> > because I don't believe it's sustainable or realistic. I believe in
> > balance. Mostly good, a little splurge here and there.

I have no idea what balance actually is in diet, but what
many view as unbalanced work fine for many. Low carb and
low fat.

> I've been thinking about this & have been getting curious. Is a lf diet
> similar to a lc diet, in that you count grams of fat & that's pretty much
> it? In other words, is a low-fat diet a "don't count calories" diet?

All diets that work stress portion control and that includes low
carb. With Atkins there's a short period where you're supposed
to eat what it takes to get through the carb cravings of the first
couple of days but the day the cravings are gone so is that
permission.

So are there low fat plans that only have you count fat grams
and figure as long as you're following their other food guidelines
counting fat grams will ensure the rest of your portions are okay?
Probably. Don't confuse that with permission to overeat just
because you haven't gone over your fat grams for the day. That
package of hard candy may be "0 grams of fat!" but it's still junk
not on your plan.

The basic concepts of low carb and low fat aren't that different -
They are what many would call unbalanced and in their unbalance
they push the body into burnings its fuel inefficiently. Combine
that with when you follow their allowed foods you tend to no be
hungry for other foods. Except that neither method works for
everyone.

On Aug 17, 2:52 pm, "em" <i...@dun.no> wrote:
> I've been thinking about this & have been getting curious. Is a lf diet
> similar to a lc diet, in that you count grams of fat & that's pretty much
> it? In other words, is a low-fat diet a "don't count calories" diet?

In general, no. Low-fat nutrition plans don't have this attribute.
That is to say, merely reducing the fat content in a nutrition plan
doesn't magically turn it into one in which the calories are reduced
to below maintenance without some kind of external restriction being
imposed.

There are ways to avoid counting calories on a low-fat eating plan:

- glycemic control to level out blood sugar:
- more frequent, smaller meals
- high GI carbs
- carbs eaten in combination with of foods that effectively raise
the GI
- fine-tuning for carb sensitivity: reducing carb calories, bumping
up protein.

- volumetrics:
- goal is to become full on bulky foods without eating lots of
calories.
- emphasizing foods which are not dense in calories, e.g. less than
1 kcal/g.
- don't forget fibre

- consistency:
- by eating the same kind of food consistently, week in week out,
you learn how much
you need without counting anything.
- think: millions of thin people in the world, who eat staple diet,
do
not know what a calorie is.

- exercise:
- improves metabolism, insulin resistance, etc.
- teaches you to tune in to your body and listen to its signals.
- better way to achieve deficit than dieting alone.
- allows for more calories; feel fuller while still achieving
caloric deficit.

I did a moderate low-fat diet (10%-20% cal from fat) and went from
boderline obese to about 5 lbs overweight.

Satyed there for 2 years. I read a Scientific American Article on why
low fat diets don't work. It was well-argued and supported by the
literature.

I gained the wieght back over 3 years- slightly slower than I lost it.

I've heard that low fat is not what makes "low fat" diets work. It is
low caloric density of food taht makes them work -and I can see how
that might be.

I jsut finished re-lsoing my gained wieght - this time not so low
fat. But I'm watching calories. I'm trying to keep my Fat to about
20-25 % of my calories.

One difference between lower fat and low car diets is taht lwoering
your caloric content by lowering fat - works OK in moderation. It
isn't very fast.

When I've seen fast weight loss, it has always been temporary (more
than 10% of body weight in a year) and has led to SERIOUS gain over 5
year periods.(Has anyone here seen anything different? I'm curious. )

I understand that a medium-low carb diet is like no diet at all.

So I would vote low fat over low carb just because moderate is good
and moderate low-fat stuff seems to work OK.

Also, I think with both Low-fat and low carb that they will find out
more and more taht the particular macronutrients are critically
important. They know that nuts, olives, fish and such are "good
fat".

I imagine that 10 years from now, they'll know more about particular
carbs anmd particualr proteins, too. They do know complex carbs are
good compared with sugar and starch.


Michael