This is a post I’ve had on the back burner for some time.
In earlier posts I have alluded that stalled weight loss could possibly be down to overconsumption of fat. This to many would be something of a heresy, but bear with me,
We are exhorted to be liberal in our consumption of fat - indeed there is a clue in the paradigm - LCHF - low carb HIGH FAT. We are also told that Dr. Atkins didn’t have it quite right (despite the runaway success of his FIRST book) in his advice to liberally consume protein rich foods and not a lot of emphasis placed on the consumption of fat. And many people, despite being on board with the concept of LCHF, are puzzled and disappointed with their progress despite cutting carbs and liberally replacing them with fat.
So, outside of other reasons in adopting a low carbohydrate lifestyle, I’ll concentrate on weight loss, for having that under control all other parameters follow.
Our ultimate goal is, of course, to burn BODY fat as quickly and as efficiently as possible. It is no use being in ketosis if what you are burning is DIETARY fat and this I think is why people are puzzled when the scale numbers aren’t changing despite the Ketostix showing wildly in the blue sector.
So, what do I have to support my argument?
Well to start with I revisited William Banting’s ‘A Letter On Corpulence’, often cited as the first (it isn’t) historical evidence of low carbohydrate efficacy in losing weight. His advice largely falls into line with Atkins - high protein along with low carbohydrate. Indeed he eats all fish except for salmon (high fat) and all meat except for pork (high fat) and totally eschews butter.
Then I watched Dr. Eric Westman’s talk on Low Carb Down Under. (I tried to provide a link but kept getting an error message, but it's easy to find on youTube.)
Now I know that the above is a generalisation, and not one size fits all but I still suggest rowing back on fat consumption, along of course with very low carbohydrate consumption, might have benefits that are not emphasised enough.
It may sound simplistic but what we are trying to achieve in a high fat diet is say 60% coming from fat, but most of that should be coming from stored fat. And yes, I do understand protein based gluconeogenesis (protein converted to glucose), but eating protein to SATIETY, is the key!
So perhaps original Atkins might be worth a dusting off, with the bottom line being using fat as you would a sauce - to FLAVOUR your meat and veg.
Written by
MikePollard
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Unfortunately I don't have his book any more, but I'm 99% certain Atkins never advised people to base their diet on protein. He did say it could be eaten ad-lib, but that's not quite the same thing. He was quite clear in stressing the importance of fat.
Why do you think - in terms of biochemistry - fat might be a problem? As well as being an excellent source of energy, it's the one macronutrient that doesn't provoke an insulin response.
I believe you're right that you don't want to be eating so much fat that you're body isn't burning its own bodyfat ... but your body knows that too, and in my experience it will dial back your appetite quite dramatically during the fat-loss phase. You will not feel inclined to eat too much, or too much fat. You will always need to eat a certain amount because there's only a certain rate at which your body can deliver energy from bodyfat. In the extreme, eliminating all dietary fat (ie., a protein-only diet) would not cause you to lose weight rapidly. You'd just die, quite unpleasantly.
The only circumstances I can imagine the appetite-correction paradigm going wrong would be:
a) people are eating a very limited diet - for example, where they haven't attempted to learn a new repertoire of recipes and are struggling on with their existing meals, except with all the carbs removed. But I'm just guessing with this one.
b) people are eating inadequate protein, perhaps because of scare stories about red meat (sigh).
I am afraid I disagree with you. It is as easy to overeat on fat as to overeat on carbs or protein. I reckon many people actually do it. That is why they do not lose weight on keto diet. And that is why there is an obesity crisis in countries where highly calorific food is cheap and easily available. When you tell somebody who is really obese that they can eat as much bacon, cheese, cream, butter and so on, as they feel like it they just take it literally. The amount of calories is staggering, but they are told that it does not matter. When they are puzzled for not losing weight they are told to eat more fat! I think that people who are big cannot rely on their body to tell them that they are full. They need to learn portion control first before embarking on a diet that tells them to eat as much fat or protein as they wish.
I am convinced that to lose weight you need to create some calorie deficit, which can actually come from not only decreasing the amount of consumed calories but also by increasing the expenditure of calories by being more active. LCHF makes it easier to create the calorie deficit needed to lose weight. The advantage of including more healthy fats in your diet, is that it does not spike insulin levels and because of that keeps you full for longer - hence make it easier to create the calorie deficit in order to lose weight. If you eat more calories that your body is able to use, they will be stored and it does not matter whether the extra calories came from fat or carbs.
My point is, that if you wish to lose weight, you should be aware for the amount of calories in your food. I would not advocate for counting calories, but having a rough idea of the numbers is not a bad thing.
>> That is why they do not lose weight on keto diet.
I think we've had one or two unlucky people who didn't lose any weight at all and drifted off. My (highly unscientific) estimate is that 80%+ of the people who join in here and get through the first few weeks go on to lose a lot of weight, and keep it off. From conversations with those who didn't succeed, I get the impression that they just couldn't get past the initial guilt of eating fat. Far from eating too much of it, they were eating too little.
When you tell somebody who is really obese that they can eat as much bacon, cheese, cream, butter and so on, as they feel like it they just take it literally. The amount of calories is staggering, but they are told that it does not matter.
I challenge you to actually try this and see how you feel. I can almost guarantee you won't be able to keep it up for more than a couple of days. In fact we get posters saying "I can't eat all this fat!" and I tell them, well, don't then
No doubt people do pig out initially when they're told it's all back on the menu. But then their appetite kicks in and starts doing what it ought to do.
And yes, there are some obese people who get that way because they have some genetic disorder that "breaks" their satiety sensors. But these people are very rare.
I'd also add: eating as much fat as you like is not the entirety of LCHF advice, or quite the way I'd phrase it. Personally, I advise people to base their meals on vegetables, much like the video Mike posted. Fatty foods are added to build an enjoyable, filling meal, not simply for the sake of it. Certainly I'd agree that going to KFC every day for a salad and a bucket of fried chicken is not what LCHF is all about (although, frankly, that'd probably be a lot better than many people eat).
I am convinced that to lose weight you need to create some calorie deficit
Sure you do. But your body is quite capable of doing this all by itself. If you think it can't, then the question arises: why not? Every other animal on the planet will stop eating when it's full. Why would humans be uniquely different in this regard?
Interestingly, you can mess up animal appetite regulation by giving them inappropriate foods: for example, a goat will eat carbs until it quite literally explodes, if you let it. It's sometimes said of cats that they "eat out of boredom". Mine doesn't. He stops eating when he's had enough. But if you give a cat carb-laden biscuits, he'll keep nibbling at them way beyond the point where he should have had enough ... because he actually hasn't had enough. Those biscuits are not correct cat nutrition.
You only see fat animals when they're being fed by humans.
I think you sort of answered your own objection here:
LCHF makes it easier to create the calorie deficit needed to lose weight. The advantage of including more healthy fats in your diet, is that it does not spike insulin levels and because of that keeps you full for longer - hence make it easier to create the calorie deficit in order to lose weight.
I'm not a big one for calorie counting, although I generally fall within a window of 1400-1800 a day. I used a tracker so I could understand how many carbs I was eating, and for me, that was the problem!
Part of the problem is that you see how many calories are in oil and you can't get over thinking you can eat more food for the equivalent of a spoonful of oil, so cut down on oils out of calorie mentality.
I noticed some days, my meals added up to a mere 1000 calories, and while I had only been peckish for some olives after dinner, my brain twigged that it had some extra calories to use, and decided I could eat olives, 4 fat bombs, some pecans and some salami, because I had come in so low on calories. Before I'd know it, i'd eaten 1000 calories of snacks!
I think if we ate more intuitively, we'd be ok, but it falls over thanks to our obsession with calories!
>> I think if we ate more intuitively, we'd be ok, but it falls over thanks to our obsession with calories!
My point exactly. Once you start worrying about eating "too many calories" then you're going to look for ways to eat less of something. And that's where it all falls to pieces, because your body is much better at judging what it needs.
Just by way of a crude example, it's 3pm here. I'm just having a coffee break. I've eaten nothing at all since 5pm yesterday evening - not because I'm fretting about my calorie intake, but because I ate a huuuuge meal at that time and I still don't feel hungry! I reckon I'll have a proper meal around 6pm.
The emphasis on the first edition of Atkins certainly was on protein. I read it. Later editions (The New Atkins) rowed back and encompassed fat to be in line with LCHF.
It's VERY easy to over eat fat.
1 cup of coffee with 5 tablespoons double cream 345 (sounds a lot - If in doubt, measure instead of randomly pouring).
30gm (1 handful) brazil nuts - 210.
40gm peanuts (1 handful) 239.
1" cube of cheese 70.
Total 864.
That's your 'Fast 800' regime blown right out of the water in a modest amount of food!
There is a VERY good reason Dr. Westman states in his leaflet:
"Limited amounts of cream, cheese, oils mayonnaise, olives, avocado etc."
OK, 864>800, but eating more than 800kCal is not the same thing as "overeating", or "overeating fat". We're basically back to calorie-counting here, which is fundamentally flawed because:
(a) You cannot know - not even in theory - what the optimal daily calorie intake is. At least, you can't calculate a figure that's better than your own body's estimate.
(b) Bodyfat percentage has nothing to do with total calorie intake. At least not in the simplistic manner that nutritionists believe.
If people end up eating "too much fat", the most likely explanation IMO is that they're eating too little of other things, or not eating proper meals. I know you're only drawing an outline illustration here, but does anybody really put 100g of double cream in their coffee? I buy 200g cartons of UHT cream, and that lasts me for about 5-6 coffees. Say 35g/100kCal per coffee. Nuts are supposed to be eaten in moderation, not by the handful. Focusing too hard on macros instead of just enjoying your food tends to have the opposite of the desired effect.
I was eating roughly 1500kCal during induction, eating to appetite. I lost bodyfat very rapidly - I would guess at the maximum rate my body was capable of. I went through a phase (a few weeks) where I was eating only a small meal once a day, because I wasn't hungry. Now in maintenance, I still eat to appetite, and probably exceed 2500kCal/day (I do exercise pretty hard). My bodyfat remains constant. Why did that work out just fine, despite my making no attempt to limit dietary fat or increase protein?
I'm not arguing a high-protein moderate-fat restricted-calorie diet won't work. It will. For a while. Loads of people did their "steak and eggs" thing in the 70s and 80s and lost weight. I'm sure a lot of them counted calories. The problem is that they were "doing a diet". Fundamentally, they still had the view that their bodies had to be pummelled into submission, and that you do that by "restricting calories", or by eating weird meals that they didn't really enjoy much. Those people lost weight, and then when they increased their calories - by adding whatever macronutrient - back it went again.
Losing weight is not the goal. Keeping it off is what it's about, surely, and if your diet is healthy, your body will reach that point in its own good time, and your appetite will take you there. I actually agree with flo72003 that fat people have lost sight of what a proper portion looks like - but they're invariably eating kid-sized meals and driving themselves mad with hunger. Eating normal adult-sized meals made with wholesome ingredients is critical to getting an instinctive understanding of portion sizes, as opposed to an intellectual one.
I'm not advocating any diet, nor do advocate calorie counting, though a lot of people do, with success. My point is, was and hasn't changed, that weight loss stall MAY be caused by over eating fat.
I still think that saying "it is impossible to overeat fat" is not very helpful. Many people "overeat fat". I have done it myself. I cannot remember last time I overate carbs, but I have certainly remember a nice cheese board (or two) and the struggle to stop eating. Because I enjoy the taste of cheese. I also enjoy eating salami, bacon, olives and so on. Food is not just fuel for the body, but something that is enjoyable.
You say: "Nuts are supposed to be eaten in moderation, not by the handful." - does it mean that you consider eating 30 g of nuts as an excess consumption? I reckon the majority of people (particularly with weight issues) would probably eat more than a handful at once.
So when you tell me that: "it is not possible to overeat fat" would on theory make me think: "OMG - I must be a pig, then". However, fat is not a magic substance, that by itself acts as an inherent deterrent of overeating.
As I put in my previous post, I am convinced that one can overeat any food (fat, carbs, protein) and it is good to be aware that the calories in fat are not free.
I personally think that it's possible to overeat on any given day, but I think we go wrong by looking at our diet in 24 hour blocks instead of the wider picture. I was horrified to see that on the first 2 days of keto, I'd eaten 2200 calories (too many nuts!) but the rest of the week, I ate 1200-1400. Over the course of the first fortnight, my calories averaged about 1400-1500, which isn't bad! As a whole, that means weight loss.
Our bodies are evolved to deal with days of feast and famine, because some days we'd catch more fish, and some days we'd catch none.
Eating too much cheese one day, might have meant you ate less the next?
I agree with you. You need to approach it as a change in your overall lifestyle and keep things in perspective. That is way people have "cheat days". On such days some people would have cakes and chocolate or crisps, I would go for cheese and salami.
And yes, I did not eat cheese the next day. The reason, however was not because "my body did not want it" - I reckon my body would probably cooped with it, but because I know that it would make me fat. So more matter of self-discipline than some holistic intuitive eating approach.
My colleague used to be a big one for cheat days, and would always come in with cake, and chips on a Friday...
I know what you mean about cheese, I could eat it all day, every day, except I'm starting to realise I can't handle dairy... But I generally find that if I give into the craving, I can only overeat cheese for a couple of days, before I start only wanting a normal amount each day again.
I am ok with feta cheese - I like it and I eat normal amount nearly daily. Cheddar, bri or gorgonzola, though affect me differently. So I keep them as an occasional treat - something I would have after a dinner party or after a nice meal on holiday.
I suppose, we are all different, so finding the way for yourself is the way to go.
I think you may have misunderstood my argument, flo. I'm not exactly arguing that it's impossible to overeat fatty foods. I've just never heard of anyone actually doing it while following LCHF correctly.
Certainly you can overeat fat when it comes in a certain sort of package. I could probably eat an entire 12 inch pizza if I was hungry. I probably wouldn't want to just eat the cheese by itself, though. Same thing with nuts - it's quite hard to eat nuts without munching through the whole bag. Therefore, it's best not to make such things a regular feature of your meals.
>> does it mean that you consider eating 30 g of nuts as an excess consumption?
I'm suggesting that if someone is picking at bits of cheese, nuts, and whatnot, they're probably not eating proper filling meals - in particular, they're probably skimping on vegetables or attempting to calorie-count. If you eat a big meal, you don't feel inclined to snack.
>> I have done it myself
How do you know you "over-ate"? What yardstick are you using to gauge "over-eating?". At what point in your progress through the cheeseboard do you think "I must stop eating now", and why do you think that?
I suspect the answer is "because I ate too many calories". But again, what's your yardstick? What's "too many calories"?
Think of it this way: if someone were to put an unlimited cheeseboard in front of you, would you really keep eating until you had cheese coming out of your ears? Or would your appetite at some point think, "ugh ... that's enough of that"? Now imagine that, having stuffed yourself on day 1, the same unlimited cheeseboard were rolled out tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. You'd get sick of it soon enough, amirite?
However, fat is not a magic substance, that by itself acts as an inherent deterrent of overeating.
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that carbs (and sugar in particular) tend to cause overeating. Fat really is satiating (so is protein, as Mike was originally pointing out). You can only eat so much of it unless it's wrapped up in something that disguises its fattiness. If you don't believe me, try eating a half-pound of butter. Then try eating a half-pound of icecream.
So when you tell me that: "it is not possible to overeat fat" would on theory make me think: "OMG - I must be a pig, then".
I would gently suggest that that's because you've been listening to far too much rubbish from nutritionists, who take it upon themselves to define who is a pig and who isn't. According to them, anyone who eats until they're full is a pig.
I am convinced that one can overeat any food (fat, carbs, protein) and it is good to be aware that the calories in fat are not free.
You might well be convinced. A lot of nutritionists are, too. But the bottom line is that obesity is not caused by overeating as such, or "too many calories". You seem to subscribe to the theory that bodyfat is just the overflow bucket for excess energy, but it's a lot more complicated than that. Bodyfat has a purpose: it's broadly equivalent to a flywheel in a combustion engine, providing energy when there is none available from the 'power stroke' (ie., mealtimes). Unless you give your body a reason to construct a bigger flywheel - and eating too-small meals is a good reason - it will not do so.
Could you eat an entire 12 inch pizza when you are not hungry? Probably not. However, I suspect, someone who is obese would actually do it, because they do not know whether they are hungry.
To answer your question about how would I know that I overeaten cheese. It is not the calorie count (as I do not count them) that would tell me that I had too much, but the feeling of fulness, it would not immediately stop me eating thought. The reason is that I enjoy the taste of it. I would not eat it to a point of making myself sick. Does it make me a glutton?
" You seem to subscribe to the theory that bodyfat is just the overflow bucket for excess energy, but it's a lot more complicated than that."
I do not actually subscribe to any theory. I just think that people get fat, because they eat too much of everything - low quality fat and protein combined with sugar and starchy carbs. How much fat is there in KFC or MacDonald's or kebab or fish and chips? Is it simply the carbs that are the "enemy" or the entire combination of rubbish piled together?
Once again, I think healthy fats are essential for a healthy diet and lifestyle. In my opinion, Mediterranean diet, which actually contains lots of healthy fats is the way to go.
I just find a bit annoying, that fat is the new "magic bullet", while carbs as a whole are vilified. Why do we always need an "enemy"?
>> I suspect, someone who is obese would actually do it, because they do not know whether they are hungry.
Well, I've been fat, so I can answer this with some confidence. The answer is yes (as you guessed) but it's not because you don't know whether you're hungry. When you're fat, you're hungry all the time. As I found out later, there's a simple reason for this: fat people are unable to access their stored bodyfat, so when the energy from food is depleted, their appetites demand more. Fat people have their flywheel disconnected - or more accurately, their flywheel is being driven faster and faster, and no power is ever being extracted from it. Eventually it explodes, as flywheels usually do at a certain RPM.
>> It is not the calorie count (as I do not count them) that would tell me that I had too much, but the feeling of fulness, it would not immediately stop me eating thought. The reason is that I enjoy the taste of it. I would not eat it to a point of making myself sick.
OK. You might eat somewhat past the point of fullness. But fundamentally you do have an appetite-driven stopping point. The fact that it occasionally "overshoots" is neither here nor there, because your appetite will compensate for it at the next meal. And I bet the difference between "I'm full" and "I'm really, really stuffed" is a lot less than you think it is. +5%, perhaps.
>> Does it make me a glutton?
No. It makes you a normal human being . Stop feeling guilty about liking cheese. It's not a crime against humanity.
I do not actually subscribe to any theory. I just think that people get fat, because they eat too much of everything - low quality fat and protein combined with sugar and starchy carbs.
Well ... you just subscribed to a theory right there
You can't be agnostic about this. Your body's metabolic machinery has certain characteristics. They're definable and measurable. Nutritionists think these things don't matter because "it's all about thermodynamics and calorie balance". The average nutritionist doesn't even know what those words mean, and the details do matter. You're quite right that there's a specific mixture of fat/protein/carbs that hits all the right pleasure buttons - but taking away the carbs does break the spell.
I just find a bit annoying, that fat is the new "magic bullet", while carbs as a whole are vilified. Why do we always need an "enemy"?
There is no "enemy" here, but your biology is what it is. You can't just ignore it, or say that it's unfair, or that it doesn't make sense. Nutritionists ignore the biochemistry and get themselves tied in the most awful illogical knots.
I find that I can now enjoy a pizza or a burger without feeling the need to eat another one two hours later (in fact I don't feel like another one for six months). I have no philosophical objection to icecream or croissants, and I like both of them ... sometimes. But I'm in control again.
There are a wide range of diets that are perfectly healthy. The only one that seems to really mess you up is the one with lots and lots of subsidized grain-based products (in the context of high carbs, low-fat and high-fat seem to have subtly different problems associated with them). Your body can adapt to pretty much anything else.
You can call yourself a nutritionist after a short course. It does not involve going through a robust academic studies and rigorous testing. So I would not care much for youtube "nutritionists" and "leading experts" opinions.
I think I agree with a lot of what you say and I shall leave the things I disagree about for another post.
When I first started looking into the whole low carb concept, one of the first authors I ran across is Gary Taubes (Why We Get Fat) who discounts the whole calories in/calories out theory of weight gain and loss, saying it's a hormone issue instead, insulin being the primary one. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it has rather surprised me to see calories given much consideration on an LCHF forum. Perhaps part of it is that we have been thoroughly convinced all our lives that caloric intake is all that matters, rather like the myth that all fat is evil.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Getting head around eating fat