View Full Version : Bad Fat Diet only vs. Mixture of Healthy Foods Diet


chrissy
10-05-03, 03:51 AM
Say you ate 1,200 cal. of bad fats only, nothing else vs. 1,200 of a mixture of carbs/protein/fruit/veg/good fats diet.Obviously you probably would lose more weight on the mixture diet.

My question is why do you lose more on mixture diet then on bad fats only diet?

chrissy

sooz
10-05-03, 04:01 AM
hmmmmm well, assuming you didnt die from just eating fat and nothing else, and therefore lose weight WAY quickly, maybe because the good foods actually fuel your metabolism and the fiber plays a big part also ... fat has no fiber...i dont know, they say weight loss is mainly predicated on eating less calories than you use, so theoretically it wouldnt matter what you ate..but in terms of HEALTH and ENERGY it would matter tremendously...

chrissy
10-05-03, 04:24 AM
thanks Sooz, I got a kick out of your comment "assuming you didnt die from just eating fat and nothing else"

That's what I was wondering about when you said "they say weight loss is mainly predicated on eating less calories than you use, so theoretically it wouldnt matter what you ate..but in terms of HEALTH and ENERGY it would matter tremendously...".Would a person actually lose the same amount of weight on mixture diet and fat only diet with same amount of calories?

I got this post/quote from another thread “.. I thought why would a fat person want to eat fat, the body will use that instead of mine”

Maybe this is the the answer. All the extra bad fat a person is eating will go directly to fat and only a small portion 20% approx. will be burned cause that is all the body needs 20% approx. fat a day.
I guess eventually "assuming you didn't die" your body would break down the fat but it would take longer then on a mixture diet.

chrissy

bicker
10-05-03, 10:14 AM
The body actually only "needs" a very very small amount of fat, below 20 grams per day, I believe. There are various cosmetic benefits to having more than that, but nothing that affects core health. The body is capable of looking at intake from multiple perspectives: What micro-nutrients and essential minerals the food provides, AND its ability to be converted into energy. So the body will metabolize far more than 20% of the fat you eat if you eat a 100% fat diet. And I don't believe that there is any-such-thing as "fat toxicity" so the body should be able to operate on all-fat for a period of time, before the lack of fiber and protein, as well as the lack of some micro-nutrients, take their toll on health, overall. One of many concerns before that, though, is that the body may find catabolizing its own muscle for energy less of a bother than metabolizing all that fat. So the weight will go down, but the LBM will go down while body fat is either maintained or even increased.

Interesting thing to speculate about. <grin>

patricians2001
10-05-03, 07:57 PM
I think there is a diet plan where you are supposed to eat all fat, now that you mention it. Maybe it was in the Atkins book for when all else fails?? I remember reading it, but I can't remember where. The theory is that if the body was getting only fat it would that have to turn into a fat burning machine. This was only for a period of time. But I didn't read about it in depth because I felt sick just at the thought of eating all that fat.
Pat

chrissy
10-06-03, 06:36 AM
Thanks Bicker and Pat.On info.I will look into it.I had stopped losing weight for the past week and the only thing I did different was eat a big hamburger and fries so I was pondering that if you ate alot of fat you couldn't lose weight compared to eating a healthy diet and losing weight.But after thinking about what I ate I realized it wasn't about the fat I ate but about calculating the calories wrong.The big hamburger was probably 900 cal. compared to the 500 calories I was calculating and the 500 cal. for fries and onion rings I calculated was probably 700 cal. or more.So, that is why probably I stopped losing weight.

I think I will stay away from theses foods while I am trying to lose cause they are so high in calories that it sabotages the rest of the week where I eat good and within my 1,300 calorie range.I find the calorie content is hard to calculate when it comes to deep fried stuff compared to whole foods.

chrissy

bicker
10-06-03, 07:25 AM
I don't recall the "fat fast" being part of Dr. Atkins' recommendations.

joanne
10-06-03, 07:48 AM
Yes there is a fat fast that dr.. Atkins mentions but I sure as heck wouldn't follow it.. It requires eating full fat meat and cheeses at all 3 meals.. Yukk... I had posted the plan somewhere but also stated I for one would not follow it... Dr. Atkins plans now states about eating the good fats and not the bad fats. I got an email from the low carb newletter and can't for the life of me remember who it was from and it states about eating good fats vs fats..

jessica
10-06-03, 10:26 PM
re the good fat/bad fat thing...I don't have anything of real value to impart; I think there are sooo many really tasty foods around, I can't imagine "cutting out" too much. But I know certain things make me feel sluggish, so I choose to avoid them and to eat foods that energize and revitalize me. And I know certain proportions that seem to work for me, for satiety, staving off hunger, keeping me going... Of course there are times for treats--(today, Key lime Pie :o ) But what makes the treats so lovely is their rarity.

(chrissy--you *may* want to up your cals; you *may* not be losing because your body is holding onto whatever cals it gets, so as not to starve... Not that this is real scientifically based or anything, but I personally don't believe in going less than 1500 cals unless Dr Supervised...

Just my $.02 :) )

chrissy
10-07-03, 06:29 AM
Bicker, Joanne, thanks for info on goods fats.Interesting.

Jessica, I will keep that in mind about my calorie intake.I don't want to go in starvation mode and not lose.

thanks

chrissy

John
10-09-03, 12:12 PM
There is no guarantee you will lose on any of those 2 "plans". Eating healthy is a start and can help, but there are many other variables involved in weight loss.

bicker
10-10-03, 05:11 AM
Indeed. I know folks who gained weight on 1800 calories per day and folks who lost weight on 1200 calories per day. It's all a balance, and muscle mass seems to be the factor that many folks miss. While calorie balancing is important, it is also important to ensure that while you're cutting calories you're not cutting your protein intake, and important to ensure that your exercise is not only burning calories but building muscle as well.