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 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

On Aug 15, 11:12 am, Steve 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

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" wrote in message
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?

Steve 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" 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" 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" wrote:
"Kaz Kylheku" 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.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote

Notice how you made some logical jumps?

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

"Steve" wrote in message
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.