Struggling with the eating fat logic

[Boardingblues]

So I get the bit about not eating carbs so that calories are gained from proteins and fat and that the objective is to burn fat…. But surely if I eat fat, it is that fat that will get burnt first and my fat, the stuff I want rid of, will just sit there, unused! Someone please explain this to me!

Rudy brainwashing is probably a strong term. it is a sort of indoctrination though. It took me a while to stop thinking of it as heart clogging and to lose the sick feeling of all that fat.

Now I fry everything!

I read (probably Robert lustig) somewhere that fruit is just natures candy.

sleep I get your point. Depriving anything makes you want it more. I do think believing in it, helps with that though.

Sorry, just coming back to a point you made sleep about eating mindfully and intuitively.

Eating low carb, actually makes this happen with no thinking involved. I can't tell you how much food I would have left at the end if the week because I bought stuff for 'snacking' and realised it didn't even enter my head between meals.

Sometimes I think I should eat as it's been a while. It is quite different to the constantly talking yourself out of eating and snacking.

Grammar all over the constantly place. Sorry!

Erm..... Not sure how constantly got in there.

I need a ticker at the end of all my posts, that says can spell, understands punctuation and grammar, but, has fudge fingers, writes too quick, has children pestering her and doesn't proof read.

sass I think it does that for some people, but for many others, the ban on stodge eventually leads to a major backslide and because the fat burning thing relies on ketosis, weight can be regained very quickly.

I wouldn't deny that sleep but I would be interested to know how many of the back sliders are following the diet because they've read that it works, but have no knowledge of why.

Do you think it would make that much difference? Genuine question, I'm not having a dig at the diet, but people know when they eat too many calories or too much sugar that it's not a good thing for their bodies, yet they still do that, why would carbs be any different when it comes to cravings?

Yes I do. Not 100%. There would still be back sliders, I just think there would be less.

I was very sporty (before last 3 dc's) I was a member of a tri club, trained on average 6 times a week. Knew lots of info about exercise and training and yet when I did my gym instructor qualification I knocked 11 mins off my previous sprint (ie. It wasn't even a long endurance event) triathlon time that I had done only 4 months previously.

There is a big difference between thinking you know how training/eating works and actually knowing how your body works IMO.

Knowing you are eating too much sugar, is different to knowing that your body produces insulin from eating that sugar, which opens up your fat cells, stores more fat and turns off your leptin, causing a message to be sent to your brain to tell you you are low on reserves and need to eat more, over and over and over. And the only way to stop it, is not to cut down (will power is a big ask of most people) but to actually break the cycle and stop the cravings.

Iyswim.

you could always eat a proper balanced diet, the right mix of the right nutrients, move around and enjoy the one life you get.

clue; if there's more packaging than food, or if it is sold as 'diet' or 'healthy' then minimise how much of it you eat.

special your post shows no understanding if how biochemistry works and helps me to prove my point to sleep

People believe it is just a case of willpower. I did. It's not.

Peter attia is a surgeon.
Gary taubes is a physicist.
Biffa is a gp.
Diet doctor is a gp
Jeff voleck and Stephen phinney are professors at an american university.
Zoe harcome is an oxford graduate, studying her PhD and works in a Scottish university.

These people have more brains and qualifications than you can shake a stick at. Not one of them believes calories in calories out bollocks.

Zoe harcombe is particularly good at doing the math formula for showing how nonsense it actually is.

People think they know, because it worked for them, or because they know someone who eats loads of carbs and it hasn't happened to them (the link I posted above about sat fat explains this)

You need to think of it like an intolerance. Some people have a carb intolerance and some don't. Unfortunately those that don't aren't immune forever necessarily. The way your body works makes it so.

Read something about it special you might not believe what you just said in the end.

zoe harcombe de-bunking

zoe again

I don't believe in willpower or (completely) in calories in/calories out either sass and I don't doubt the biochemistry of LCHF. But the vast majority of people couldn't care less about knocking 11 minutes off their tri time, they just want to be slim and healthy and not feel deprived.

Being on a diet - any diet with rules - creates a sense of deprivation for most people and I don't believe the intellectual understanding of nutrition is enough to overcome it. Difficult for either of us to prove otherwise, because I'm pointing at everyone who says "yes I did LCHF/5:2/Paleo/1200 calories" and it was fantastic, it worked, I lost weight but then I stopped and regained weight and now I need to do it/something else again" and you are saying "yes but if they understood why it would be different". I'm just really not convinced that would be the case

Well, I'm not deprived

People believe in/want different things. Not everyone will be convinced.

people with medical degrees are not immune from easy money opportunities - and there are plenty of those in the diet 'industry'.

I've never dieted and never been fat. I eat a balanced diet and move around. (I don't have any medical issues which can cause weight gain)

keep selling the snake oil, there's an infinite market for it. I'd do it but I like to sleep at night.

Oh dear.......

Wow staff! Your knowledge is brilliant!

I didn't know that cals in cals out was rubbish.

I do sometimes think well if I'm eating 1500 cals a day it doesn't matter what food group they're from. Are you saying it does matter?

I would love to steal your brain!

I mean saff!

Special subject, saff was only trying to be helpful and explain something to you........

I can't understand why you think it's odd that natural food is better than processed. That's the key thing. Anything natural.

specialsubject you really are painful and will insist on displaying your ignorance when it comes to anything about dieting. I sometimes think you're a bot, given the predictable frequency with which you pop up on these threads.

Your comment

I've never dieted and never been fat. I eat a balanced diet and move around. (I don't have any medical issues which can cause weight gain)

just illustrates how insensitive you are. You are very lucky to have never been fat. And that you have never had to diet. And before you bore on about how it's your 'balanced diet' that means you've never been fat, you would be as well consider that your age and your genetics have as much to do with your weight as well as your food intake.

Oh, and there's no such concept - at least that people agree on - as a balanced diet.

See, I feel sick at the idea of eating neat double cream. And I love bread. Which is why, long term, LCHF wouldn't suit me, no matter how much the science said it does and how much my waistline showed it . So I just have a slice or two of bread a day, eat wholefood carbs and keep pasta and cake etc for an occasional thing - my waistline seems to like that too.

Here's a brief paragraph about how fat helps your body to burn fat, from bodybuilding.com:

From a biochemical level, low-fat diets don't make sense. They don't condition your body to be efficient at burning fat. Instead, they ramp up the enzymatic machinery in your body so it becomes efficient at burning carbohydrates.

Lower-fat diets can also have negative impacts on adipokines which impact fat loss. Adipokines are hormones released specifically from your fat cells. One such hormone, adiponectin, is a true fat-burning hormone that works to enhance your metabolism and increase the rate in which fats are broken down, curbing your appetite. Lower-fat diets lead to lower levels of adiponectin.

Yet again, it's to do with hormonal balance.

And this from livestrong.com:

Fat Burns Fat
The body needs three macronutrients for energy: Carbohydrates, protein, and fat. A gram of fat packs more than twice the energy of a gram of the other two. “When you don’t have any fat in your diet its like you don’t have fuel to burn calories,” Glassman says. The body requires energy to keep its metabolism properly functioning, and a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that consuming fatty acids can boost metabolic health.

What’s more, “old” fat stored in the body’s peripheral tissues—around the belly, thighs, or butt (also called subcutaneous fat)—can’t be burned efficiently without “new” fat to help the process, according to researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dietary fat helps break down existing fat by activating PPAR-alpha and fat-burning pathways through the liver.

Think of mealtime like baseball spring training: young, hungry players (new fat) hit the field and show the general manger (the liver) that it’s time to send the old, worn-out players (subcutaneous fat) home. And away they go.

Sorry - no time for more as I'm at work and have to do some actual work!