2

votes

Addressing fat's benefits and drawbacks

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created October 15, 2012 at 2:54 PM

to me the best way to achieve this is to incorporate idea's from all the different sides of low-fat, paleo, and WAPF.

Let's first look at fat. I feel the evidence strongly supports the notion that a high intake of palmitic acid leads to a bunch of gunk in your arteries. This gunk probably won't kill you in the context of a paleo diet but its not optimal.

http://paleohacks.com/questions/55351/cvd-saturated-fat-and-atherosclerosis-what-is-the-paleo-argument

http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/MMD-2010-03-Cordain-on-Phinney-and-Sat-Fats.mp3

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/1/26.abstract

http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Atherosclerosis-in-Pre-Westernized-Inuit.pdf

Now what is the advocating argument for high fat intake?

  1. Fat displaces carbohydrates from the diet.
  2. Fat provides important vitamins

Number 1 is a matter of picking your poison, and in light of what I mentioned earlier I don't feel that fat>carbohydrates in terms of macronutrient fuel. Number 2 can be addressed while still eating low-fat total calories. By supplementing and/or eating some liver.

Does this idea sound good? Basically here we are taking WAPF's idea's and mixing them with a low-fat diet that promotes better blood flow.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 16, 2012
at 12:20 AM

I really don't see the controversy. The OP's "evidence" (that he considers strong) seems weak to negligible to me.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 16, 2012
at 12:17 AM

Actually part of the PHD is that "...SaFA and MUFA are benign and other macronutrients are toxic at common intake levels, then eating more SaFA and MUFA should improve health by displacing toxins from the diet"...

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 16, 2012
at 12:16 AM

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Low-saturated-fat-intake-associated-with-higher-stroke-mortality

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 15, 2012
at 10:52 PM

Of interest to this conversation http://www.gnolls.org/2320/why-are-we-hungry-part-2-hunger-is-the-product-of-multiple-perceptions-and-motivations-sometimes-conflicting/

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 15, 2012
at 09:44 PM

I think you should put a bit more thought and research into the "what is the advocating argument".

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 15, 2012
at 07:57 PM

My understanding is that fat increases satiation for future meals. We know it helps slow transit and improve nutrient absorption and I think for the same reason it improves satiation. I'll have to get back with you for some links though

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:09 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20553637 "The main results showed that the participants consumed significantly less at lunch following the consumption of all three preloads than on the no-preload day, and consumed less after the consumption of the carbohydrate preload than after the consumption of the lipid preload".

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:06 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10403587 "CONCLUSION: In lean women, satiety and DIT were synchronously higher with a high protein/high carbohydrate diet than with a high fat diet."

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:06 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104 "Protein, fibre, and water contents of the test foods correlated positively with SI scores (r = 0.37, P < 0.05, n = 38; r = 0.46, P < 0.01; and r = 0.64, P < 0.001; respectively) whereas fat content was negatively associated (r = -0.43, P < 0.01)."

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:05 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8475895 "Eating from a range of either high-fat or high-carbohydrate foods, obese subjects voluntarily consumed twice as much energy from the fat items, thereby indicating a weak action of fat on satiation. In turn, this large intake of fat exerted a disproportionately weak effect on satiety."

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:03 PM

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/1777 "In a 24 h respiration chamber study we showed a higher satiety and a higher diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) on a high protein high carbohydrate diet than on a high fat diet"

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:03 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11186237 " Under normal conditions where fat contributes disproportionately to ED, protein, carbohydrate, and fat exert hierarchical effects on satiety in the order protein >carbohydrate > fat"

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:02 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53550/ "Preload studies have shown that fat exerts the weakest effect on satiety compared to carbohydrate and protein, suggesting that fat may lead to 'passive overconsumption'"

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 05:18 PM

Got a citation to support the claim that fat increases satiety?

6b365c14c646462210f3ef6b6fecace1

(1784)

on October 15, 2012
at 05:13 PM

With this much controversy centering around fat, i think it's actually a good idea to be more reserved on the amount one consumes. It's doesn't hurt.

6b365c14c646462210f3ef6b6fecace1

(1784)

on October 15, 2012
at 05:04 PM

but that's not what Greensun is suggesting

6b365c14c646462210f3ef6b6fecace1

(1784)

on October 15, 2012
at 04:54 PM

I favor a lower fat regimen in a diet- not too low though. People around here go over board with fat sometimes and we see that interfering with hormonal processing and signalling in the body, which leads to problems.

F9638b939a6f85d67f60065677193cad

(4266)

on October 15, 2012
at 04:13 PM

No, your idea doesn't sound good. You need fat for health. It is not poison. Carbohydrate is not poison, either. Supplements is not going to be better than real food.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on October 15, 2012
at 02:57 PM

Good luck with that.

  • E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

    asked by

    (476)
  • Views
    1.4K
  • Last Activity
    1283D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

5 Answers

5
4b5be253ac1981c690689cab7e4bf06d

(3043)

on October 15, 2012
at 05:54 PM

The whole premise of Dr. Price's research is that indigenous and Anscesteral cultures ate a whole lot more fat soluble vitamins, in the form of animal fats. You CANNOT do the WAPF diet as low fat.

That said, there are a wide range of cultures, and the percentages of carbs and fat carried between them . Protein ranges from 15 to 20%, almost regardless of source. Wile you can choose to have a higher percentage of carbohydrates, you will always need the higher fat intake to get the vitamins we need. For example, the Swiss culture has a main source of fat and protein from cheese, but has a lower meat intake and lots of sourdough bread.

http://www.westonaprice.org/basics/adventures-in-macro-nutrient-land looks at Macros I. The WAPF diet.

Lastly, the body produces palmitic acid from excess carbohydrate. So, you can eat a higher carb diet, and the body will produce the palmitic acid, or you can eat the fat directly.

3
Cc3ce03985eac5ebcbb95fc2329f13b0

on October 15, 2012
at 04:08 PM

Actually, number one should read: Fat increases satiety, allowing a person to consume less calories while not feeling deprived, hungry, and punished, as one does with a low-fat, carbohydrate diet. This then leads to feelings of guilt, shame, and lack of control when, invariably, low-fat high carb dieters crash and burn, because they've completely failed to address the damage that high carbs has caused.

At no point have I read, "fat displaces carbohydrates from the diet", as a reason for anything, in and of itself.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 15, 2012
at 07:57 PM

My understanding is that fat increases satiation for future meals. We know it helps slow transit and improve nutrient absorption and I think for the same reason it improves satiation. I'll have to get back with you for some links though

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:09 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20553637 "The main results showed that the participants consumed significantly less at lunch following the consumption of all three preloads than on the no-preload day, and consumed less after the consumption of the carbohydrate preload than after the consumption of the lipid preload".

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:03 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11186237 " Under normal conditions where fat contributes disproportionately to ED, protein, carbohydrate, and fat exert hierarchical effects on satiety in the order protein >carbohydrate > fat"

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:03 PM

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/1777 "In a 24 h respiration chamber study we showed a higher satiety and a higher diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) on a high protein high carbohydrate diet than on a high fat diet"

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 05:18 PM

Got a citation to support the claim that fat increases satiety?

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:02 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53550/ "Preload studies have shown that fat exerts the weakest effect on satiety compared to carbohydrate and protein, suggesting that fat may lead to 'passive overconsumption'"

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 15, 2012
at 10:52 PM

Of interest to this conversation http://www.gnolls.org/2320/why-are-we-hungry-part-2-hunger-is-the-product-of-multiple-perceptions-and-motivations-sometimes-conflicting/

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:06 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104 "Protein, fibre, and water contents of the test foods correlated positively with SI scores (r = 0.37, P < 0.05, n = 38; r = 0.46, P < 0.01; and r = 0.64, P < 0.001; respectively) whereas fat content was negatively associated (r = -0.43, P < 0.01)."

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:06 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10403587 "CONCLUSION: In lean women, satiety and DIT were synchronously higher with a high protein/high carbohydrate diet than with a high fat diet."

211d4075d68b24cd0aa7ebfa94262bb9

on October 15, 2012
at 06:05 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8475895 "Eating from a range of either high-fat or high-carbohydrate foods, obese subjects voluntarily consumed twice as much energy from the fat items, thereby indicating a weak action of fat on satiation. In turn, this large intake of fat exerted a disproportionately weak effect on satiety."

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 16, 2012
at 12:17 AM

Actually part of the PHD is that "...SaFA and MUFA are benign and other macronutrients are toxic at common intake levels, then eating more SaFA and MUFA should improve health by displacing toxins from the diet"...

1
6b365c14c646462210f3ef6b6fecace1

(1784)

on October 15, 2012
at 04:51 PM

It's also important to remember that fat HELPS the body absorb vitamins. So supplementing vitamins without fat in your diet is pointless. However, you do not need a butt load of fat in order to accomplish this.

Fat also provides building blocks for cellular membranes, hormones, energy, etc. So as long as you consume ENOUGH fat to do all of this, then what you suggest should be no issue.

As for inducing satiety, it depends on the person. Fat does not make me feel full.

6b365c14c646462210f3ef6b6fecace1

(1784)

on October 15, 2012
at 04:54 PM

I favor a lower fat regimen in a diet- not too low though. People around here go over board with fat sometimes and we see that interfering with hormonal processing and signalling in the body, which leads to problems.

0
1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

on October 15, 2012
at 10:50 PM

The whole idea that in order to be successful long-term you need a high fat diet is simply not true. At least not in my own personal experience, and I've been at least 85% paleo for about a decade w no(I am 22 years old) and have eaten a relatively lower fat version of paleo the majority of that time.

I have a clean bill of health and actually recovered from very, very poor health eating a lower fat version. By lower fat I do not mean "no fat." I still have eaten fat all the while, just not very much compared to what most paleohackers do. I rarely eat butter, don't choose fatty meats as a staple, and don't eat coconut oil either. The only fat in my diet has come from fairly lean cuts of bison, chicken breasts, fatty fish, some olive oil, some nuts, and sometimes eggs. That's pretty much all. In the spring/summer I eat mostly fresh salads lightly dressed in olive oil + protein (mostly chicken, bison, sardines, tuna, eggs, and shellfish) and fruit. In the fall/winter I eat mostly just soups/stews consisting of an array of vegetables with a source of protein in it (mostly chicken, bison, salmon, and cod).

High fat paleo has no benefits for me. I am not afraid of fat either, it just does not do anything for me (athletically, cognitively, or aesthetically). If you have a healthy gut you can absorb the nutrients in raw and cooked vegetables just fine...you don't need to drench them in butter to prevent deficiencies- I don't have any, and am lean, healthy, and athletic. Zero fat is not healthy, but a diet of leaner meats, limited oils or additional fats, and fatty fish (winter/fall) or eggs (spring/summer) is perfectly healthy. Faleo is just another myth.

0
6473dcb4b0e9b839615d650c168d2747

(638)

on October 15, 2012
at 04:57 PM

Paleo without fat = Faileo for a reason.

6b365c14c646462210f3ef6b6fecace1

(1784)

on October 15, 2012
at 05:04 PM

but that's not what Greensun is suggesting

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!