Weight-Loss Low Fat Diet?

Weight-Loss
I admit I used for my nutritional info rather than Olive Garden's web site - although you could still achieve the numbers I suggest by cutting back on the sauce.

Alfredo dipping sauce - 380 calories, 35g of fat.
Go with 100 calories worth and get 9.2g of fat. 50 calories worth of sun dried tomatoes and the remaining 340 calories from a serving of (~1g of fat).

However we slice the numbers, it still boils down to the fact that the salad is still a better choice despite the fact that it doesn't fit into the <20% rule, while the fettuccine could.

I think we're at the 'agree to disagree' stage when it comes to the cheat vs work it into the diet. Originally I used the 'cheat day' idea, but I've come to find that just working things into my regular diet works much better for me. I don't "cheat" once in a blue moon, I just make sure that whatever I'm eating fits into my plans. If that means I cut portions during the rest of the day/week to make room for it, that's what I do. That greatly lessens the chances that I'll go "Well, since I'm having a cheat day..." That's a personal preference, and the best solution is the one that works best for you. For me, getting rid of 'cheat' days was the better option. If you don't feel deprived every single day, that's great! But that doesn't mean that someone who stops a monthly 5,000 calorie binge by having 15 calories of chocolate every day is doing something wrong.

I'm also not sure what's so bad about daily chocolate - chocolate has a number of health benefits, and it's probably healthier to eat 100 calories of unsweetened dark chocolate than 100 calories worth of bread, pasta or rice.
 
Quote:
I have always hated the concept of "cheating" when dieting.

A cheat is a shameful thing, something to be hidden; it's deceitful. The dictionary defines a cheat as a "fraud" and as "unfaithfulness". So if you "cheat" ... what are you cheating on? Yourself? Your life? Why set yourself up for the guilt and shame that follows when you "cheat" yourself?

I don't cheat. I don't always eat 100% healthily; very few people can achieve that. Our lives are full of things that aren't always healthy - there's always a birthday or a evening out with the guys/girls, or an office function, or a potluck, or something. When you go to those things and *make the choice* to eat something unhealthy, then you should do it taking full responsibility for it and accept that you are treating yourself.
Click to expand...

I like this, Kara and it's pretty much the way I look at it too...and tomorrow, when I take my little guys out their favorite chines buffet, I'll be treating my bootie off.j/k It won't be an all out pigglet fest, but I'm not having salad only, that's for sure.;) Ya gotta enjoy life too, why else would we be working out so hard during the week.
:party:
 
Guess Who said:
I will try to clarify better as well.

The things like almonds, avocado, olive oil, etc are neccesary for a healthy lifestyle yes! I don't think they should ever be given up completely. I even have those things when I am off the wagon for a day. What I am saying is that if you are on a mission to lose weight and get the end results that you really want then SLOW OXIDIZERS need to limit to the under 20% per serving of fat calories. You are still getting your macro balance of somewhere around 20% per day. Take an omega supplement for those other healthy oils. Slow oxidizer means that my body can only burn a certain amount of fat from one sitting. If my meal consists of 100% fat a small percentage will go to energy and then rest will be stored as fat. So I eat the amount that most likely my body will convert to energy. This mainly happens because I was once obese. It's the difference between me eating hamburgers and gaining 90lbs and my best friend who eats WORSE than I do and can still manage to fit into a bikini.
Click to expand...

math isn't a strong suit for you is it? I don't think you understand how ratios work. A ratio per serving has NOTHING to do with total fat amount per serving. If the second statement i bolded is true (i don't think it is personally) then your first statement i bolded is still totally 100% FALSE. Again, a ratio does not equal a total amount.

Let me ask you this, what the actual number of GRAMS of fat a person should be eating every 4 hours so they can oxidize it properly. Thats really the number we're looking for isn't it. Once you have that, it's easy to show how you can go over this BS 20% number you spout and still be well under your gram intake per portion of the day... Alternately, I can easily show you that I can go well above the amount of fat I should be consuming in a meal but still be under 20% total for the meal.
 
I don't think READING is your strong suit and your post makes you seem a bit slow. Do you even know the definition of ratio?

Ratio = Relation in degree or number between two similar things.

When I say ratio, I mean the ratio between calories per serving and the portion on those calories in which come from FAT! So total fat grams do matter considering that in my RATIO math the fat equals 9 calories per gram.

Do you think your body waits until the end of the day to start converting your food into energy? I mean you are dead on with macros on a daily basis i.e. each day I get 40% protein, 40% carbs, 20% fat (oh this is not my RATIO by the way) so at the end of the day my body converts it into energy? NO it does it everytime you stick someting in your mouth so EACH MEAL should be balanced according to your RATIOS,. but I am off the point!

maybe this makes more sense for you!

My perfect meal consists of:
3oz chicken breast - 142 cal (3g fat, 0g carbs, 27g protein)
1 cup brown rice - 216 cal (2g fat, 45g carbs, 5g protein)
1 tomato - 22 cal (0g fat, 5g carbs, 1g protein)

Now this meal is 380 calories with 45 of calories coming from fat (9X5). Now divide 45 into 380 and that gives you 11% so the ratio of fat calories to total calories is 12%

Now take the same meal and add 1 tablespoon of olive oil (say I used it to cook the chicken)
that adds on 119 cal and 119 of those calories come from fat.

So now I have 500 calories with 164 of those calories coming from fat so now my ratio is 33% of fat calories to total calories.

Does that make it a litte easier for you to understand how my body might convert my food into energy?

Also you have to know that the body converts different macros into energy in different ways and times. You have to know that because otherwise you would not have this low carb bullshit.

I am really interested on how you can show me that you can have however many GRAMS of fat (you said more than you should have in a meal so I want to see that) and stay under 20%

Remember smart ass/mathmatician there are 9 calories per fat gram.
 
Do you even know the definition of ratio?
Ratio = Relation in degree or number between two similar things.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't understand the definition of ratio. Ratios aren't expressed as percentages. They're expressed relative to other items or relative to your entire diet (see the above definition you, yourself provided).

If you have a diet that's 40% carbs and 20% fat, then your ratio of carbs to fat is 2 to 1.

If fat is 20% of your diet, then your ratio of fat (relative to the rest of your macros) is 1 to 4.

So um ... yeah. What were you saying again?
 
you're laughable. The only person here who doesn't understand what i'm talking about is you. I'll make is simplier for you.

ratios = percent of a whole.

meal A: 900 calories 20 grams of fat ratio = 20%
meal B: 500 calories 13 grams of fat ratio = 23.4%

using you're utterly retarded logic, meal A is better, yet has a ton more fat. I quote you. "Slow oxidizer means that my body can only burn a certain amount of fat from one sitting." So which is it. can't have it both ways. Is the amount of fat per meal what matters, or is it the ratio that matters?

And you still havn't answered my question. Lets use you as an example. How much fat IN GRAMS is your body able to metabolize every 4 hours? If this slow oxidation crap of yours as any merit, you should easily be able to pull up a number, or at least provide us with a study that gives us a number of what this fat cuttoff is before your body starts taking those extra grams and puts them into fat storage.

And you're still utterly clueless about the basics of math. you're arguing that 13>20. Because you seem to think that the ratio of fat to calories is more important than the amount of fat itself in a meal. Again, you suck at math. Like really suck at math.

To end this, because I know you can't find anything on the web about a fat cuttoff, you're an idiot. everyone here thinks you are too. It's not often I make personal attack, but in this case it's warranted.... you're spouting complete and utter nonsense. I'm positive those pics you posted of you are faked. Everything you've said about diet is crap. and no one should seriously listen to anything you have to say. The idea that in one of your meals you would restrict almonds, olive oil, or avocados to stay under a 20% ratio for the meal is absurd. No nutritionist of any authority would ever recommend this.
 
Holy hell. Dare I even touch this thread with a 10 foot pole?

Research. Peer-reviewed research.

It means something.

Appeals to authority or emotion by posting pictures.

Not so much.
 
Faked? I don't think that worked in that sentence.

Actually you should Google Keith Klein with Institute of Eating Management. Umm I would say he has a lot of authority! He is very famous and has created WORLD CLASS champions in all apsects of the industry. Every heard of Lee LaBrada, um yeah he is his nutritionist.

Also idiots, taken from What is a Percent?
A percent is a ratio of a number to 100. A percent can be expressed using the percent symbol %.

Example: 10 percent or 10% are both the same, and stand for the ratio 10:100.

Look it up! I am done with you all too but one more thing before I am gone. Jynus, the reason you want GRAMS is because you obviously don't get something like CALORIES are the measurement of the energy that you body take for fuel. NOT GRAMS! That's why there is the 4-4-9 measurement of CALORIES PER GRAM SO PEOPLE WILL KNOW HOW TO FEED THEIR BODIES PROPERLY!

Oh yeah, all the photos of Keith's clients are FAKED!
 
KaraCooks said:
Apparently you don't understand the definition of ratio. Ratios aren't expressed as percentages. They're expressed relative to other items or relative to your entire diet (see the above definition you, yourself provided).

If you have a diet that's 40% carbs and 20% fat, then your ratio of carbs to fat is 2 to 1.

If fat is 20% of your diet, then your ratio of fat (relative to the rest of your macros) is 1 to 4.

So um ... yeah. What were you saying again?
Click to expand...

I said it below! Stick to your part time profession of photography!
 
Oh, and you brought up Tom Venuto. He's a bud of mine. Why don't you email him asking him for his thoughts pertaining to Lyle McDonald.
 
Guess - I really have to ask ... what's your point in being here? Why are you posting on the board? Do you want to help people? Do you want to give advice? Or are you here to just be abrasive and call people names.

Like I said earlier, looking at your other posts, you seem really antagonistic. You said in response to me earlier that you're just asking questions, but when you go to an area that is specifically about support for a certain type of diet and title your post "Anorexia support" ... that's not just asking a question. Or the gymboree thread where you start it with "isn't this the stupidest thing in the world". Or the picture thread that has a tone that says "how dumb".

Maybe you don't realize your posts are coming across like this, but they are. I really have avoided responding to you outside this thread for much of the time because I simply don't want to be the recipient of yet another of your "you're too fat to know what you're talking about" attacks or your really bad logic. And I cringe if I have an opinion contrary to yours in a thread because I feel if I express a different point of view, you're going to attack me again or tell me that I'm following you around just to disagree with you.

Really ... seriously ... and I'm not being snide or bitchy or trying to stir anything up. I just want to know why you're here? What do you hope to gain from participating here? Friends? Support? What? Because I can't tell, based on what you're posting.

Ah ... and now the name calling and personal attacks again. Yes, I'm a part time photographer. And that's a problem for you why? What do you do for a living, hm?

(And btw, anyone who doesn't understand what a straw man argument is, probably shouldn't be calling a group of other people "idiots". Just sayin'. )
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
Holy hell. Dare I even touch this thread with a 10 foot pole?

Research. Peer-reviewed research.

It means something.

Appeals to authority or emotion by posting pictures.

Not so much.
Click to expand...

it's fun. a good flame war is warranted every now and then. It's cool that for once i'm not the target. lol

But ya, i'm all for admitting i'm wrong. just give me something in peer reviewed about the body only being able to handle a certain amount of fat per sitting and i'll be the first to submit that i'm sorry.

I'm not holding my breath though.
 
Jillian Michaels will tell you it's true. And her primary motivator for being in this industry isn't money, lol.

Sounds like a bunch of voodoo to me... along the lines of all those con artists trying to sell metabolic typing books. They're always spouting off about slow oxidizers.

My views on nutrition and training have changed dramatically over my lifetime. But the impetus to change is generally stuff I'll find on or the like.

And even there it takes a high degree of critical/logical thinking to separate what's worth investigating further and what's not.

This thread reminds me of what you see over on Oxygen Magazine's forum.
 
Kara,
Okay look! I am really here to help. Last night I steamed over this. This morning I came into work and looked over the posts that I had made. I looked at my very first post, and I will take some responsibility here that since I did not sue emoticons all over the place and maybe use some kinder verbiage that I can see how maybe someone would take that as me being antagonostic, but are you willing to say that maybe you jumped the gun and from the beginning were against me and that maybe that came across in your posts? I mean I give some advice no different than what anyone gives here. I think some advice is ridiculous for me, but I just sift through it. You came and basically told me off. On my very first thread on this board I was talking about food labels and how you can't trust them and the first thing you said was my "anti fat rant"! You seem to be a respected poster on this board and I think everyone is ganging up on me because they see that you give me no credit.

Now I know I have been rude, and I apologize for that, however I kinda consider it self defense, and you all have been just a rude with responses to my rudeness so honestly we have all been pretty bad. I will start over and try to maybe not sound so antagonostic! However I do get frustrated because where someone could suggest that you pay $400 and send some blood off to be tested, which has no scientific backing that I can find, and that is okay to people, I suggest that people convert fat differently than some and then I get crapped on.
 
Jynus said:
it's fun. a good flame war is warranted every now and then. It's cool that for once i'm not the target. lol

But ya, i'm all for admitting i'm wrong. just give me something in peer reviewed about the body only being able to handle a certain amount of fat per sitting and i'll be the first to submit that i'm sorry.

I'm not holding my breath though.
Click to expand...

Jynus,
I am not going to go and cut and paste all the articles and quotes into the this thread. I am really done with the arguing so I am not trying to do that here. However, shouldn't it be safe for you to believe (you mentioned carb sensitivity the culprit of weight gain) that fat and the amount of it is converted to energy different in someone different i.e a slow oxidizer just the same way that someone might convert carbs at a different rate and that is why you eat less of that?

Also why does the government ( I can't believe I am saying that because they have no business controlling the situations) force companies to label calories per serving and then the calories from fat for that serving?

They don't have to list the amount of carb calories per serving or protein calories per serving, and just think of how much money is involved meaning lobbyist for the low carb industry. You must admit that I have a bit of a point.

Seriously, if you get some down time just Google how protein synthisis works and how the body converts fats to energy.

:cheers2:
 
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I'm canadian for starters, all nutrition information is required to be listed for all 3 macros and calories as well as all ingredients in any product. I always assumed states was the same as every time i've visited any product I looked at held these same rules.

I have mentioned carb sensitivity as I've read more than my share of studies on the subject. It appears to be a very real issue. And it has more to do with the type of carbs eaten than the amount. And in any diet that addresses the issue, no one does anything as stupid as "only eat 30% carbs max per meal" I have yet to read the same for fats. And even if it were true, you don't present a good solution to the problem with your whole 20% spiel. As again pointed out by me, a ratio is NOT the answer to a problem that needs a hard cap number.

You still have not
a) presented me or anyone here with a peer reviewed study backing your claims
b) given a number in fat grams that should be considered a cap for a slow oxidizer

If you're going to play with fire, have the numbers and studies to back your point rather than make strawman arguments...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top