How important is counting fat grams?? Can you still lose weight with high calorie but low fat grams?

I remember reading a book years ago (early 90's) that basically claimed that men who want to lose weight should just eat less than 30 grams of fat per day, and women should eat less than 25 (I think?) grams.

I'm wondering if any of you focus on fat grams at all. There are days when I will over-do the calories but my fat grams are very low. It makes me feel better, but I don't know how accurate or safe low-fat gram weight loss is.

I did lose a lot of weight when I cut back fat grams after reading that book 20 years ago, but I was 20 years younger, with a much better metabolism.

Find more posts tagged with

Replies

Weight loss is about calories. You need fat for basic body functions and to absorb many nutrients. Fat doesn't make you fat. You probably lost weight because you cut back on calorie dense food and created a deficit.

Fat is an essential nutrient and very important in the diet. It also helps you to feel satiated, and therefore less likely to overeat later (ie, an adequate fat intake can help you stick to your calorie goal by helping you feel full for longer). Those amounts you posted would be absolute minimums, actually possibly even lower than recommended minimum. Not surprising given the age of that book.

Weight loss is calories in vs calories out. Just lowering your fat intake but staying at the same overall cal intake won't make a scrap of difference.

I remember counting fat grams in the 90's. Never lost any weight at all. It you do lose weight while counting fat grams, its because it also happend to put you into a calorie deficit.

I count fat grams to make sure I get ENOUGH of them. Because for me, cutting calories tends to lead me to reduce fat, but not getting enough fat makes my body feel yucky, and it requires constant intervention in my diet to keep it right.

There are 3 sources of calories in the food you eat: Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates. The average person only needs to eat 1 gram of protein per kilogram of bodyweight, with the rest of the calories coming from fat and carbs. The important thing is calorie consumption, and if you cut fat out of your diet you may feel hungry more often and consume large amounts of carbs which can cause weight gain. I've done the opposite, I try and limit my carb intake to less that 150 grams per day, and I've lost 18 pounds in the past 5 weeks.

My point is, whatever nutritional balance works best for your needs is the best for you. If you're happier consuming more carbs and less fat then great, the important thing is making sure you get balanced nutrition and don't consume too many calories.

You need fat. Here are minimum recommended amounts. Many people eat much more and are losing weight:
http://www.pennmedicine.org/health_info/nutrition/how_much.html

marcopolocostarica wrote: »

I remember reading a book years ago (early 90's) that basically claimed that men who want to lose weight should just eat less than 30 grams of fat per day, and women should eat less than 25 (I think?) grams.

I'm wondering if any of you focus on fat grams at all. There are days when I will over-do the calories but my fat grams are very low. It makes me feel better, but I don't know how accurate or safe low-fat gram weight loss is.

I did lose a lot of weight when I cut back fat grams after reading that book 20 years ago, but I was 20 years younger, with a much better metabolism.

Weight loss is dependent on calories in/calories out, the balance of macros is personal preference only.

In the 90s fat was thought to be "bad." Now we know that's not the case. There is no need to restrict any "macro" unless there is a medical reason to do so, or a personal preference. You probably lost weight with fat restriction, SLLRunner, because you were eating fewer calories over all.

Weight Watchers had a whole program dedicated to that in 1995, the Fat n Fiber programme. You were supposed to eat under 20g of fat a day, and more than 20g fiber.

Given that pasta, bread, gummi bears etc are all low in fat, I never lost any weight on it. It was one of their shorter lived programs, thats for sure.

maxit wrote: »

In the 90s fat was thought to be "bad." Now we know that's not the case. There is no need to restrict any "macro" unless there is a medical reason to do so, or a personal preference. You probably lost weight with fat restriction, SLLRunner, because you were eating fewer calories over all.

You're replying to the wrong poster. This is what I said:

Weight loss is dependent on calories in/calories out, the balance of macros is personal preference only.

I'm 100 percent certain how one loses weight.

Alatariel75 wrote: »

Weight Watchers had a whole program dedicated to that in 1995, the Fat n Fiber programme. You were supposed to eat under 20g of fat a day, and more than 20g fiber.

Given that pasta, bread, gummi bears etc are all low in fat, I never lost any weight on it. It was one of their shorter lived programs, thats for sure.

Not to mention Susan Powter, who penned Stop the Insanity. Yet, she spread insanity with her motto food doesn't make you food, fat does. Sheesh!

workedog wrote: »

There are 3 sources of calories in the food you eat: Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates. The average person only needs to eat 1 gram of protein per kilogram of bodyweight, with the rest of the calories coming from fat and carbs. The important thing is calorie consumption, and if you cut fat out of your diet you may feel hungry more often and consume large amounts of carbs which can cause weight gain. I've done the opposite, I try and limit my carb intake to less that 150 grams per day, and I've lost 18 pounds in the past 5 weeks.

My point is, whatever nutritional balance works best for your needs is the best for you. If you're happier consuming more carbs and less fat then great, the important thing is making sure you get balanced nutrition and don't consume too many calories.

1kg per lb of bodyweight in protein in rather low. Especially if the person is training.

I eat about 80-120 grams of fat per day and lose weight just fine. My skin has much improved also.

marcopolocostarica wrote: »

I remember reading a book years ago (early 90's) that basically claimed that men who want to lose weight should just eat less than 30 grams of fat per day, and women should eat less than 25 (I think?) grams.

I'm wondering if any of you focus on fat grams at all. There are days when I will over-do the calories but my fat grams are very low. It makes me feel better, but I don't know how accurate or safe low-fat gram weight loss is.

I did lose a lot of weight when I cut back fat grams after reading that book 20 years ago, but I was 20 years younger, with a much better metabolism.

marcopolostarica age can make a difference for sure. Now fats makes up 80% of my calories mainly to reduce joint pain/inflammation with the side effect of weight loss.

Finding a solution that works for one's self is the main thing I think especially as a senior citizen because age does change things.

I know personal evidence is purely anecdotal, but if it helps, I actually found things easier after I increased my fat intake. Lots of avocados, nuts, coconut oil and cottage cheese means there are a lot of days where fats make up 35-40% of my intake. Going "into the red" on my fats doesn't bother me much, since I know they're mostly healthy fats.

Weight loss is going to come down to calories in, calories out, so my rate of weight loss remained consistent in the face of this change in my diet, as my calorie intake did not vary. However, after I increased my fat intake I certainly FELT a lot fuller and happier. I suppose I could say this actually helped with my weight loss inadvertently, as I felt no need to snack or eat extra as it cut down on my hunger pangs, which has allowed me to stick to my lower calorie goals for 4+months.

Hope this perspective helps!

MrM27 wrote: »

workedog wrote: »

.

1kg per lb of bodyweight in protein in rather low. Especially if the person is training.

I think you mean one gram of protein per kilogram of body weight and you are right. But I don't subscribe to the silly calorie in/ calorie out concept. When you eat larger amounts of protein, fully one quarter of its calories are utilized in its own digestion and metabolism. The figure is 10% for carbs and only 5% for fats. So what you eat is just as important as the calories in it. Also, if your body does not produce sufficient enzymes and you don't get any from whole raw food, you cannot utilize the calories in it and they contribute to your fat stores. Also, when you eat is very important to your metabolism, hormonal levels and the amount of fat you store as well as the amount of muscle you build. This is why thousands of people are discovering amazing results with intermittent fasting.What you choose to eat is far more important than the calories within it. CICO IS AN OUTDATED RIDICULOUS NOTION.

BILLBRYTAN wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

workedog wrote: »

.

1kg per lb of bodyweight in protein in rather low. Especially if the person is training.

I think you mean one gram of protein per kilogram of body weight and you are right. But I don't subscribe to the silly calorie in/ calorie out concept. When you eat larger amounts of protein, fully one quarter of its calories are utilized in its own digestion and metabolism. The figure is 10% for carbs and only 5% for fats. So what you eat is just as important as the calories in it. Also, if your body does not produce sufficient enzymes and you don't get any from whole raw food, you cannot utilize the calories in it and they contribute to your fat stores. Also, when you eat is very important to your metabolism, hormonal levels and the amount of fat you store as well as the amount of muscle you build. This is why thousands of people are discovering amazing results with intermittent fasting.What you choose to eat is far more important than the calories within it. CICO IS AN OUTDATED RIDICULOUS NOTION.

Yup, I typed it out wrong.

Will if up think CICO is silly then you obviously don't belong in weight loss.
How is the food more important than the calories? If you eat all the "healthy" food but you eat 300 calories above maintenance will you lose weight?

If CICO is outdated then why even be on a site like this?

Fat helps your body absorb essential nutrients so yes you should hit minimum fat goals ..0.35g fat per lb bodyweight (and protein is also a minimum)

BILLBRYTAN wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

workedog wrote: »

.

1kg per lb of bodyweight in protein in rather low. Especially if the person is training.

I think you mean one gram of protein per kilogram of body weight and you are right. But I don't subscribe to the silly calorie in/ calorie out concept. When you eat larger amounts of protein, fully one quarter of its calories are utilized in its own digestion and metabolism. The figure is 10% for carbs and only 5% for fats. So what you eat is just as important as the calories in it. Also, if your body does not produce sufficient enzymes and you don't get any from whole raw food, you cannot utilize the calories in it and they contribute to your fat stores. Also, when you eat is very important to your metabolism, hormonal levels and the amount of fat you store as well as the amount of muscle you build. This is why thousands of people are discovering amazing results with intermittent fasting.What you choose to eat is far more important than the calories within it. CICO IS AN OUTDATED RIDICULOUS NOTION.

0.8-1g protein per lb of LBM

CICO with a focus on macro and micro nutrients is a brilliant, effective route to long term health and weight management

I'm not sure I can fit popcorn into my cals today

Quick Links