The “fat makes you fat” theory is appealing because it’s simple. Eat less fat and you’ll become less fat (also known as the “less in, less on” theory). The low-fat diet is seductive… and yet, research shows it’s not exactly true.
Fat has both an incriminating name and an incriminating appearance. The word “fat” is one of the most hated words in the English language, and it is so easy to look at the fat encircling a slab of beef and envision it encircling your waist.
Because the fat you eat and the fat hanging off your body are essentially the same in appearance, composition, and consistency, the association between dietary fat and body fat is inviting.
Add the fact that, gram for gram, fat has more than twice the calories of protein or carbohydrate and there seems to be a strong scientific basis for the low-fat dietary prescription.
Then look at the fact that high fat consumption is correlated with high rates of obesity in the United States (but be sure to ignore the fact that lower fat consumption, the trend in recent years, is correlated with an even higher rate of obesity!) and the “fat makes you fat” theory appears bulletproof.
It seems to make perfect sense that, since fat has nine calories per gram and carbohydrate has four calories per gram, if you replace fat with carbohydrate you will consume fewer calories and lose bodyfat.
This simplistic reasoning lies at the heart of the low-fat dietary paradigm. However, while the logic is sound, both of the underlying assumptions are flawed. (This situation is similar to adding five plus eight and getting thirteen, and then looking more closely and discovering that the five is really a six – the arithmetic is correct but the result is nonetheless inaccurate.)
For one, reducing calories is generally not an effective way to reduce bodyfat because your metabolism up-regulates or down-regulates to match caloric intake. In other words, calorie restriction induces a metabolic slowdown that offsets the calorie deficit.
The other assumption is that you will eat fewer calories when carbohydrates are substituted for fat, is also incorrect. Fat appears to reduce food cravings while carbohydrates appear to stimulate cravings by initiating hormonal hunger. In fact, although fat contains more than twice the calories per gram of carbohydrate, fat stalls hunger for about 3 times as long.
So guess what happens when you replace fat with carbohydrate. You wind-up eating at least as many calories as you had before you reduced your fat intake. But now your diet is less pleasurable, and you are not getting the fat-burning effects of fat.
If you take into consideration how many people follow the “experts” instructions on how to cut fat and increase carbohydrate intake – in reality people become fatter and in addition have to endure the pain of cravings as a result – it occurs to you what a huge mistake this has been.
The high-carb/low-fat blunder recalls a similar error from years ago that still holds sway over many people today: we were given dire warnings by health authorities to cut cholesterol. Like the “fat makes you fat” theory, the anti-cholesterol theory makes sense on the surface. But, also like the “fat makes you fat” theory, the missing piece of the puzzle is hormones.
Hormones – HGH Supplementation
HGH supplements can have a huge impact on fat loss. This has been revealed in a number research studies. Fat loss looks like the most dramatic outcome perhaps it is something that is easy to see.