Fat doesn't make you fat: dietitians challenge decades of dogma

Nutritional dogma: fat is not the enemy it was thought to be

Is it true that eating fat doesn't make you fat? The dietary narrative that has dominated the landscape since the 1980s is being questioned by certain analytical circles. The official approach, which promoted drastic fat reduction and encouraged low-cholesterol diets, is being overshadowed by arguments pointing to its basis in a "science with weak points." This shift in nutritional understanding raises a profound debate about human physiology and the composition of a balanced diet.

The origin of the anti-fat narrative

The report that has stirred the debate notes that the push to eliminate fat and cholesterol, especially in the UK since 1983, ironically led to an increase in the consumption of ultra-processed food and refined carbohydrates. The authors of the approach suggest a return to more ancestral sources of nutrition: meat, fish, dairy and healthy fats like avocado.

Criticism of the current food pyramid

The dietary structure promoted by organizations such as the WHO is based predominantly on cereals. However, some argue that the human body is not genetically optimized to sustain diets with such a high glycemic load over the long term. High blood glucose spikes, according to this perspective, drive unsustainable insulin levels, which, in the long run, are linked to inflammation and the development of chronic diseases.

Metabolism: Sugar or fat, the real cause of the problem?

The most compelling argument of the paradigm shift lies in the metabolic difference. It is argued that fats, despite their energy density, are not directly responsible for fat storage in the same way that simple sugars are. It is posited that glucose and fructose, through *de novo* lipogenesis, lead to fat deposition in adipose tissue. This implies that the insulin response, triggered by refined carbohydrates, is the true metabolic trigger.

The complexity of satiety and adaptation

It is suggested that, in diets rich in healthy fats, the feeling of satiety is greater than that obtained with fast-absorbing carbohydrates. This prolonged satiety, by avoiding insulin spikes, could reconfigure the individual's hormonal response. However, it is warned that any dietary change, such as the transition to a *low-carb* pattern, requires an adaptation period, which can range from weeks to months, and that the quality of those fats is a decisive factor.

The conclusion is that, although individual biology and genetics play a role, the low-fat dogma has facilitated the consumption of processed foods. The question is not to eliminate fat, but to discern what type of fats and what type of carbohydrates we are ingesting, and with what frequency.

With these arguments, the idea that fat is intrinsically harmful seems to be an oversimplification of a much more complex biological system. In the end, the answer, as always, slips between the quantity, the quality and the will of the person holding the fork.

Related discussions on the forum

• Why you have to eat carbohydrates massively (minimal explanation in technical terms). · 205 replies
• I've been eating 6 eggs a day for over a year and I answer questions · 221 replies
• I'm having 100g protein breakfasts and I'm flying. · 283 replies
• Eating less sugar and flour, the definitive solution to overweight/obesity? · 10831 replies