Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Which is the best choice? page

  1. #1
    Rattybag's Avatar
    Rattybag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Norwich UK
    Posts
    412

    Which is the best choice?

    Shop Now
    On weight loss thinking, which would be my better option for frying? Coconut oil or animal fats?
    Im trying to lose a stone but really struggling, and though my fat content is quite high, Im wondering if it might be too much of one type. i.e. Lard, dripping etc.
    Any thoughts?
    I'm not a complete idiot! There's parts missing!!

  2. #2
    paleo-bunny's Avatar
    paleo-bunny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SW England, UK
    Posts
    2,667
    Nutritionally speaking it's best to use a range of suitable fats - lard/dripping, coconut oil, butter or ghee, extra virgin olive oil (which is best combined 50:50 with butter). I don't believe that would make a huge difference to weight loss tho'. More variety might help you eat a bit less fat?
    F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

  3. #3
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    9,492
    What I've heard is your body processes the medium chain triglycerides in a different way from other fats, by the liver, and that your body will tend to want to burn it off rather than store it. To a point, of course. But the omega 3 in the beef drippings and tallow are going to make you feel good, satisfied and happy. So you don't want to just swap one out on some crazy idea that if a little of something has a particular advantage, more is better.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 180 x 2. Current Deadlift: 230 x 2

  4. #4
    maclrc's Avatar
    maclrc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    128
    Whilst variation is good, I'm inclined to think that there won't be a huge impact on weight loss. I tend to cook with the fat I think best matches what I am cooking from a taste perspective.

    For the weight loss try and make sure you aren't overdoing the fat intake purely from a calorie intake point of view (e.g. 1 tbsp of olive oil is 120 Kcal, etc.). Grilling may well be a better option as it ordinarily requires less cooking fat.

    If hunger and not feeling full are factors in preventing weight loss (i.e. eating more because of them), I also find that fattier meat with very little cooking fat, tends to keep me fuller for longer that the macro-nutritional equivalent lean meat with more cooking fat.

    Hope this helps

  5. #5
    Rattybag's Avatar
    Rattybag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Norwich UK
    Posts
    412
    I think this might be where Im going wrong - Im simply eating too many calories!
    I'm not a complete idiot! There's parts missing!!

  6. #6
    paleo-bunny's Avatar
    paleo-bunny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SW England, UK
    Posts
    2,667
    I agree with maclrc that taking in more fat in the form of wholefoods rather than purified fats is generally more satiating, with the downside that it's usually more expensive. It improves overall micronutrient intake too.

    Eating more eggs is a relatively affordable way of obtaining more fat from wholefoods, if you like eggs. Can you eat low lactose cheeses like parmesan? That's a very nutritious source of fat. It seems to be easier to obtain plenty of fat from non-meat animal foods than it is from meat!
    F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

  7. #7
    maclrc's Avatar
    maclrc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    128
    Yes, Primal eating can be very expensive! Although, there are some things that are both primal and cheaper than CW alternatives (think chicken thigh fillets, not breasts, pork belly, offal - all cheap because they are unavoidable bi-products of CW food production).

    A slight digression I know, but CW does help keep my shopping bills down (down, but still high...)

  8. #8
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    9,492
    I bought pork butt at Whole Foods for $7 a pound (which here in Santa Barbara is pretty cheap.) Very well marbled. It's really good cooked slowly in the oven with a layer of carrots and onions under it. Very satisfying. More satisfying than leaner meat cooked in coconut oil, that's for sure. Sometimes I find that one really satisfying meal each week is enough to tide me over for a while and get things righted again as far as appetite control and overeating on lesser-quality things goes.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 180 x 2. Current Deadlift: 230 x 2

  9. #9
    paleo-bunny's Avatar
    paleo-bunny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SW England, UK
    Posts
    2,667
    Quote Originally Posted by maclrc View Post
    Yes, Primal eating can be very expensive! Although, there are some things that are both primal and cheaper than CW alternatives (think chicken thigh fillets, not breasts, pork belly, offal - all cheap because they are unavoidable bi-products of CW food production).

    A slight digression I know, but CW does help keep my shopping bills down (down, but still high...)
    Good point. Pate's are relatively cheap and fatty too, and are convenient to eat.

    Mind you, Rattybag might be loaded and dining on oysters and caviar for all we know!
    F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

  10. #10
    jakey's Avatar
    jakey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,294
    no difference from a weightloss perspective.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •