If I stay within my calorie deficit, does it really not matter what I eat? For example, 1500 cal of fried chicken is the same as 1500 cal of salad? I see a lot of you reduce weight loss down to calories out vs in but how does saturated fat affect your heart health? I remember being taught from childhood that saturated fat from animal sources causes heart disease.

It may not matter for weight loss, but it does matter for overall health, as you've pointed out.

Another thing is that healthier foods will fill you up because it's so much more food.

I'm sure you already know the answer to that. Of course it matters what you eat. If you don't eat a nutritious diet, you won't be healthy. Thin and medical problems are not for me.

Well, then why do so many people the "keto" low carb diets that allow you to eat a lot of saturated fat?

It matters for weight loss as well. The way some nutrients interact with eachother after you eat them can aid or stall weight loss, no matter the calories. For example, if you eat bread with fries and meat you will assimilate the fats much faster because of the carb-protein-fats combo. If you eat potatoes (baked/boiled) without combining them with bread or fats, they are more beneficial.
What you eat and in what combinations matters a lot. You won't lose much weight and you'll also feel sick and hungry all the time if you eat your daily calories in fires and burgers and sweets.

And I suppose the answer to your question would be that, that's the best they can do and it's better than nothing. Not many people can cut out bad fats/carbs completely. Limiting them to a certain amount of calories/day is still better than overeating.

It's not healthy and obviously not the best choice, but if it helps stay on plan and control cravings and binging, I suppose it works.

What evidence is there showing that the combination and ratio of fat, protein and carb can lead to more fat build up? So what's the best combo for least fat build up?

Mainly, as most of the other diets, it's a theory regarding different digestion speeds (which is not proved as to whether it influences weight loss or not, but it is consider to do). Also, it is considered by some that spikes in insulin from sweets can hinder weight loss. This is a more generally approved theory than the first one, but whether it is spot-on or not, it does not really matter, because on a diet it is recommended that you avoid "bad carbs" anyway.

The spikes in insulin occur at the same time/ are caused by spikes in blood glucose (and the inevitable crash in glucose or sugar crash) which increases appetite. That's why eating sweets or bad carbs can lead to overeating and weight gain. This is a generally known fact.

How true the food combining theory is, we can't know, since a ton of theories fly around and the opinions regarding them are divided. I can say that I have lost weight by not combining proteins and carbs and I lost 33 lbs in 3 months by eating whatever amount, whenever I wanted (went to a local dietician that recommended it - I also think that the Montignac diet is based around this principle, but I never followed that diet). But I didn't like the diet and it was a struggle to keep it. I was thinking about what I'm going to eat all the time - it was complicated.

Anyway, I think that if you eat healthy food you will lose weight faster and healthier than if you eat a certain amount of calories of junk food. A treat once in a while is no crime, but it's too easy to overeat bad stuff. I stay away from it altogether and with my current plan, I haven't had a craving in a month.

There's a ton of healthy choices out there. If I focus on eating what I like from the good category, I don't think about the things I used to like almost at all (pizza, hamburgers, fries etc.).

Just because a diet is popular, doesn't make it healthy. Many people lose weight on unhealthy diets - they also may lose their hair, their health or even their life in the process. Others may be lucky and escape without serious or obvious harm. Or they may feel better because their "bad diet" may be healthier than what they were eating before the diet.

As for keto diets specifically, saturated fat may be dangerous only when combined with starchy and sugary carbs. The research on keto diets is still relatively new. There are risks to a keto diet, but so far, research suggests low carb diets aren't as unhealthy as once thought.

Also, what is healthy for one person may be unhealthy for another. I find that strict keto diets make me very ill (and it doesn't get better after a couple weeks as the keto diets promise).

However, I feel great eating lower, but not "too low" carb. I have a wide array of health issues, and the symptoms are fewer and less severe on a lowish carb diet.

My doctor recommended low carb, warning me not to go too low, but admitted I'd have to experiment to find out what was too low.

So for me, low carb is healthy, but I don't eat as much fat (of any kind) as I did on high carb eating, because I'm not as hungry, especially for sugary/fatty/salty foods.

I don't have the time to link extensively - but the short of it is that saturated fats are the most stable source of fat that can be consumed (less rancidity) and have the least metabolic impact of the macronutrient categories. They also signal hormones in the brain and cells of the body that energy is available and cue satiety.

Saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease - that entire premise is fallacious and built upon clear manipulation of data from several studies, the largest of which being the Framingham study (which, for the record, concluded that individuals with the largest sat fat intake had the least cardiac events). Incidentally, much research has been done over the past century, but the last ten years in particular, indicating that a diet composed of saturated and unsaturated fat, combined with controlling carbohydrate, yields statistically and clinically notable improvements across a number of health markers.

I'd highly suggest doing some actual reading on the subject, instead of just making wild eyed claims, which is what your opening salvo amounted to . Fat is crucial for health, especially for our nerves and brains, and it cues satiety quickly. A ketogenic diet has a few things that might count against it, especially for an endurance athlete, but long term ketosis or low-carb-but-not-ketotic eating would be a MASSIVE health improvement for a significant portion of the world's population (given their current diets and health trends).

I'd suggest beginning your research with this book and moving on to other resources from there. It would likely be quite eye opening for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat...5200794&sr=1-1

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08...sor/index.html

If you create a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. You will probably even get healthier.

People become paralyzed with this whole "perfect diet" idea. Don't let confusion and information over load hold you back. If you eat less you will lose weight and if you lose weight, you will be healthier.

I completely agree. I've always been amazed by the number of dieters that only consider quick weight loss as the goal of their diets, instead of their long term health. Healthy diets also lead to weight loss, but provide so much more.

I used to think that it was all about calories in/out and for the most part that is true. It's a bit more complex than that. Also, we're all different and our bodies even change as we age. What works for some may not work for others.

I personally found that eating healthier foods made me feel better, gave me tons of energy which helped me to move more, and kept me from feeling hungry so I stuck with it. (I lost over 100 lbs) I always choose foods based on their nutrient content and I meet or exceed the RDA for every nutrient that the USDA tracks (thanks, USDA supertracker tool )

OP, if diet and heart disease are a concern for you, I suggest checking out Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease by Caldwell Esselstyn, M.D. I know people that swear this plan turned their lives around. There's also an interesting documentary online with Dr Sanjay Gupta, Bill Clinton, and Dr. Esselstyn that details the improvements made by this type of diet plan.

I think you are getting the 2 issues confused. Spikes in insulin can occur by eating high GI foods but this affects different people in different ways. If the highs/lows of insulin cause someone to overeat, then they are eating more calories but I believe the initial question was would you lose weight by eating the same amount of calories of various foods and the answer is yes. We've had people lose weight on this site eating 'bad carbs'.

I am at the point where I am accepting that there aren't bad foods or good foods but there are foods that make me feel optimal and those that make me feel less optimal. I choose foods that make me feel good which generally means a lot of nutrient-rich foods. If something makes me feel crappy, is there a reason to eat it? For me, no.

Also, you'd be surprised to find that tons of people will eat slabs of bacon and cheese and call it keto/low-carb/Atkins/insert different name here. That doesn't necessarily mean it follows the protocols of what the actual style of eating requires.

Let's take Paleo. People will eat a pound of pork sausage, 5 eggs, and a side of avocado and call it Paleo. Cordain's book would say Paleo is actually a cold leftover chicken breast with fiddleheads and a couple of berries with a handful of nuts........ big difference.

For me, it does matter. I lose weight best if I keep my carb grams under 100 per day. My doctor says that some people are have a metabolic type that is sensitive to carbs, and I'm one of them.