/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>16449332
>This is misleading, everyone has an affinity for fat, butter, etc.
not necessarily. of course theres very few cultures with truly low fat diets. and yeah, Southern diet is high-everything, not just high fat. and yet the amount of fat in their diet is simply staggering. i'm not sure anywhere in the world people can eat as much deep fried stuff. it's like fat fried in oil.
i'm saying that if fat truly had this amount of satiety, no way they'd stay that fat. and we'd have deep fried butter for weight loss. except it's pretty much the opposite of that.
fat is very much needed in diet, don't get me wrong—fat is good when consumed in reasonable amounts, and a diet should have at least moderate amount of fat in it. but i'm really not sure if it really is that good for satiety as many people claim nowadays with keto and all, because a lot of US would be way thinner with all the added fats in our diet. and from the data i've seen, different studies show different things. some sites put lard etc. around the lowest satiety for example. overall, of course, eating a block of butter will satiate you very well, except it's also gonna be like 1440 calories which is not great.
>Asian countries have lots of fried food, prefer to eat fatty cuts of meat, yet are generally thin.
if we're talking chinese food, they have food scarcity to begin with and have strong social stigma against being fat, not to mention their focus on physical culture. plus, most asian food also has lots of rice too. so if you implied it's high fat, it's also high carb.
pretty sure that if you ate same quantities of deep fried Chinese food as people do with other deep fried stuff, you'd get fat pretty quick.