No, you can't eat anything fat free nor as much as you want in other foods, if you care about how much fat is going to accumulate on your frame.
If it were possible (hypothetical--example), to eat only lettuce
(which has about 20 calories per head), and eat above MT-line, one could theoretically get fat on lettuce. But, with it being 20 calories per head, most would be sick and tired of it, way before reaching or surpassing their personal numerical calorie line-
However, I look at sugar-free, fat free, and other potentially low calorie food items (I use the word potentially, because not all fat-free, sugar-free foods are low calorie), in a somewhat different point of view as it pans between the needs of one's goal AND what is or is not a healthy food item with these variables in them.
Actually, sugar-free, fat-free, and other foods in which are more so-called natural, would be a good debate subject.
Do you really think the tomatoes you get in stores are natural?
A large portion (but not all) of commercial tomatoes, are hydro foiled supplanted in a solution containing water, and the roots never touch or are in any soil during the maturing of the plant (the plant was not meant to grow this way).
Then they are picked green (to withstand the time...in transportation, to avoid rot), and some are tomatoes are injected with a solution to bring about ripeness. All of which effects the flavor of a store bought tomato. Try one off the vine, ripened on the vine, and there is no comparison.
So natural could be debated along these lines. In addition, some have a problem with hybrid type of tomatoes. Why, because man manipulates....the natural cross pollination, by cross pollinating two or more subject plants to either obtain another type, better type, or increase disease resistance in the plants or plants. I personally do not have a problem with this. Because most
of the plants are actually put side by side, and its done naturally--for the most part--pollination or cross pollination is actually natural process--even untouched by man. Most tend to forget, that tomatoes, were....actually....ground runners, and were not meant to be upright on stakes, trellises, etc. But, running tomato vines on the ground (since they are in deed a pansy plant), introduces many diseases. Any hoot, done with rambling....on tomatoes, lol.
Personally, when I first started dieting several years ago, There were a few things I was interested in:
1. Low-calorie, fat-free, sugar-free foods, that taste good, gave me the best bang for my buck in money, calories, and taste, and assisted in.....allowing me to eat a bit more, while...reasonably allowing a bit more content in my stomach, which in turn assists in staving off hunger pains. What these foods turned out to be depended on my research on the particular food item (s).
2. Sweeteners v. Common Table Sugar. If you read and study on the hormone insulin, we all learn the its a multitasking hormone, critical in many, many, different functions. One of
....its functions in dealing with sugar within the body. And, how this is handled, depends largely on how much of the food or foods were eaten, and what was eaten. Briefly, this interested me because, insulin does have an effect on other hormones and bodily responses in relation to hunger cravings or swings in hunger cravings, or stability in hunger cravings. In these two choices, an argument could be made that they are both bad for you.
I call this the bad-choice set
, because stability of blood sugar is important (IMO), and both of these choices (dependent on the choice side), can have an impact for the dieter with calorie goals, but also debatable health costs.
And, how these effect the dieter with goals (not pointing to health concerns), depends on the person. Personally, If I put regular table sugar in coffee, or other items such as (oats), and even use it sparingly, it wreaks havoc on my hunger cravings. In contrast, if I use Splenda (and we all should know what Splenda is, and its not natural, lol), it assists--tremendously in this area, in direct mutually inclusive contrast, only.
So, here I get the sweetness I want, a very inordinate amount of calorie savings
, but a huge push in the right direction in trying to stabilize my blood sugar; which puts one peg forward in hunger pains, and controlling insulin response--in relation to these components. However, not the best healthy choice, when you consider, Splenda, has a chlorine molecule encased, which just...theoretically just passes through the system.
The other issue was getting more food to eat (or filling my stomach more), under a calorie deficit, which is difficult in most calorie depravity situations, dependent on numeric restriction.
To shorten this I will provide an example.
I love tortillas and flat bread. But, these cane be extremely high in calories. For months I searched for a good size/calorie portion size. I found two varieties, with a lot of fiber substituting for a lot of the flour content (which greatly reduces the calories). I adored this combo, because fiber fills and swells in the stomach (full longer), and in some cases, I do not shit for 2 days (after I haven't eaten it for a couple of weeks especially). Calories are only 60 per serving (4 net carbohydrates), which is perfect.
The other point to get from this is: Open up your mind on low-calorie food items, and see how they can benefit your situation. AND STUDY, STUDY!
Low-fat usually have lower calories (the calorie is about 9 calories per gram), but sometimes substitute taste, and again, sometimes are not the best choice. For example:
Low-fat Peanut butter. Geesh this stuff is terrible (step back from my PB and lowering its fat, and no one gets hurt,
). Doesn't reduce calories that much, and.....defeats the purpose in eating it..for its good fat content.