Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Minimum fat grams?
Options
DoctorShock
Posts: 11 Member
in Debate Club
I'm confused about the minimum level of dietary fat needed to avoid health issues. I've seen various numbers thrown around in some threads on MFP:
- 30 g regardless of body mass (online calculators such as http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/)
- 0.4 g/lb of lean body mass
- 0.4 g/lb of total body mass
- 20-35% of calories (US RDA)
- 30% (MFP default)
What should the actual minimum fat grams be, and why?
- 30 g regardless of body mass (online calculators such as http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/)
- 0.4 g/lb of lean body mass
- 0.4 g/lb of total body mass
- 20-35% of calories (US RDA)
- 30% (MFP default)
What should the actual minimum fat grams be, and why?
0
Replies
-
If doing low carb, high fat, it would usually be between 60 and 70 percent of calories, otherwise 30 percent of calories would be MINIMUM.0
-
I believe the minimum is between 20 and 30g per day. And fsts contains fatty acids which are essential to the body.
May i ask why you need to avoid fats? I only ask because there are a lot of healthy fats.0 -
Here is a chart you could consider:
http://www.pennmedicine.org/health_info/nutrition/how_much.html0 -
I'm very interested in this thread and would love to hear the reasoning, as this is something I've wondered about myself. Possibly also of interest (although I'm not interested in low fat myself, as I enjoy my diet more with around 30%) is this: http://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/0
-
I personally go for 45-50 g minimum, as any lower tends to show noticeable negative effects on my nails and hair. For me, that's almost exactly 0.3 (0.3030303...) of my body weight in pounds and 0.4 of my LBM, so that guideline is spot-on for my body chemistry.
May i ask why you need to avoid fats? I only ask because there are a lot of healthy fats.
Not that I want to derail this thread, but this right here is why people often get annoyed at the "helpful" people on MFP. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I do not see anywhere in the OP where it says that he/she is trying to avoid dietary fat. I've wondered about the same question, not because I'm concerned with low fat, but because I'm concerned I don't get enough...1 -
50-80g is what I shoot for but more than that is fine too if it meets calorie goal..any lower than 50 though and it's not good imo. You should make sure you have good fats and avoid saturated fats (fast food)0
-
Though I never really saw the connection before I started logging food, if I have a day on the lower side of fat intake I often don't stay full as long, even if my protein intake is up. I've actually considered picking up some source of higher fats that would be easy to make as a stand alone thing (BP coffee or something) so I could add some extra fat without more protein and carbs to see if it keeps me full longer.
I am flexible when it comes to fat intake and avoid back to back days of lower fat intake, so I've never really noticed any changes in skin or nails. Tonight was pizza night, so I could probably get away with eating lean tomorrow.
0 -
I shoot for at least 70 grams, but I don't know if I need that much, or if it just reflects how I like to eat. I feel better mentally and physically than ever, but I don't know if that's because I eat more fat (I'm not able to recreate a typical "before" day), or if the fat I eat is better than the fat I ate before, or if it's that my overall diet has improved, not even if the higher fat allowance has made it much easier to eat better, and if the feeling of autonomy I get from "disobeying" nutritional guidelines has anything to do with it. Anyhow, this way of eating is healthy "enough", while at the same time a way I enjoy eating, that means I'm going to stick with it, and this "optimal" diet is better than any "ideal".
My physical health has improved, I have a stable, normal weight, more energy, sleep better, etc, but most important for my wellbeing is this: The intense cravings for junk have almost disappeared. I don't know if I can attribute this to less exposure/temptation, or change of habits, attitude and taste buds, or if it's just the stronger appeal of my new normal diet. I have experienced a lessening in cravings before, when eating better but low fat; the effect didn't last very long - this time around I have been eating in the way I want to for more than two years.0 -
Since this is "Nutrition Debate"...
Can the next person who posts a minimum amount include a medical journal or something substantive to corroborate the number or one that shows deleterious effects of having a fat intake as low as a certain number?
That's what we need to know: what's the minimum amount for hormonal function, vitamin absorption, etc.? Too many responses about personal preferences.
For example, if I said I highly prefer carb sources for satisfaction and wanted to lower my fat intake to 10% make room for them, could you say with confidence that it would be self-sabotage to my hormones and would you have a source for it?
I'm genuinely curious. The question about min. fat has always bugged me. I'm at ~25% for the fat macro but would lower it if I knew there were a lower floor.0 -
tbonethemighty wrote: »I personally go for 45-50 g minimum, as any lower tends to show noticeable negative effects on my nails and hair. For me, that's almost exactly 0.3 (0.3030303...) of my body weight in pounds and 0.4 of my LBM, so that guideline is spot-on for my body chemistry.
May i ask why you need to avoid fats? I only ask because there are a lot of healthy fats.
Not that I want to derail this thread, but this right here is why people often get annoyed at the "helpful" people on MFP. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I do not see anywhere in the OP where it says that he/she is trying to avoid dietary fat. I've wondered about the same question, not because I'm concerned with low fat, but because I'm concerned I don't get enough...
It's probably because the way I read it, was what is the minimum grams of fat, so they can eat at the level (because fats cold cause help issues).0 -
Since this is "Nutrition Debate"...
Can the next person who posts a minimum amount include a medical journal or something substantive to corroborate the number or one that shows deleterious effects of having a fat intake as low as a certain number?
That's what we need to know: what's the minimum amount for hormonal function, vitamin absorption, etc.? Too many responses about personal preferences.
For example, if I said I highly prefer carb sources for satisfaction and wanted to lower my fat intake to 10% make room for them, could you say with confidence that it would be self-sabotage to my hormones and would you have a source for it?
I'm genuinely curious. The question about min. fat has always bugged me. I'm at ~25% for the fat macro but would lower it if I knew there were a lower floor.
I have been searching for some kind of medical journal for awhile on what is the actual gram or percentage to sustain hormonal regulation. I have never found a good source. Most source, like below suggest a range based on caloric intake.
http://www.usfsa.org/content/Fat_How Low.pdf
https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-Acids.aspx
0 -
Unlikely that even the smallest woman should be going below 20g and even that would not be recommended. For a man the absolute minimum would be about 40g but, again, that would not be recommended.
0 -
Since this is "Nutrition Debate"...
Can the next person who posts a minimum amount include a medical journal or something substantive to corroborate the number or one that shows deleterious effects of having a fat intake as low as a certain number?
That's what we need to know: what's the minimum amount for hormonal function, vitamin absorption, etc.? Too many responses about personal preferences.
For example, if I said I highly prefer carb sources for satisfaction and wanted to lower my fat intake to 10% make room for them, could you say with confidence that it would be self-sabotage to my hormones and would you have a source for it?
I'm genuinely curious. The question about min. fat has always bugged me. I'm at ~25% for the fat macro but would lower it if I knew there were a lower floor.
I have been searching for some kind of medical journal for awhile on what is the actual gram or percentage to sustain hormonal regulation. I have never found a good source. Most source, like below suggest a range based on caloric intake.
http://www.usfsa.org/content/Fat_How Low.pdf
https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-Acids.aspx
Yeah, believe me - I've looked around with an honest effort too and my findings can be summed up similarly to yours. None are really thorough enough to inform me through baselines and numbers what happens with hormones when they're compared with different thresholds.
Ah well. Thanks.0 -
This is the source I've looked at, and it gives the 20-35% range.
I've also looked for something better and not found it, which is why I'm interested in this topic.0 -
William4MVP wrote: »50-80g is what I shoot for but more than that is fine too if it meets calorie goal..any lower than 50 though and it's not good imo. You should make sure you have good fats and avoid saturated fats (fast food)
To clarify: saturated fats =/= "fast food". Granted most fast food is high in saturated fat, but so are many other things.0 -
Since this is "Nutrition Debate"...
Can the next person who posts a minimum amount include a medical journal or something substantive to corroborate the number or one that shows deleterious effects of having a fat intake as low as a certain number?
That's what we need to know: what's the minimum amount for hormonal function, vitamin absorption, etc.? Too many responses about personal preferences.
For example, if I said I highly prefer carb sources for satisfaction and wanted to lower my fat intake to 10% make room for them, could you say with confidence that it would be self-sabotage to my hormones and would you have a source for it?
I'm genuinely curious. The question about min. fat has always bugged me. I'm at ~25% for the fat macro but would lower it if I knew there were a lower floor.
I have been searching for some kind of medical journal for awhile on what is the actual gram or percentage to sustain hormonal regulation. I have never found a good source. Most source, like below suggest a range based on caloric intake.
http://www.usfsa.org/content/Fat_How Low.pdf
https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-Acids.aspx
Yeah, believe me - I've looked around with an honest effort too and my findings can be summed up similarly to yours. None are really thorough enough to inform me through baselines and numbers what happens with hormones when they're compared with different thresholds.
Ah well. Thanks.
Unfortunately, I don't think you are going to find a precise answer to this. There is no baseline because there is just varying degrees of badness when fat intake goes lower than ideal.
When you get down towards the low end of recommended fat intake, you are already compromising your systems, and things just progressively worse as you go lower. For example, testosterone production scales roughly linearly for a broad range of saturated fat intake:
http://www.anabolicmen.com/fats-and-testosterone/
If you need to go low fat, then I think it is best to start with the expert's recommendations in the 20-25% of total calorie intake (usually in the 0.4-0.5 g/lb range), then experiment if you want to see how your body responds:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/fat-loss-for-athletes-part-2.html/
If you need to cut fast for a short amount of time, the lowest I see bodybuilders recommend is typically about 15% of total calories (or about 0.3-0.35 g/lb) before you start dropping a lot of lean body mass:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033492/
If you don't care about preserving lean body mass that much, you can go a little lower before you start running into serious absorption and deficiency issues:
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/05/vitamin-d-e-k-how-much-and-what-type-of.html
0 -
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/3/550.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1097233292054_2953&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&volume=80&firstpage=550&resourcetype=1&journalcode=ajcn
^ There's a surprising lack of research on fat minimums.
Lyle McDonald's recommendation from his Rapid Fat Loss diet seems to be that 3 grams of EPA+DHA is optimal.
http://www.lylemcdonald.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7360
To what extent do you mean avoid health issues? I'd believe that to some extent some hormones are going to be produced less in a deficit no matter what your actual dietary fat intake, which could be a form of health issue. On the other extreme to avoid dying, 0 is possible for a while if fat stores are sufficient, though not recommended. In between the two, hormone production and health related effects would vary based on a combination of current fat stores and dietary intake. The leaner the individual, the higher the total deficit, and the less the dietary fat, the more overall chance an appreciable decrease in fat synthesized hormone production.0 -
I believe the minimum is between 20 and 30g per day. And fsts contains fatty acids which are essential to the body.
May i ask why you need to avoid fats? I only ask because there are a lot of healthy fats.
I'm actually not trying to avoid fats. I tend to find a higher-fat diet more satisfying, personally.
I'm just curious about what the minimum would be to maintain proper body function and what would happen to you if tried to eat under that limit for an extended period of time.0 -
If you don't get the Essential Fatty Acids (<15g/day) then presumably some body functions start to be sub-optimal but I don't know what they would be. I guess the opposite of the benefit of omega-3 supplementation would be the downside of not having enough.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 912 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions