Good fats and bad fats?
Options
Replies
-
Beyond trans fats, I wouldn't worry too much about it.0
-
The way the 'limits' are set up currently kind of sucks.
Basically, you have to know beforehand which are meant as 'minimums' and which are 'maximums', as MFP just makes everything a 'goal', and gives you minus points for going over.
The saturated fat is meant as a maximum. So essentially, MFP meant to say, the lower the better, but stop before 13.
The unsaturated fats does not have a maximum. So I guess '0' is a minimum, so the more they better is what MFP actually wanted to say there.
For fiber, it probably says 25g or something like that: That is also meant as a minimum, even though MFP starts flashing red when you get 26g, lol :b0 -
^^ I think this is the answer to your original question.nicsflyingcircus wrote: »This is because there are no set guidelines for mono and polyunsaturated fats and no requirement that they be listed on food labels.
Anyway, I think Mayo Clinic is spouting old dogma. I may get the details wrong but here's how I understand it:
Years ago doctors hypothesized that eating saturated fat raises your risk for heart disease. But the studies that supported it are riddled with faulty logic and more recently there was a major meta-study (where they collected raw data from previously completed studies and analyze it as a whole) has shown no correlation between saturated fat and heart disease. That last meta-study included data on 600,000 participants.
So the whole premise that we need to minimize our saturated fat intake is outdated and might just be completely false. The idea that saturated fat is somehow less healthy than other fats could also be wrong.
There's also been studies on the balance of Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids that suggest we need to eat these in a certain balance. I never remember which is which, but one if these is very prevalent in polyunsaturated fat sources while the other is much more prevalent in saturated fat. So the theory is that when people started replacing saturated fat with non-saturated fats they threw that balance off big-time.
I guess to summarize: This is still an evolving and much debated area of nutritional science. Dig deep enough and you're going to find a lot of conflicting advice. I don't think there is a clear answer about it (yet).
To add fuel to the fire, the study everyone loves to quote that says saturated fat is A-OK has itself been called out for being faulty and incomplete. Several new studies released just this year suggest that the link between saturated fat and heart disease still exists. After reviewing all the data currently available, the American Heart Association, the FDA, Mayo Clinic and Harvard Medical have all decided to stick with the recommendation of limiting saturated fat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy0 -
No, sugar doesn't make you fat any more than fat makes you fat-the over consumption of food makes us fat.ShelbyLynS wrote: »I'm in the Fats are Good camp. 6 months ago I stopped eating sugar (no sucrose, nothing added, no honey, no artificial sweeteners, etc.) and I started eat whole fat foods. Foods labeled Low Fat have a ton of added sugar. I lost 13 pounds. My LDL went down 18 points and my HDL went up 6 point. I stopped eating most processed foods and no fast food. I eat what I cook. I read a lot on My Fitness Pal about low-fat foods. I hope that everyone will catch up with the science and come to understand fat doesn't make you fat--sugar makes you fat (and sick).
0 -
The saturated fat nonsense is just that, nonsense. The ONLY "bad" fat is trans fat.0
-
A calorie does equal a calorie when it comes to weight loss, but not when it comes to nutritional needs. Countless other people, including me, are proof of that. Look at my ticker and look at what I eat. I successfully lost 44 pounds eating foods I love and have been keeping it off successfully for almost a year now still eating the foods I love.prettykitty1515 wrote: »ShelbyLynS wrote: »I'm in the Fats are Good camp. 6 months ago I stopped eating sugar (no sucrose, nothing added, no honey, no artificial sweeteners, etc.) and I started eat whole fat foods. Foods labeled Low Fat have a ton of added sugar. I lost 13 pounds. My LDL went down 18 points and my HDL went up 6 point. I stopped eating most processed foods and no fast food. I eat what I cook. I read a lot on My Fitness Pal about low-fat foods. I hope that everyone will catch up with the science and come to understand fat doesn't make you fat--sugar makes you fat (and sick).
Sorry, Shelby. 99% of the people on this site think a calorie equals a calorie. So theoretically, you could eat 2,000 calories of Twinkies for three months and your weight would be exactly the same if you ate 2,000 calories of vegetables, nuts, fish and chicken for three months.
There is no thought of the possibility that what you eat could slow down your metabolism, effectively making calories unequal. This suggestion on MFP is the equivalent of suggesting that the earth is flat.
Congratulations. Continue avoiding refined sugar.
This comes from a girl who tried almost every type of diet out there in order to "jump start" weight loss, or I ate only certain foods because I thought they would help me lose weight faster. Gee, two years ago I was going to buy some green tea to help my metabolism so I could get this darned extra 30 pounds off.
Instead, I started logging food again (learned food logging from a trainer about ten years ago), found MFP, started researching, weighing food, and learned all about portion control. While this worked for me, I realize that it does not work for everyone.
Also, type of food does not slow your metabolism, or even make it your metabolism any faster.
As to good/bad fats: while I suppose there could be good and bad fats, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to it but I try to eat fat in my diet because it helps fill me up. Plus, I like things like nuts, avocados (haven't had any in a long time, time to buy one!
), bacon, eggs, and the list goes on.
0 -
Why, that's just not true.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
And again, you are throwing out opinions using extreme examples to try and prove a point which you don't have. You for some reason can't seem to grasp the concept of CICO.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »ShelbyLynS wrote: »I'm in the Fats are Good camp. 6 months ago I stopped eating sugar (no sucrose, nothing added, no honey, no artificial sweeteners, etc.) and I started eat whole fat foods. Foods labeled Low Fat have a ton of added sugar. I lost 13 pounds. My LDL went down 18 points and my HDL went up 6 point. I stopped eating most processed foods and no fast food. I eat what I cook. I read a lot on My Fitness Pal about low-fat foods. I hope that everyone will catch up with the science and come to understand fat doesn't make you fat--sugar makes you fat (and sick).
Sorry, Shelby. 99% of the people on this site think a calorie equals a calorie. So theoretically, you could eat 2,000 calories of Twinkies for three months and your weight would be exactly the same if you ate 2,000 calories of vegetables, nuts, fish and chicken for three months.
There is no thought ever going into the possibility that what you eat could slow down your metabolism, effectively making all calories unequal. Anyone who suggests something like this is the equivalent to suggesting that the earth is flat.
Congratulations. Continue avoiding refined sugar.
Knock it off already with you BS that people are recommending 2000 calories in Twinkies. Every single time you get called out on your nonsense to show us where people are recommending that and you alway fail to show your evidence.
You are criticizing other people's beliefs, yet you lack even the basics. Time to go do some actual research.
Apparently, you do not know what the word theoretically means. Let me assist you:
- of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied ). -
Get it? Not practical, not applied.
I never said that anyone on this site recommended 2000 calories of Twinkies. What I did say is that you and others believe that eating 2000 calories of Twinkies WOULD result in the same weight gain or weight loss as 2000 calories of healthy food. And that notion is beyond absurd.
You are constantly throwing out theoretical situations but can never have a debate in reality because you feel using those extreme examples helps you sound like you know what you're talking about. Learn what CICO is. No one is telling others to go eat Twinkies all day or donuts but you constantly feel the need to use that. It'd be nice to see if you can come back with actual facts sometimes. I know it's hard since you don't get it but it's never to late to learn.
OK, let's change it. If you have everyday for 3 months a large bagel with OJ for breakfast, a big bowl of pasta for lunch, pork fried rice for dinner, and ice cream for desert, your weight will be different than if you eat eggs for breakfast, tuna fish and veggies for lunch, grilled chicken for dinner, and berries for desert, given the same number of calories.
Is that better?
And, given that your activity stays the same, it would only be true if one of those meals had more calories than the other. You might be surprised....it could be the second meal that has more calories, depending on the volume of food.
Your post is too generalized.
0 -
Nobody is saying all calories are equal under all circumstances.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Why, that's just not true.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
And again, you are throwing out opinions using extreme examples to try and prove a point which you don't have. You for some reason can't seem to grasp the concept of CICO.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »ShelbyLynS wrote: »I'm in the Fats are Good camp. 6 months ago I stopped eating sugar (no sucrose, nothing added, no honey, no artificial sweeteners, etc.) and I started eat whole fat foods. Foods labeled Low Fat have a ton of added sugar. I lost 13 pounds. My LDL went down 18 points and my HDL went up 6 point. I stopped eating most processed foods and no fast food. I eat what I cook. I read a lot on My Fitness Pal about low-fat foods. I hope that everyone will catch up with the science and come to understand fat doesn't make you fat--sugar makes you fat (and sick).
Sorry, Shelby. 99% of the people on this site think a calorie equals a calorie. So theoretically, you could eat 2,000 calories of Twinkies for three months and your weight would be exactly the same if you ate 2,000 calories of vegetables, nuts, fish and chicken for three months.
There is no thought ever going into the possibility that what you eat could slow down your metabolism, effectively making all calories unequal. Anyone who suggests something like this is the equivalent to suggesting that the earth is flat.
Congratulations. Continue avoiding refined sugar.
Knock it off already with you BS that people are recommending 2000 calories in Twinkies. Every single time you get called out on your nonsense to show us where people are recommending that and you alway fail to show your evidence.
You are criticizing other people's beliefs, yet you lack even the basics. Time to go do some actual research.
Apparently, you do not know what the word theoretically means. Let me assist you:
- of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied ). -
Get it? Not practical, not applied.
I never said that anyone on this site recommended 2000 calories of Twinkies. What I did say is that you and others believe that eating 2000 calories of Twinkies WOULD result in the same weight gain or weight loss as 2000 calories of healthy food. And that notion is beyond absurd.
You are constantly throwing out theoretical situations but can never have a debate in reality because you feel using those extreme examples helps you sound like you know what you're talking about. Learn what CICO is. No one is telling others to go eat Twinkies all day or donuts but you constantly feel the need to use that. It'd be nice to see if you can come back with actual facts sometimes. I know it's hard since you don't get it but it's never to late to learn.
OK, let's change it. If you have everyday for 3 months a large bagel with OJ for breakfast, a big bowl of pasta for lunch, pork fried rice for dinner, and ice cream for desert, your weight will be different than if you eat eggs for breakfast, tuna fish and veggies for lunch, grilled chicken for dinner, and berries for desert, given the same number of calories.
Is that better?
And, given that your activity stays the same, it would only be true if one of those meals had more calories than the other. You might be surprised....it could be the second meal that has more calories, depending on the volume of food.
Your post is too generalized.
It's a free country, we can believe what we want to believe. One of my guru's says this:
"It is often said that the only thing that matters for weight loss is “calories in, calories out.” The truth is that calories matter… but the types of foods we eat are just as important. That is because different foods go through different metabolic pathways in the body.
Additionally, the foods we eat can directly impact the hormones that regulate when and how much we eat, as well as the amount of calories we burn.
Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:
Protein: Eating protein can boost the metabolic rate and reduce appetite compared to the same amount of calories from fat and carbs. It can also increase your muscle mass, which burns calories around the clock.
Fructose vs. glucose: Fructose can stimulate the appetite compared to the same number of calories from glucose.
Even though calories are important, saying that they are all that matters when it comes to weight (or health for that matter) is completely wrong.
Bottom Line: All calories are not created equal. Different foods go through different metabolic pathways and have varying effects on hunger, hormones and health."
Let's just say the science is not settled.
Calories in/calorie out is not a belief, it's a fact. When it comes to weight loss, all calories are indeed equal. Look at the countless people everywhere who lose weight simply restricting calories in and not the type of food they eat. Go look at the open diaries of people who have been successful at moderating food intake rather than food type. Is the fat loss an illusion? Is it luck? What caused the weight loss?
Anyone will gain weight on any diet if you eat more calories than they burn. If not, then we have some special snowflakes out there. That's settled science in my book.
As to nutritional needs, all calories are not created equal. It's age old common sense that some foods are more nutritional than others.
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Why, that's just not true.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
And again, you are throwing out opinions using extreme examples to try and prove a point which you don't have. You for some reason can't seem to grasp the concept of CICO.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »ShelbyLynS wrote: »I'm in the Fats are Good camp. 6 months ago I stopped eating sugar (no sucrose, nothing added, no honey, no artificial sweeteners, etc.) and I started eat whole fat foods. Foods labeled Low Fat have a ton of added sugar. I lost 13 pounds. My LDL went down 18 points and my HDL went up 6 point. I stopped eating most processed foods and no fast food. I eat what I cook. I read a lot on My Fitness Pal about low-fat foods. I hope that everyone will catch up with the science and come to understand fat doesn't make you fat--sugar makes you fat (and sick).
Sorry, Shelby. 99% of the people on this site think a calorie equals a calorie. So theoretically, you could eat 2,000 calories of Twinkies for three months and your weight would be exactly the same if you ate 2,000 calories of vegetables, nuts, fish and chicken for three months.
There is no thought ever going into the possibility that what you eat could slow down your metabolism, effectively making all calories unequal. Anyone who suggests something like this is the equivalent to suggesting that the earth is flat.
Congratulations. Continue avoiding refined sugar.
Knock it off already with you BS that people are recommending 2000 calories in Twinkies. Every single time you get called out on your nonsense to show us where people are recommending that and you alway fail to show your evidence.
You are criticizing other people's beliefs, yet you lack even the basics. Time to go do some actual research.
Apparently, you do not know what the word theoretically means. Let me assist you:
- of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied ). -
Get it? Not practical, not applied.
I never said that anyone on this site recommended 2000 calories of Twinkies. What I did say is that you and others believe that eating 2000 calories of Twinkies WOULD result in the same weight gain or weight loss as 2000 calories of healthy food. And that notion is beyond absurd.
You are constantly throwing out theoretical situations but can never have a debate in reality because you feel using those extreme examples helps you sound like you know what you're talking about. Learn what CICO is. No one is telling others to go eat Twinkies all day or donuts but you constantly feel the need to use that. It'd be nice to see if you can come back with actual facts sometimes. I know it's hard since you don't get it but it's never to late to learn.
OK, let's change it. If you have everyday for 3 months a large bagel with OJ for breakfast, a big bowl of pasta for lunch, pork fried rice for dinner, and ice cream for desert, your weight will be different than if you eat eggs for breakfast, tuna fish and veggies for lunch, grilled chicken for dinner, and berries for desert, given the same number of calories.
Is that better?
And, given that your activity stays the same, it would only be true if one of those meals had more calories than the other. You might be surprised....it could be the second meal that has more calories, depending on the volume of food.
Your post is too generalized.
It's a free country, we can believe what we want to believe. One of my guru's says this:
"It is often said that the only thing that matters for weight loss is “calories in, calories out.” The truth is that calories matter… but the types of foods we eat are just as important. That is because different foods go through different metabolic pathways in the body.
Additionally, the foods we eat can directly impact the hormones that regulate when and how much we eat, as well as the amount of calories we burn.
Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:
Protein: Eating protein can boost the metabolic rate and reduce appetite compared to the same amount of calories from fat and carbs. It can also increase your muscle mass, which burns calories around the clock.
Fructose vs. glucose: Fructose can stimulate the appetite compared to the same number of calories from glucose.
Even though calories are important, saying that they are all that matters when it comes to weight (or health for that matter) is completely wrong.
Bottom Line: All calories are not created equal. Different foods go through different metabolic pathways and have varying effects on hunger, hormones and health."
Let's just say the science is not settled.
I am baffled that you cannot see that there is absolutely no difference between your theory and CICO. Seriously confused, like whaaat.
I have not once seen anyone say that theoretically eating Twinkies is the same as eating fresh vegetables and lean meats. Not once. Why do you keep arguing against something that is not being said?
CICO is about WEIGHT LOSS. Not about health. Not about body composition. Not about the effect that certain foods have on your body. You've said this. Everyone agrees with you.
Almost everyone who is a proponent of CICO is also a proponent of IIFYM - if this isn't about tailoring your diet to ensure greater use of your macronutrients, and to direct certain foods through certain "metabolic pathways" then NOTHING is. Nobody is eating an-all Twinkies diet, because it is inefficient and makes no sense. Why are you presenting it like this is an actual option???
Do you feel better to continuously tear down this invisible argument like this?0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:
Protein: Eating protein can boost the metabolic rate and reduce appetite compared to the same amount of calories from fat and carbs. It can also increase your muscle mass, which burns calories around the clock.
What's the evidence that merely eating protein boosts the metabolic rate any appreciable degree (let alone in a way that it matters given the normal variation in diets)?
As for reducing appetite, I think that's common, although it varies from person to person. It's one of the reasons that I care about getting adequate protein and always recommend that to people. But that goes to the amount people eat. If you start by saying they are eating the same calories, it's not a factor by definition. (It might be a factor in them being dissatisfied and wanting to change their diet, despite losing fine. I think lots of people experience that.)Fructose vs. glucose: Fructose can stimulate the appetite compared to the same number of calories from glucose.
Again, that has nothing to do with CICO. You assumed that people are eating the same calories, so hunger is irrelevant. Hunger relates to whether people are satisfied or not on lower calories. No one denies that some diets are more satisfying than others, but it depends on the person. (Fat, for example, is quite satiating, IME, but on the other hand I do not find low fat dairy less satisfying than other dairy. Other people may have different experiences and should respond accordingly.)
Also everyone agrees that some diets are healthier than others and that might affect how good you feel, how active you are, and how much you are able to build muscle (when not at a deficit, anyway).
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions