Good fats versus bad fat

Options
2»

Replies

  • pstence
    pstence Posts: 3
    Options
    Mistizoom wrote: »
    Read "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz if you really want to understand why saturated fats are the most healthful for human beings, and understand why and how we've been lied to for over 60 years.

  • zipa78
    zipa78 Posts: 354 Member
    Options
    Mistizoom wrote: »
    Read "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz if you really want to understand why saturated fats are the most healthful for human beings, and understand why and how we've been lied to for over 60 years.

    Please don't. Or if you do, make sure that you check out the "facts" by yourself.
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    Mistizoom wrote: »
    Read "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz if you really want to understand why saturated fats are the most healthful for human beings, and understand why and how we've been lied to for over 60 years.

    Dr. Katz zings her pretty good in this
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/were-fat-and-sick-and-the-broccoli-did-it_b_6744724.html
    "And, by the way, the now famous notion that we decreased our intake of dietary fat, or even saturated fat, is mostly belied by national trend data. We actually kept our total fat intake, and saturated fat intake, nearly constant, but diluted it down as a percent of total calories by eating more low-fat junk food. The idea that cutting saturated fat doesn't foster cardiovascular health is based on the antics of a population that never cut their saturated fat intake in the first place. Oops."
    B_MKfT9U4AAe6nB.png
  • jddnw
    jddnw Posts: 319 Member
    Options
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    Mistizoom wrote: »
    Read "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz if you really want to understand why saturated fats are the most healthful for human beings, and understand why and how we've been lied to for over 60 years.

    Dr. Katz zings her pretty good in this
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/were-fat-and-sick-and-the-broccoli-did-it_b_6744724.html
    "And, by the way, the now famous notion that we decreased our intake of dietary fat, or even saturated fat, is mostly belied by national trend data. We actually kept our total fat intake, and saturated fat intake, nearly constant, but diluted it down as a percent of total calories by eating more low-fat junk food. The idea that cutting saturated fat doesn't foster cardiovascular health is based on the antics of a population that never cut their saturated fat intake in the first place. Oops."
    B_MKfT9U4AAe6nB.png


    Excellent!
  • peter56765
    peter56765 Posts: 352 Member
    Options
    Adam2k10 wrote: »
    The only fat that I stay clear of (where possible) is hydrogenated, every other is fair game and can sometimes make up 30-45% of my daily intake.
    Saturated fat isn't your enemy, it is definitely something that your body needs.

    All the best.
    Adam

    Not exactly. Your body needs the fatty acids and cholesterol that dietary fats are broken down into, however both cholesterol and all but two fatty acids can be synthesized by your body. The two that are not, so-called essential fatty acids, can be found in all kinds of fats, saturated and unsaturated. Although you need a certain amount of fat in your diet, there is no minimum recommended dietary intake for saturated fat specifically. On the flip side, saturated fat has been linked to heart disease in many studies, although the link is complicated and is hard to control for, so there is a recommended dietary maximum for it.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    pstence wrote: »
    Read David Perlmutter's book "Grain brain"
    Fat is essential, carbs are not.

    The only thing "essential" means is that 1) your body needs it AND 2) your body can't make it itself.
    Your body will make glucose by itself if you don't eat enough of it, hence it's not "essential".
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    peter56765 wrote: »
    Ask yourself why in nature that most whole foods that have fat, and that's pretty much all food sources contain all three major types in different degrees depending on the nutritional needs (profile) of that particular food.....all are good, none are bad.

    Humans don't tend to eat foods found in nature. We eat foods that we have been selectively bred over the centuries to match our liking. The almonds that you find in nature, for example, tend to contain a lot of cyanide which has no nutritional value at all and is in fact a poison. You don't ever want to eat a wild almond. Occasionally, nature will produce an almond with a recessive trait that reduces the amount of cyanide. Humans bred those almonds extensively, each time creating an almond with less poison until we came up with the version that we consume today. Along the way, we also tended to selectively breed almonds that were bigger and tastier.

    In a similar fashion, other plants and animals were selectively bred to provide us with more of what we want: more meat, more fat, bigger seed pods, sweeter taste, etc. All of this was done long before we understand anything about different types of fat. Today we can manufacture all kinds of foods but nutrition is still a relatively new science and it's hard to say definitely how much of anything we should or shouldn't eat. We can't depend on what's in "nature" because we don't eat natural foods and besides, ancient humans who did tended to die young and who really knows how much of that was diet related?
    We didn't synthesize almonds de novo. They were found in nature because we are part of that larger ecosystem. Many biological entities selectively manipulate their food sources from toxoplasmosis to worms mosiac virus to aphids to bears to squirrels to spiders to humans....
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,951 Member
    Options
    ddaro86 wrote: »
    I wish that my fitness pal would update the fact that polyunsaturated and mono unsaturated fat is good, as compared to saturated fat.
    Saturated fat is fine. The only fat that is bad is laboratory trans fat. Naturally occurring trans fat is fine too.
    ddaro86 wrote: »
    Polly and mono-unsaturated fat burns fat.
    This is not true, fat does not burn fat. No macronutrient burns fat, only negative energy balance burns fat...
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    Lizzy622 wrote: »
    Saturated fat is good. All fat is good and we need a balance of all kinds of fat (other than transfat). TOO MUCH of a GOOD thing can be BAD. It's all about balance.

    Please research before giving a generic answer like this.

  • dopeysmelly
    dopeysmelly Posts: 1,390 Member
    Options
    eric_sg61 wrote: »
    Mistizoom wrote: »
    Read "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz if you really want to understand why saturated fats are the most healthful for human beings, and understand why and how we've been lied to for over 60 years.

    Dr. Katz zings her pretty good in this
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/were-fat-and-sick-and-the-broccoli-did-it_b_6744724.html
    "And, by the way, the now famous notion that we decreased our intake of dietary fat, or even saturated fat, is mostly belied by national trend data. We actually kept our total fat intake, and saturated fat intake, nearly constant, but diluted it down as a percent of total calories by eating more low-fat junk food. The idea that cutting saturated fat doesn't foster cardiovascular health is based on the antics of a population that never cut their saturated fat intake in the first place. Oops."
    B_MKfT9U4AAe6nB.png

    This is a great chart (I'll read the article later). So obesity and diabetes have increased, but US per capita consumption of g of saturated fat has stayed the same. I did see the % of deaths from heart disease have decreased since 1980 although it's not clear why (sure, we can speculate that a large part is due to more awareness and aggressive treatment of it). http://cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db88.htm

    I'm actually reading The Big Fat Surprise right now, and although I'm irritated by the selective use of data by the author, I'm also irritated by the selective use of data by the early investigators into nutrition and diet, and our politicians' ready acceptance of the opinions of a few loud voices (although that bit doesn't surprise me, I guess).

    My take on it is to probably coming around to Michael Pollan's "Eat Food. Mostly Plants. Not too much". So I eat a wide range of everything you can imagine, including animal fat (which I save from roasts etc.) and whole fat dairy, but if you check out my diary it's mainly veggies and fruit. I guess we're all trying to find our way here.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    Hitesc wrote: »
    RodaRose wrote: »
    Saturated fat is good.

    i really hope you are being sarcastic

    Saturated fat is at worst neutral. The only fat that is definitely bad is trans fat.

    BTW, did you know that some un-saturated fats may be worse for you than saturated fat? The soybean oil found in almost all processed foods these days is at least bad for mice. And the GMO version isn't much better:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150305152111.htm

  • jddnw
    jddnw Posts: 319 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    > My take on it is to probably coming around to Michael Pollan's "Eat Food. Mostly Plants. Not too much".

    Pollan rocks. And, when he says "eat food," of course he means "real" food, not the edible-foodlike-substances that fill most of the aisles in the supermarket.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/michael-pollan-real-food-video_n_1167356.html

  • jddnw
    jddnw Posts: 319 Member
    Options
    ahamm002 wrote: »
    Hitesc wrote: »
    RodaRose wrote: »
    Saturated fat is good.

    i really hope you are being sarcastic

    Saturated fat is at worst neutral. The only fat that is definitely bad is trans fat.

    BTW, did you know that some un-saturated fats may be worse for you than saturated fat? The soybean oil found in almost all processed foods these days is at least bad for mice. And the GMO version isn't much better:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150305152111.htm

    From the article:

    "In their experiments, the researchers gave four groups of mice different diets for 24 weeks. Each group was comprised of 12 mice. The control group received a low-fat diet (5 percent of daily calories from fat). The other groups received a diet with 40 percent of daily calories from fat, an amount common in the American diet. One diet was high in saturated fat from coconut oil, and one had 41 percent of the saturated fat replaced with regular soybean oil. The fourth group had 41 percent of the saturated fat replaced with the GM soybean oil. The body weights, food intake, glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity of all the mice were tracked.
    What the researchers found was that mice fed a diet with either of the soybean oils had worse fatty liver, glucose intolerance and obesity than the group that got all their fat from coconut oil. But the mice whose diet included the GM soybean oil had less fat tissue than the animals that ingested regular soybean oil. These mice weighed about 30 percent more than the controls that ate a low-fat diet, while the group on the diet containing regular soybean oil weighed 38 percent more than controls. The mice on the diet that was primarily coconut oil weighed only about 13 percent more than controls. Unlike the diet with regular soybean oil, the diet with the new GM soybean oil did not lead to insulin resistance."


    So the controls on the 5% fat diet had better outcomes than any of the three, 40% fat groups?


  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    Options
    ddaro86 wrote: »
    I wish that my fitness pal would update the fact that polyunsaturated and mono unsaturated fat is good, as compared to saturated fat. Polly and mono-unsaturated fat burns fat.

    What?