How much fat can I have a day?

FunkyTobias

Pu_239 wrote: »

CharlieRuns7225 wrote: »

PU_239 Your advice that Saturated Fat should be higher than Unsaturated does not concur With the MFP Dietitian, American Heart Association, or the "NEW" Dietary Guidelines for Americans. It's always appreciated if you do more research before posting opinions.

I don't post opinions, i post science.

ORLY?

Those organizations you listed, do they profit any if people are "healthy?" thank you.

Non profit organizations have an agenda to make you unhealthy, because profit.

heybales

rabbitjb wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

Protein at 0.82 g per lb of body weight.
Fat at 0.35 g per lb of body weight.
Carbs get the rest.

Whatever that works out to for how much you are going to eat as a % doesn't matter much except that is how MFP displays it.

But when setting your goals, you can keep increasing the % until you hit the grams desired.

That's one simple way, since % doesn't really scale well in actual use.

Protein should be at LBM not bodyweight ...0.8-1g protein per lb of LBM, agree with fat at bodyweight

These should be viewed as minimums

To avoid the whole need to estimate BF% so as to use a recommended figure for LBM, I just used the recommendation from this research to get the .82 g/lb/BW. Which can then be viewed as maximum needed, but attempt to hit it.

http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

Sued0nim

heybales wrote: »

rabbitjb wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

Protein at 0.82 g per lb of body weight.
Fat at 0.35 g per lb of body weight.
Carbs get the rest.

Whatever that works out to for how much you are going to eat as a % doesn't matter much except that is how MFP displays it.

But when setting your goals, you can keep increasing the % until you hit the grams desired.

That's one simple way, since % doesn't really scale well in actual use.

Protein should be at LBM not bodyweight ...0.8-1g protein per lb of LBM, agree with fat at bodyweight

These should be viewed as minimums

To avoid the whole need to estimate BF% so as to use a recommended figure for LBM, I just used the recommendation from this research to get the .82 g/lb/BW. Which can then be viewed as maximum needed, but attempt to hit it.

http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

@heybales
Thanks for that link ...looks interesting reading ...I've always gone for the "as a minimum" level and find that challenging enough ...I'm going to have a good read through that

PeachyCarol

heybales wrote: »

rabbitjb wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

Protein at 0.82 g per lb of body weight.
Fat at 0.35 g per lb of body weight.
Carbs get the rest.

Whatever that works out to for how much you are going to eat as a % doesn't matter much except that is how MFP displays it.

But when setting your goals, you can keep increasing the % until you hit the grams desired.

That's one simple way, since % doesn't really scale well in actual use.

Protein should be at LBM not bodyweight ...0.8-1g protein per lb of LBM, agree with fat at bodyweight

These should be viewed as minimums

To avoid the whole need to estimate BF% so as to use a recommended figure for LBM, I just used the recommendation from this research to get the .82 g/lb/BW. Which can then be viewed as maximum needed, but attempt to hit it.

http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

Awesome read. Thanks for that.

lemurcat12

FunkyTobias wrote: »

I find it hilarious that many of the same people who trot out the "carbs are not essential" argument also love to recommend high intakes of saturated fat. I guess their low-carb gurus never told them that there are no essential saturated fats either.

Yup.

David Katz on that same thing (with links):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/study-saturated-fat-as-ba_b_5507184.html

A recent meta-analysis by an accomplished international team of researchers, published in a prestigious medical journal, shows that high intake of saturated fat is exactly as bad for health as a high intake of sugar and refined starch. The study also suggests there is something far worse.

The study, which pooled data from prior research and in the process aggregated findings for over 500,000 people, compared the rates of coronary artery disease -- the particular bad health outcome on which the researchers chose to focus for fairly obvious, epidemiologic reasons -- between those with the highest intake of saturated fat as a percent of calories, and the correspondingly lowest intake of refined starch and added sugar; to those with the highest intake of sugar and refined carbohydrate, and correspondingly lowest intake of saturated fat. The rate of cardiovascular disease was virtually identical in both groups.

This indicates that a high intake of saturated fat is as bad as a high intake of sugar, as well as vice versa.

OK, now that I presumably have your attention, I'll tell you my real agenda, which has nothing to do with saturated fat, or sugar, and everything to do with stupidity. Because, folks, when it comes to food, and food for thought alike, it is mostly stupidity that is killing us. Stupidity is worse for us than either sugar or saturated fat.

* * *

We do, in fact, know what dietary patterns are associated with optimal health outcomes. We know it based on vast, diverse, robust, and astonishingly consistent evidence. As evidence of the consistency of the evidence, I reached a particular set of conclusions based on my commissioned review of the literature with one set of analytical objectives. Dr. Frank Hu at Harvard and his colleagues reached a virtually identical set of conclusions based on an entirely independent review of the literature born of a different set of analytical objectives.

We are not clueless about the basic care and feeding of Homo sapiens. We really are not.

But eating well cannot be achieved by shifting from one scapegoat to the next; that merely invites new ways to eat badly. It can't be done one nutrient at a time. If ever there was a case of fixating on a tree while the forest burns down, modern trends in nutrition exemplify it.

* * *

No, saturated fat is NOT our nutritional nemesis, and never was. But neither is sugar, nor wheat, nor all grains. No one thing is THE thing wrong with our diets, and no one food, nutrient, or ingredient will be our salvation either. Wholesome foods, mostly plants, in sensible combinations could be -- assuming an 80 percent reduction in all chronic disease qualifies as salvation. It's about as close as we can come in the context of epidemiology, and pretty darn good.

What stands in the way is not our admittedly imperfect knowledge of nutrition, because frankly, we know enough. What stands in the way is hyperbolic headlines, fixed agendas, reactionism, religious zeal, profiteering, finding only what we're seeking, and failure to learn from the follies of history.

In other words, what is far more perilous to our health than saturated fat or sugar is the prevailing standard of stupidity in the food for thought we swallow routinely. If there is a war to be waged against anything ingestible, I humbly suggest it be that.

lemurcat12

heybales wrote: »

rabbitjb wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

Protein at 0.82 g per lb of body weight.
Fat at 0.35 g per lb of body weight.
Carbs get the rest.

Whatever that works out to for how much you are going to eat as a % doesn't matter much except that is how MFP displays it.

But when setting your goals, you can keep increasing the % until you hit the grams desired.

That's one simple way, since % doesn't really scale well in actual use.

Protein should be at LBM not bodyweight ...0.8-1g protein per lb of LBM, agree with fat at bodyweight

These should be viewed as minimums

To avoid the whole need to estimate BF% so as to use a recommended figure for LBM, I just used the recommendation from this research to get the .82 g/lb/BW. Which can then be viewed as maximum needed, but attempt to hit it.

http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

I like this. I've tended to use 80% of goal weight as a good estimate, based on the assumption--for most women, anyway--that goal weight would probably be around 20% body fat still (or often higher). Seems like a similar approach.

lemurcat12

You are missing the point entirely.

However, if we want to go there, his actual recommendations are pretty much the conventional nutrition advice. He particularly likes the Med diet* (I get the sense this is not unrelated to taste preference), and recommends standard macros: less than 30% of calories from fat (less than 7% from saturated fat), 45-60% from carbs (but not generally highly processed carbs), fiber at least 25-35 grams, at least half (or more, ideally) of grains from whole grains, lots of fruits and veggies, 15-30% of calories from protein, 3-4 servings of beans and legumes per week, 3-4 servings of fish and shellfish per week (if one is not a vegetarian, of course), limit red meat, eat nuts and seeds 4-5 times per week.

About GI and GL he says: "[a]s with a hammer or saw, these tools are only as good as the person's ability to use them." He seems to like GL much better than GI, which is sensible, and likes GI basically as a way to pick among foods in a category without being rigid about it (i.e., he'd certainly prefer whole grains to more refined, but doesn't insist that one cut out white pasta).

*One problem with how everyone recommends the Med diet is that I think the genuine Med diet IS or WAS higher in fat than is typically recommended and while I understand the reasoning for reducing sat fat while being somewhat skeptical about some of that, I've never seen the reasoning for fat below 30% and carbs over 45%, and I haven't found Katz's reasoning for those broader numbers, although I have some stuff to read I haven't gotten to yet.