Having difficulty meeting daily fat intake. Need help!
Replies
-
I worked in a DNA testing lab.
We had oversight from the Federal Government and our company was called to Congress to testify about these, "Genetic tests that tell you what to eat," and then promise you something in return such as better faster weight loss, better health, better performance - based on a DNA test.
They are bogus, and the Federal Government shut down those claims. There is not a DNA test out there which can tell you genetically what to eat macro-wise. If you got such claims, I'd take that to your state's Attorney General.
It's possible that some day there may be such claims that can be substantiated, but we're nowhere near "some day" just yet. It's a scam.17 -
All you're getting when you get a DNA diet test or nutrition/macro suggestion test is a DNA test giving you your specific DNA markers - that part isn't bogus. It's the fact they try to interpret those markers in a way that suggests a certain way of eating is optimal based on those markers.
The science isn't there. It's just a DNA test, so if you paid more than a hundred dollars you were ripped off. That is the cost of a basic DNA Identity test. That's all you got, because anyone telling you how to eat based on your DNA is just selling you something that isn't there. But hey, you spent $100 at their company so that's something.10 -
cmriverside wrote: »I worked in a DNA testing lab.
We had oversight from the Federal Government and our company was called to Congress to testify about these, "Genetic tests that tell you what to eat," and then promise you something in return such as better faster weight loss, better health, better performance - based on a DNA test.
They are bogus, and the Federal Government shut down those claims. There is not a DNA test out there which can tell you genetically what to eat macro-wise. If you got such claims, I'd take that to your state's Attorney General.
It's possible that some day there may be such claims that can be substantiated, but we're nowhere near "some day" just yet. It's a scam.
Aside from already knowing that this particular type of DNA 'interpretation' is a scam, I did have to marvel at how wonderfully deceptive the recommended macro split is in this case.
They gave The OP an oddly specific macro split: 71 gr carbs, 88 gr of protein and 86 gr of fat. Instead of say, a more generic 70/90/85 split. Methinks this is deliberately done to give the 'client' a false sense of legitimacy surrounding this. "Oh, look, my DNA specifically indicates I need 71 gr of carbs. How wonderful that it's so accurate and tailored to me, specifically."
Smoke and expensive dirty mirrors.
8 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I worked in a DNA testing lab.
We had oversight from the Federal Government and our company was called to Congress to testify about these, "Genetic tests that tell you what to eat," and then promise you something in return such as better faster weight loss, better health, better performance - based on a DNA test.
They are bogus, and the Federal Government shut down those claims. There is not a DNA test out there which can tell you genetically what to eat macro-wise. If you got such claims, I'd take that to your state's Attorney General.
It's possible that some day there may be such claims that can be substantiated, but we're nowhere near "some day" just yet. It's a scam.
Aside from already knowing that this particular type of DNA 'interpretation' is a scam, I did have to marvel at how wonderfully deceptive the recommended macro split is in this case.
They gave The OP an oddly specific macro split: 71 gr carbs, 88 gr of protein and 86 gr of fat. Instead of say, a more generic 70/90/85 split. Methinks this is deliberately done to give the 'client' a false sense of legitimacy surrounding this. "Oh, look, my DNA specifically indicates I need 71 gr of carbs. How wonderful that it's so accurate and tailored to me, specifically."
Smoke and expensive dirty mirrors.
The tests do sometimes come with a nutritionist's recommendations. That can add $$$. I think the ones that were being sold that we were involved with were about $600. And really, the nutritionist's recommendations were perfectly reasonable and something that anyone would benefit from using. So I don't see the specific grams as being deceptive, necessarily. Whole foods, BMI based calorie levels, structured meal plans. That can be really helpful to someone who doesn't have a clue. It sounds fancy when it's a Personalized DNA Diet. A regular Dietician and a good internal medicine practitioner could do just about the same thing, along with a little LMGTFY.
Sometimes the client will disclose medical issues such as diabetes and then the "results" can be tailored to a lower carb higher fat plan because that's what has been proven to be beneficial to diabetes patients. Same with things like seizure disorders and keto-y plans. I mean, it's not necessarily bad advice, it's just that none of that generalized advice is tied in any way to DNA as linked to diet. There just isn't enough current data available to tie DNA to diet.
3 -
cmriverside wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I worked in a DNA testing lab.
We had oversight from the Federal Government and our company was called to Congress to testify about these, "Genetic tests that tell you what to eat," and then promise you something in return such as better faster weight loss, better health, better performance - based on a DNA test.
They are bogus, and the Federal Government shut down those claims. There is not a DNA test out there which can tell you genetically what to eat macro-wise. If you got such claims, I'd take that to your state's Attorney General.
It's possible that some day there may be such claims that can be substantiated, but we're nowhere near "some day" just yet. It's a scam.
Aside from already knowing that this particular type of DNA 'interpretation' is a scam, I did have to marvel at how wonderfully deceptive the recommended macro split is in this case.
They gave The OP an oddly specific macro split: 71 gr carbs, 88 gr of protein and 86 gr of fat. Instead of say, a more generic 70/90/85 split. Methinks this is deliberately done to give the 'client' a false sense of legitimacy surrounding this. "Oh, look, my DNA specifically indicates I need 71 gr of carbs. How wonderful that it's so accurate and tailored to me, specifically."
Smoke and expensive dirty mirrors.
The tests do sometimes come with a nutritionist's recommendations. That can add $$$. I think the ones that were being sold that we were involved with were about $600. And really, the nutritionist's recommendations were perfectly reasonable and something that anyone would benefit from using. So I don't see the specific grams as being deceptive, necessarily. Whole foods, BMI based calorie levels, structured meal plans. That can be really helpful to someone who doesn't have a clue. It sounds fancy when it's a Personalized DNA Diet. A regular Dietician and a good internal medicine practitioner could do just about the same thing, along with a little LMGTFY.
Sometimes the client will disclose medical issues such as diabetes and then the "results" can be tailored to a lower carb higher fat plan because that's what has been proven to be beneficial to diabetes patients. Same with things like seizure disorders and keto-y plans. I mean, it's not necessarily bad advice, it's just that none of that generalized advice is tied in any way to DNA as linked to diet. There just isn't enough current data available to tie DNA to diet.
To the bolded: Point taken.
I would, however, only back down on my observation were these very specific macro splits put forward to the client via a Registered Dietician rather than coming from a nutritionist as the result of DNA testing. And only if it were done in relation to, as you mentioned, diagnosed medical issues previously disclosed. It's the very 'personalized' macro splits based on the DNA testing that's the scammy part. Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
1 -
If you're hitting your carbs and protein and low on fat but still hitting your calories, then something is off and you either have bad entries or you are actually going over on your other macros. Your macros should add up to your calories save for rounding. 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, 4 calories per gram of protein, 9 calories per gram of fat.4
-
Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
Well that could very well be...but it's also because people have to be given specific numbers or they blow up your phone with *more* questions. "How much is 30% of 1413 calories....??? What is that in grams????"
Said from the experience of a thousand little cuts from a thousand little annoying phone calls
They (the company) probably just has an algorithm that spits the numbers out.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »If you're hitting your carbs and protein and low on fat but still hitting your calories, then something is off and you either have bad entries or you are actually going over on your other macros. Your macros should add up to your calories save for rounding. 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, 4 calories per gram of protein, 9 calories per gram of fat.
It's not that I was hitting the protein and carbs everyday, but more that I was meeting the fat less. I could get close on protein and carbs, but I was always so under on fats. I feel confident in my entries and I log everything I eat. I did not go over in calories, I'm usually under any where from 100-400 cal.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
Well that could very well be...but it's also because people have to be given specific numbers or they blow up your phone with *more* questions. "How much is 30% of 1413 calories....??? What is that in grams????"
Said from the experience of a thousand little cuts from a thousand little annoying phone calls
They (the company) probably just has an algorithm that spits the numbers out.
You are so far off it's ridiculous, but keep making your way off assumptions. It's a little humorous how you think you have figured it all out.1 -
fdlewenstein wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
Well that could very well be...but it's also because people have to be given specific numbers or they blow up your phone with *more* questions. "How much is 30% of 1413 calories....??? What is that in grams????"
Said from the experience of a thousand little cuts from a thousand little annoying phone calls
They (the company) probably just has an algorithm that spits the numbers out.
You are so far off it's ridiculous, but keep making your way off assumptions. It's a little humorous how you think you have figured it all out.
Did you see the bit where this person actually worked in a DNA lab?11 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I worked in a DNA testing lab.
We had oversight from the Federal Government and our company was called to Congress to testify about these, "Genetic tests that tell you what to eat," and then promise you something in return such as better faster weight loss, better health, better performance - based on a DNA test.
They are bogus, and the Federal Government shut down those claims. There is not a DNA test out there which can tell you genetically what to eat macro-wise. If you got such claims, I'd take that to your state's Attorney General.
It's possible that some day there may be such claims that can be substantiated, but we're nowhere near "some day" just yet. It's a scam.
Aside from already knowing that this particular type of DNA 'interpretation' is a scam, I did have to marvel at how wonderfully deceptive the recommended macro split is in this case.
They gave The OP an oddly specific macro split: 71 gr carbs, 88 gr of protein and 86 gr of fat. Instead of say, a more generic 70/90/85 split. Methinks this is deliberately done to give the 'client' a false sense of legitimacy surrounding this. "Oh, look, my DNA specifically indicates I need 71 gr of carbs. How wonderful that it's so accurate and tailored to me, specifically."
Smoke and expensive dirty mirrors.
The tests do sometimes come with a nutritionist's recommendations. That can add $$$. I think the ones that were being sold that we were involved with were about $600. And really, the nutritionist's recommendations were perfectly reasonable and something that anyone would benefit from using. So I don't see the specific grams as being deceptive, necessarily. Whole foods, BMI based calorie levels, structured meal plans. That can be really helpful to someone who doesn't have a clue. It sounds fancy when it's a Personalized DNA Diet. A regular Dietician and a good internal medicine practitioner could do just about the same thing, along with a little LMGTFY.
Sometimes the client will disclose medical issues such as diabetes and then the "results" can be tailored to a lower carb higher fat plan because that's what has been proven to be beneficial to diabetes patients. Same with things like seizure disorders and keto-y plans. I mean, it's not necessarily bad advice, it's just that none of that generalized advice is tied in any way to DNA as linked to diet. There just isn't enough current data available to tie DNA to diet.
To the bolded: Point taken.
I would, however, only back down on my observation were these very specific macro splits put forward to the client via a Registered Dietician rather than coming from a nutritionist as the result of DNA testing. And only if it were done in relation to, as you mentioned, diagnosed medical issues previously disclosed. It's the very 'personalized' macro splits based on the DNA testing that's the scammy part. Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
I would not be surprised if an RD would put be putting their license in danger by participating in a DNA test marketing scheme that claimed to be giving clients nutritional advice tailored to their DNA results.
Edited to make my meaning cleaner.5 -
The DIETFITS study tried to establish if genotyping could really predict an ideal diet plan, the results showed that it had no significant benefit.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150
An article about the study results that explains it a bit more accessibly:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/matching-dna-to-a-diet-does-not-work/
Also, there is a lot of uncertainty about how the companies selling these tests use the DNA information. Can they sell the data to third parties? What happens if the company is acquired? I'd be seriously questioning the ethics of a health care professional promoting these expensive tests to a patient when there is no proven benefit and real privacy risks.
5 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »fdlewenstein wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
Well that could very well be...but it's also because people have to be given specific numbers or they blow up your phone with *more* questions. "How much is 30% of 1413 calories....??? What is that in grams????"
Said from the experience of a thousand little cuts from a thousand little annoying phone calls
They (the company) probably just has an algorithm that spits the numbers out.
You are so far off it's ridiculous, but keep making your way off assumptions. It's a little humorous how you think you have figured it all out.
Did you see the bit where this person actually worked in a DNA lab?
I don't have it all figured out, but you're not giving us anything that makes us think you do, either.
I wasn't just working in the blood-draw part of "DNA Labs" I was at the actual lab that did the DNA test; sequenced the SNPs, and issued the report. You know, where the genetic scientists, doctors, and the DNA sequencer were...not just where you go to submit a sample.
I would be interested to hear what @fdlewenstein bought. Like who did s/he buy it from? Obviously they must have an online presence and website, I mean what biotech company doesn't? I'd like to read the sales pitch.
I'd also love to hear what the test is about...is it just, "Eat these macros?" What is the supporting research?Because there isn't any5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I worked in a DNA testing lab.
We had oversight from the Federal Government and our company was called to Congress to testify about these, "Genetic tests that tell you what to eat," and then promise you something in return such as better faster weight loss, better health, better performance - based on a DNA test.
They are bogus, and the Federal Government shut down those claims. There is not a DNA test out there which can tell you genetically what to eat macro-wise. If you got such claims, I'd take that to your state's Attorney General.
It's possible that some day there may be such claims that can be substantiated, but we're nowhere near "some day" just yet. It's a scam.
Aside from already knowing that this particular type of DNA 'interpretation' is a scam, I did have to marvel at how wonderfully deceptive the recommended macro split is in this case.
They gave The OP an oddly specific macro split: 71 gr carbs, 88 gr of protein and 86 gr of fat. Instead of say, a more generic 70/90/85 split. Methinks this is deliberately done to give the 'client' a false sense of legitimacy surrounding this. "Oh, look, my DNA specifically indicates I need 71 gr of carbs. How wonderful that it's so accurate and tailored to me, specifically."
Smoke and expensive dirty mirrors.
The tests do sometimes come with a nutritionist's recommendations. That can add $$$. I think the ones that were being sold that we were involved with were about $600. And really, the nutritionist's recommendations were perfectly reasonable and something that anyone would benefit from using. So I don't see the specific grams as being deceptive, necessarily. Whole foods, BMI based calorie levels, structured meal plans. That can be really helpful to someone who doesn't have a clue. It sounds fancy when it's a Personalized DNA Diet. A regular Dietician and a good internal medicine practitioner could do just about the same thing, along with a little LMGTFY.
Sometimes the client will disclose medical issues such as diabetes and then the "results" can be tailored to a lower carb higher fat plan because that's what has been proven to be beneficial to diabetes patients. Same with things like seizure disorders and keto-y plans. I mean, it's not necessarily bad advice, it's just that none of that generalized advice is tied in any way to DNA as linked to diet. There just isn't enough current data available to tie DNA to diet.
To the bolded: Point taken.
I would, however, only back down on my observation were these very specific macro splits put forward to the client via a Registered Dietician rather than coming from a nutritionist as the result of DNA testing. And only if it were done in relation to, as you mentioned, diagnosed medical issues previously disclosed. It's the very 'personalized' macro splits based on the DNA testing that's the scammy part. Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
I would not be surprised if an RD would put be putting their license in danger by participating in a DNA test marketing scheme that claimed to be giving clients nutritional advice tailored to their DNA results.
Edited to make my meaning cleaner.
I was talking about RD's recommending specific macro splits in general - which I would have no issue with - not those associated with this bogus DNA testing scheme, if they were stupid enough to do so. No RD would likely risk putting their licence in jeopardy by participating in this kind of a scam. If they did, they would certainly deserve to lose their accreditation. 1 -
fdlewenstein wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If you're hitting your carbs and protein and low on fat but still hitting your calories, then something is off and you either have bad entries or you are actually going over on your other macros. Your macros should add up to your calories save for rounding. 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, 4 calories per gram of protein, 9 calories per gram of fat.
It's not that I was hitting the protein and carbs everyday, but more that I was meeting the fat less. I could get close on protein and carbs, but I was always so under on fats. I feel confident in my entries and I log everything I eat. I did not go over in calories, I'm usually under any where from 100-400 cal.
Well, there is your problem. If you ate to your target instead of under you will hit your macro numbers. 100-400 calories in fat would be anywhere between 11 and 45 grams that you are missing. Remember, fat has 9 calories per gram. Throw an extra pat of butter on your veggies. Buy meat that is not quite as lean or cook it with a bit more oil in the pan. Use more dressing on your salad. It is easy to raise the amount of fat consumed.5 -
fdlewenstein wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If you're hitting your carbs and protein and low on fat but still hitting your calories, then something is off and you either have bad entries or you are actually going over on your other macros. Your macros should add up to your calories save for rounding. 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, 4 calories per gram of protein, 9 calories per gram of fat.
It's not that I was hitting the protein and carbs everyday, but more that I was meeting the fat less. I could get close on protein and carbs, but I was always so under on fats. I feel confident in my entries and I log everything I eat. I did not go over in calories, I'm usually under any where from 100-400 cal.
Well, there is your problem. If you ate to your target instead of under you will hit your macro numbers. 100-400 calories in fat would be anywhere between 11 and 45 grams that you are missing. Remember, fat has 9 calories per gram. Throw an extra pat of butter on your veggies. Buy meat that is not quite as lean or cook it with a bit more oil in the pan. Use more dressing on your salad. It is easy to raise the amount of fat consumed.
I know its a balancing act! I guess I'm still trying to figure out how to get the most out of the calories available along with the best balance of macros.0 -
fdlewenstein wrote: »fdlewenstein wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If you're hitting your carbs and protein and low on fat but still hitting your calories, then something is off and you either have bad entries or you are actually going over on your other macros. Your macros should add up to your calories save for rounding. 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, 4 calories per gram of protein, 9 calories per gram of fat.
It's not that I was hitting the protein and carbs everyday, but more that I was meeting the fat less. I could get close on protein and carbs, but I was always so under on fats. I feel confident in my entries and I log everything I eat. I did not go over in calories, I'm usually under any where from 100-400 cal.
Well, there is your problem. If you ate to your target instead of under you will hit your macro numbers. 100-400 calories in fat would be anywhere between 11 and 45 grams that you are missing. Remember, fat has 9 calories per gram. Throw an extra pat of butter on your veggies. Buy meat that is not quite as lean or cook it with a bit more oil in the pan. Use more dressing on your salad. It is easy to raise the amount of fat consumed.
I know its a balancing act! I guess I'm still trying to figure out how to get the most out of the calories available along with the best balance of macros.
Pick your target. Are you eating to meet a calorie goal OR are you eating to meet macro goals? If the former, then this entire thread is moot. If the latter, you need to forget calories and just concentrate on that. Either way is fine, just pick a method and stick to it.1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I worked in a DNA testing lab.
We had oversight from the Federal Government and our company was called to Congress to testify about these, "Genetic tests that tell you what to eat," and then promise you something in return such as better faster weight loss, better health, better performance - based on a DNA test.
They are bogus, and the Federal Government shut down those claims. There is not a DNA test out there which can tell you genetically what to eat macro-wise. If you got such claims, I'd take that to your state's Attorney General.
It's possible that some day there may be such claims that can be substantiated, but we're nowhere near "some day" just yet. It's a scam.
Aside from already knowing that this particular type of DNA 'interpretation' is a scam, I did have to marvel at how wonderfully deceptive the recommended macro split is in this case.
They gave The OP an oddly specific macro split: 71 gr carbs, 88 gr of protein and 86 gr of fat. Instead of say, a more generic 70/90/85 split. Methinks this is deliberately done to give the 'client' a false sense of legitimacy surrounding this. "Oh, look, my DNA specifically indicates I need 71 gr of carbs. How wonderful that it's so accurate and tailored to me, specifically."
Smoke and expensive dirty mirrors.
The tests do sometimes come with a nutritionist's recommendations. That can add $$$. I think the ones that were being sold that we were involved with were about $600. And really, the nutritionist's recommendations were perfectly reasonable and something that anyone would benefit from using. So I don't see the specific grams as being deceptive, necessarily. Whole foods, BMI based calorie levels, structured meal plans. That can be really helpful to someone who doesn't have a clue. It sounds fancy when it's a Personalized DNA Diet. A regular Dietician and a good internal medicine practitioner could do just about the same thing, along with a little LMGTFY.
Sometimes the client will disclose medical issues such as diabetes and then the "results" can be tailored to a lower carb higher fat plan because that's what has been proven to be beneficial to diabetes patients. Same with things like seizure disorders and keto-y plans. I mean, it's not necessarily bad advice, it's just that none of that generalized advice is tied in any way to DNA as linked to diet. There just isn't enough current data available to tie DNA to diet.
To the bolded: Point taken.
I would, however, only back down on my observation were these very specific macro splits put forward to the client via a Registered Dietician rather than coming from a nutritionist as the result of DNA testing. And only if it were done in relation to, as you mentioned, diagnosed medical issues previously disclosed. It's the very 'personalized' macro splits based on the DNA testing that's the scammy part. Still say that the specific ratios of those splits are likely done solely to impress the client and give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.
I would not be surprised if an RD would put be putting their license in danger by participating in a DNA test marketing scheme that claimed to be giving clients nutritional advice tailored to their DNA results.
Edited to make my meaning cleaner.
I was talking about RD's recommending specific macro splits in general - which I would have no issue with - not those associated with this bogus DNA testing scheme, if they were stupid enough to do so. No RD would likely risk putting their licence in jeopardy by participating in this kind of a scam. If they did, they would certainly deserve to lose their accreditation.
OK, I wasn't sure whether you were talking about an RD in general or and RD with the DNA testing scheme. I think we're in complete agreement.1 -
Pick your target. Are you eating to meet a calorie goal OR are you eating to meet macro goals? If the former, then this entire thread is moot. If the latter, you need to forget calories and just concentrate on that. Either way is fine, just pick a method and stick to it.[/quote]
Is one method better than the other? If I have macros left at the end of the day, but will go over the caloric limit I tend to not eat any more.
0 -
fdlewenstein wrote: »
Is one method better than the other? If I have macros left at the end of the day, but will go over the caloric limit I tend to not eat any more.
No. It all depends on your goals and how important the macros are to you. Typically those who are building muscle concentrate on macros only. Most who are losing weight concentrate on calories with macro guidelines rather than specific numbers.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions