Having difficulty meeting daily fat intake. Need help!

2»

Replies

  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    edited January 2020
    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. :)
  • fdlewenstein
    fdlewenstein Posts: 231 Member

    earlnabby 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.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    fdlewenstein wrote: »
    earlnabby 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.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,152 Member
    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.
  • fdlewenstein
    fdlewenstein Posts: 231 Member


    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.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    edited January 2020
    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.
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    you could also just eat fewer calories than you burn
  • fdlewenstein
    fdlewenstein Posts: 231 Member
    extra_medium wrote: »
    you could also just eat fewer calories than you burn

    I do exercise, but I don't eat any of those calories. I'm finishing week 3 of a isokinetic strengthening program (QuickHIT) 2x/wk and finishing week 2 of pilates 2x/wk. I also alternate walking and elliptical. I haven't lost weight during this time, but I'm assuming my body is adjusting to the new exercise programs. Before I was just walking everyday and/or on the elliptical.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories