Good fats

Scoobies87

Eating fat can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.

- Eating carbs can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.
- Eating protein can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.

So basically, anything can make you fat if it takes you over on calories. So if I go over on my fat but am under on my carbs (but still within my calorie goal) then I should be OK and still lose weight?

bcattoes

Eating fat can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.

- Eating carbs can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.
- Eating protein can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.

So basically, anything can make you fat if it takes you over on calories. So if I go over on my fat but am under on my carbs (but still within my calorie goal) then I should be OK and still lose weight?

Yes. It's important to eat each macronutrient (carbs, protein and fat), but for weight loss the most important thing is to stay within your calorie goal.

Skfiske

I am not sure if this has already been answered for you...I am new to adding to posts so I am not savvy on how to follow them but....HDL stands for "High Density Lipoproteins". I am almost done with my bachelor's nursing degree so physiology is how I make sense of things so that is how I will explain (in lamens terms of course! so please do not judge on specifics!)...

Lipoproteins are what are called "carrier molecules" - they help our body move different particles around our body. They are molecules made up of lipids (fats) and proteins. Therefore, Lipoprotein is responsible for moving water-soluble fats (lipo-) and cholesterol around our bloodstream. Insulin and glucose is a easier concept to me so I will explain it in those terms - Glucose cannot move freely around the body, it needs to be attached to insulin to do so. So therefore, insulin is our carrier molecule and allows glucose to be moved into cells according to energy needs (carrier molecules don't just move so-called "bad" things..they move many essential nutrients for us too!).

When you go into a Dr's office and they tell you your HDL or LDL levels they want your HDL(high density lipoprotein) levels to be the highest. This is because they are considered to be the "good cholesterol". Your HDL's are responsible to remove your bad cholesterol throughout your body. The bad cholesterol that HDL is removing is your LDL (low density lipoprotein).

A doctor once explained to me to think of your HDL's as the garbage truck of cholesterols and LDL is the garbage. So...the more garbage trucks you have (HDLs) the less garbage you have (LDLs). [greater HDL = less LDL] This would include getting rid of the cholesterol built up in your vessels that creates blockages and hardening (if you don't already know...this is BAD...it blocks blood flow, create clots, and can create many other medical problems)
example by me = if you are 3ft wide and doorways were only 1ft wide it would be harder for you to squeeze through ( creating more pressure against the doorway) or you would have to turn sideways to fit through but less of you could go through and it would take you longer to go through the doorway. So why not just get rid of some of that extra molding that is decorating that doorway so that it is 3 ft wide to fit the average person? We (blood) would be able to move through much easier (less pressure = lower blood PRESSURE) and we could move the right amount through at a time! and of course not worry about that extra molding (cholesterol) breaking off and creating blockages in other hallways (clots that are created in other parts of the body) ! !

HDL takes LDL to the liver to be reprocessed (the garbage truck takes the garbage to be recycled).

AND overall higher HDL levels increase cardiovascular health! But it easy to increase you HDL! Some great easy ways to do this is 1) exercise 2) maintain a healthy weight ( things we should be attempting anyways on this site!) and 3) Quit smoking!
Pretty easy lifestyle changes to decrease cholesterol levels, huh?

So the big thing here is that CHOLESTEROL IS NOT BAD!! IT IS AN ESSENTIAL FAT for our cells to work properly!
Don't be afraid of cholesterol...just be mindful of what you are putting in your body...and of course if you already have high cholesterol (even if you don't yet) make lifestyle changes to increase you garbage men!

And finally onto your second question about fats....

The best way to measure your fat intake is through calories. As long as you are monitoring that amount of proteins you are eating (should be the largest amount of grams or calories you are consuming...half of your ideal body weight should be the grams of protein you eat in a day) and the percentage (grams or calories) of carbs you are eating...fats should just fall into place from there. This will help you meet your minimum weight losing calorie needs of 1000 to 1200 calories per day.

Also one last final good tip is to eliminate sugars at breakfast (i.e. CARBS - our body breaks carbs into sugars..would you eat 4 tsp of sugar for breakfast?? probably not! but that is what 1 cup [8oz] of instant oatmeal is!) So, only eat proteins for breakfast! If you eat sugars (carbs) at breakfast you are gearing your body to automatically feel like it needs to have more carbs throughout the day to maintain or increase cell(body) energy levels. Decrease breakfast carbs = decrease in lunch and dinner carb cravings!

**I know this is long but I hope the extra explanations help!**

bcattoes

Then you should know that dietary cholesterol has very MINIMAL impact on blood serum cholesterol.

This is not always true. The fact is that for some people eating cholesterol has minimal impact on blood serum cholesterol, but for others it has a big impact. The only way to know which you are is to eat cholesterol and then get a blood test. That is why the general recommendation is to limit foods high in cholesterol.

borys12

Hi, nice topic, just read everything. I generally agree with joejccva71 , I read a lot of books, documentaries and so on.
The fat I eat is mostly saturated one - coconut oil, and there is a lot of it, about 50% calories. Rest is from mostly
from vegetrables and meat , protein shakes. There is good article about fats: http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/the-oiling-of-america . I carry on my eating and feeling great. That was my $0.02.

questionablemethods

I know this doesn't apply to everyone, but if you're interested in having children, saturated fat also seems important. Here's a quote from the press release (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press10312007.html)

The women with the highest fertility diet scores ate less trans fat and sugar from carbohydrates, consumed more protein from vegetables than from animals, ate more fiber and iron, took more multivitamins, had a lower BMI, exercised for longer periods of time each day, and, surprisingly, consumed more high-fat dairy products and less low-fat dairy products.

Personally, I don't buy the idea of only temporarily eating saturated fat while trying to have kids and then going back to low-fat. I'll just keep my full-fat foods (from pastured sources), thank you.

Elizabeth_C34

I absolutely LOVE eggs, avacado's, peanut/almond butter, nuts, mackerel but find that every time I eat them I go over my fat. I would love to be able to eat more of these foods.

So, what I would like to know is does it matter if I go over my fat content with good fats?

I had a long discussion with my general practitioner and cardiologist about my diet and exercise program when I got started. I'm a lot like you. I love eggs, peanut/almond butter, fish, nuts, etc. Their recommendations were to maintain moderate levels of everything, meaning, don't go eating a dozen eggs a day and spread your lean proteins among chicken, fish, redmeat, beans, eggs, etc. They recommended my cholesterol not exceed 300g and my saturated fats not exceed 20g. Long story short, just keep things in moderation. Eat what you want, but reduce your portion sizes if need be.

P.S. Saturated dietary fatty acids are associated with higher levels of cholesterol in the blood, but they do not correspond with increased risk of cardiovascular disease but do correspond to an increased risk of coronary heart disease. In fact, an increase in dietary carbohydrates is correlated with much higher risk of CVD versus increases in satuated fat intake.

Sources: (recent peer-reviewed legitimate ones, not opinions from a single doctor)
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21978979
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20089734
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20711693
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21270379

These studies also reference numerous other recent peer-reviewed studies showing similar results.

Before someone accuses me of "cherry picking" government research, pubmed is simply a database of articles published over many scientific journals and serves only as a central location for these articles, most of which are completed under independent grants and funding sources.

questionablemethods

Just to add to this discussion regarding cholesterol and health risks. A very recently published study actually found an INVERSE relationship with all-cause mortality as well as CVD mortality in women.

Check out Petursson et al. (2011) Is the use of cholesterol in mortality risk algorithms in clinical guidelines valid? Ten years prospective data from the Norwegian HUNT 2 study, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01767.x

bcattoes

There are tens of thousands of studies out there on nutrition. More being conducted and published everyday. Does one new study that contradicts (or supports) the subject being discussed really have much relavance without being compared and analyzed with the others? Do a dozen?

I don't mean that as an attack on anyone, it's just a general question. You are "cherry picking" studies if you only post a few that support YOUR point. Simply because the studies were peer reviewed and published on PubMed does not change that fact. PubMed is nothing more than repository for studies published in other medical journals. A link from there proves nothing other than you know how to use a search engine.

I have worked in Public Health Care too long and read too many of these conflicting studies to think a few links "debunks" anything.

questionablemethods

There are tens of thousands of studies out there on nutrition. More being conducted and published everyday. Does one new study that contradicts (or supports) the subject being discussed really have much relavance without being compared and analyzed with the others? Do a dozen?

I don't mean that as an attack on anyone, it's just a general question. You are "cherry picking" studies if you only post a few that support YOUR point. Simply because the studies were peer reviewed and published on PubMed does not change that fact. PubMed is nothing more than repository for studies published in other medical journals. A link from there proves nothing other than you know how to use a search engine.

I have worked in Public Health Care too long and read too many of these conflicting studies to think a few links "debunks" anything.

I certainly never claimed to be debunking anything. I do primary research myself so I am well aware that it is a slow, incremental process to come to any kind of "truth" or agreement. And then, even when some kind of agreement is reached, new methods and new ways of looking at questions can add counterarguments. I also know that even experts can become very attached to an idea and fail to fairly evaluate the full body of research. I have seen it in my own research field plenty of times.

I'm simply pointing this new finding (from a study following 50,000 people for over 10 years -- so this wasn't small-scale).

Elizabeth_C34

Does one new study that contradicts (or supports) the subject being discussed really have much relavance without being compared and analyzed with the others? Do a dozen?

Yes, this is the way science works especially when the studies are repeated with similar results carried out by multiple scientists.

I don't mean that as an attack on anyone, it's just a general question. You are "cherry picking" studies if you only post a few that support YOUR point. Simply because the studies were peer reviewed and published on PubMed does not change that fact. PubMed is nothing more than repository for studies published in other medical journals. A link from there proves nothing other than you know how to use a search engine.

I stated simply what the most recent current literature shows, something you have failed to do with your points in this entire thread. All you've done since chiming in is post a single article from one doctor and commit the fallacy of "appealing to a higher authority" on the matter instead of providing peer-reviewed research from primary literature to back up your claims.

I have worked in Public Health Care too long and read too many of these conflicting studies to think a few links "debunks" anything.

I've met a lot of people who work in "public health care" who believe a lot of garbage about nutrition, health, wellness, and medicine. Just because you work in the health care industry does not mean you have any idea what you are talking about.

Opinions are not science. Summaries of studies are not science. Recommendations from really smart people are not science. You can dribble on about how a single study cannot "debunk" commonly held knowledge, but that is demonstrably false. I can give you a dozen examples of studies done over the years which completely changed the way we think about long-held beliefs. That's the way scientific progress is made.

With that, I'm out.

bcattoes

Does one new study that contradicts (or supports) the subject being discussed really have much relavance without being compared and analyzed with the others? Do a dozen?

Yes, this is the way science works especially when the studies are repeated with similar results carried out by multiple scientists.

I don't mean that as an attack on anyone, it's just a general question. You are "cherry picking" studies if you only post a few that support YOUR point. Simply because the studies were peer reviewed and published on PubMed does not change that fact. PubMed is nothing more than repository for studies published in other medical journals. A link from there proves nothing other than you know how to use a search engine.

I stated simply what the most recent current literature shows, something you have failed to do with your points in this entire thread. All you've done since chiming in is post a single article from one doctor and commit the fallacy of "appealing to a higher authority" on the matter instead of providing peer-reviewed research from primary literature to back up your claims.

I have worked in Public Health Care too long and read too many of these conflicting studies to think a few links "debunks" anything.

I've met a lot of people who work in "public health care" who believe a lot of garbage about nutrition, health, wellness, and medicine. Just because you work in the health care industry does not mean you have any idea what you are talking about.

Opinions are not science. Summaries of studies are not science. Recommendations from really smart people are not science. You can dribble on about how a single study cannot "debunk" commonly held knowledge, but that is demonstrably false. I can give you a dozen examples of studies done over the years which completely changed the way we think about long-held beliefs. That's the way scientific progress is made.

With that, I'm out.

Buh-bye

bcattoes

There are tens of thousands of studies out there on nutrition. More being conducted and published everyday. Does one new study that contradicts (or supports) the subject being discussed really have much relavance without being compared and analyzed with the others? Do a dozen?

I don't mean that as an attack on anyone, it's just a general question. You are "cherry picking" studies if you only post a few that support YOUR point. Simply because the studies were peer reviewed and published on PubMed does not change that fact. PubMed is nothing more than repository for studies published in other medical journals. A link from there proves nothing other than you know how to use a search engine.

I have worked in Public Health Care too long and read too many of these conflicting studies to think a few links "debunks" anything.

I certainly never claimed to be debunking anything. I do primary research myself so I am well aware that it is a slow, incremental process to come to any kind of "truth" or agreement. And then, even when some kind of agreement is reached, new methods and new ways of looking at questions can add counterarguments. I also know that even experts can become very attached to an idea and fail to fairly evaluate the full body of research. I have seen it in my own research field plenty of times.

I'm simply pointing this new finding (from a study following 50,000 people for over 10 years -- so this wasn't small-scale).

I realize you were not claiming to debunk anything. I just think it would be nice if just once, someone (anyone) put links to support their point, but also said "but there is conflicting evidence, such as this ..." and posted links that don't.

questionablemethods

I realize you were not claiming to debunk anything. I just think it would be nice if just once, someone (anyone) put links to support their point, but also said "but there is conflicting evidence, such as this ..." and posted links that don't.

Well I'll do it if you will. :happy:

I think I actually posted this awhile back, either on this thread or another one, but it is a blog post from a few years ago rounding up fair number prospective studies that both do and don't support the lipid hypothesis as well as a couple of review articles (this was before the Krauss one was published last year, too): http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/dirty-little-secret-of-diet-heart.html (Of course, the author comes down on the side of rejecting the hypothesis, so maybe this doesn't count....)