Good fats

joejccva71

what year is this again?

Lol. It may be 2011 but some of these guys live in the stone age.

bcattoes

I'm not irate or angry. I understand that you are set in your beliefs, regardless of how it defies researched evidence based on cited studies. Of which Dr. Willet failed to provide on his site.

Then how about your much touted and beloved NIH?

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/chol/wyntk.htm
What Affects Cholesterol Levels?
A variety of things can affect cholesterol levels. These are things you can do something about:

Diet. Saturated fat and cholesterol in the food you eat make your blood cholesterol level go up. Saturated fat is the main culprit, but cholesterol in foods also matters. Reducing the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol in your diet helps lower your blood cholesterol level.
...
In general, the higher your LDL level and the more risk factors you have (other than LDL), the greater your chances of developing heart disease or having a heart attack.
....
How Does Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease?
When there is too much cholesterol (a fat-like substance) in your blood, it builds up in the walls of your arteries. Over time, this buildup causes "hardening of the arteries" so that arteries become narrowed and blood flow to the heart is slowed down or blocked. The blood carries oxygen to the heart, and if enough blood and oxygen cannot reach your heart, you may suffer chest pain. If the blood supply to a portion of the heart is completely cut off by a blockage, the result is a heart attack.

Oops! They agree with Dr. Willet. And the Mayo Clinic? Yep, they agree too.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fat/NU00262
Saturated fat. This is a type of fat that comes mainly from animal sources of food. Saturated fat raises total blood cholesterol levels and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, which can increase your risk of cardiovascular disease. Saturated fat may also increase your risk of type 2 diabetes.

I could go on, but is there really a point? I've stated my beliefs and posted links to why I believe it, you've done the same. I think the horse is dead already.

questionablemethods

Ah, yes. Those crazy cavemen! I knew the "running in fear" thing wasn't mine. I was refering to the effort it takes to procure meat without a gun or grocery store vs. picking a tasty veggie to eat. I still say, I think I'd have gone for the veggies.

Does this mean no prize for me?

Next time you go camping let me know how easy it is to find 2000 calories of vegetable matter. :happy:

But nuts, seeds, legumes and roots are pretty high calorie.

They certainly are, but I'm wondering how easy it is to find enough of them to maintain basic, non-bed-ridden existence (I just picked 2000 calorie as a nice round number) versus chasing a buffalo off a cliff. I'm guessing both hunting AND gathering would likely have come into play.

(Sorry to have run this thread off the rails.)

joejccva71

I'm not irate or angry. I understand that you are set in your beliefs, regardless of how it defies researched evidence based on cited studies. Of which Dr. Willet failed to provide on his site.

Then how about your much touted and beloved NIH?

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/chol/wyntk.htm
What Affects Cholesterol Levels?
A variety of things can affect cholesterol levels. These are things you can do something about:

Diet. Saturated fat and cholesterol in the food you eat make your blood cholesterol level go up. Saturated fat is the main culprit, but cholesterol in foods also matters. Reducing the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol in your diet helps lower your blood cholesterol level.
...
In general, the higher your LDL level and the more risk factors you have (other than LDL), the greater your chances of developing heart disease or having a heart attack.
....
How Does Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease?
When there is too much cholesterol (a fat-like substance) in your blood, it builds up in the walls of your arteries. Over time, this buildup causes "hardening of the arteries" so that arteries become narrowed and blood flow to the heart is slowed down or blocked. The blood carries oxygen to the heart, and if enough blood and oxygen cannot reach your heart, you may suffer chest pain. If the blood supply to a portion of the heart is completely cut off by a blockage, the result is a heart attack.

Oops! They agree with Dr. Willet. And the Mayo Clinic? Yep, they agree too.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fat/NU00262
Saturated fat. This is a type of fat that comes mainly from animal sources of food. Saturated fat raises total blood cholesterol levels and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, which can increase your risk of cardiovascular disease. Saturated fat may also increase your risk of type 2 diabetes.

I could go on, but is there really a point? I've stated my beliefs and posted links to why I believe it, you've done the same. I think the horse is dead already.

Outdated Bcatt. Good try though. The publication was originally posted in 2001, and then "revised" in 2005. Dietary cholesterol has minimal impact on blood serum cholesterol.

The prevalent theory is that foods high in cholesterol, such as butter and eggs, are the main culprits behind high blood cholesterol and heart disease. The theory originates from a few studies conducted during the mid-1980s and published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Researchers then believed high blood cholesterol was the main cause of heart disease, and that dietary cholesterol should be limited or even eliminated to tackle America's No. 1 killer. Although the NIH now recognizes that much of the research was flawed and that some of the information was actually false, many doctors and nutritionists still recommend their patients avoid fat- and cholesterol-containing foods.

bcattoes

I'm not irate or angry. I understand that you are set in your beliefs, regardless of how it defies researched evidence based on cited studies. Of which Dr. Willet failed to provide on his site.

Then how about your much touted and beloved NIH?

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/chol/wyntk.htm
What Affects Cholesterol Levels?
A variety of things can affect cholesterol levels. These are things you can do something about:

Diet. Saturated fat and cholesterol in the food you eat make your blood cholesterol level go up. Saturated fat is the main culprit, but cholesterol in foods also matters. Reducing the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol in your diet helps lower your blood cholesterol level.
...
In general, the higher your LDL level and the more risk factors you have (other than LDL), the greater your chances of developing heart disease or having a heart attack.
....
How Does Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease?
When there is too much cholesterol (a fat-like substance) in your blood, it builds up in the walls of your arteries. Over time, this buildup causes "hardening of the arteries" so that arteries become narrowed and blood flow to the heart is slowed down or blocked. The blood carries oxygen to the heart, and if enough blood and oxygen cannot reach your heart, you may suffer chest pain. If the blood supply to a portion of the heart is completely cut off by a blockage, the result is a heart attack.

Oops! They agree with Dr. Willet. And the Mayo Clinic? Yep, they agree too.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fat/NU00262
Saturated fat. This is a type of fat that comes mainly from animal sources of food. Saturated fat raises total blood cholesterol levels and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, which can increase your risk of cardiovascular disease. Saturated fat may also increase your risk of type 2 diabetes.

I could go on, but is there really a point? I've stated my beliefs and posted links to why I believe it, you've done the same. I think the horse is dead already.

Outdated Bcatt. Good try though. The publication was originally posted in 2001, and then "revised" in 2005. Dietary cholesterol has minimal impact on blood serum cholesterol.

The prevalent theory is that foods high in cholesterol, such as butter and eggs, are the main culprits behind high blood cholesterol and heart disease. The theory originates from a few studies conducted during the mid-1980s and published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Researchers then believed high blood cholesterol was the main cause of heart disease, and that dietary cholesterol should be limited or even eliminated to tackle America's No. 1 killer. Although the NIH now recognizes that much of the research was flawed and that some of the information was actually false, many doctors and nutritionists still recommend their patients avoid fat- and cholesterol-containing foods.

What, no link?

The information I copied from the NIH, is currently on their website. All you gotta do is go to the NIH site and type in Cholesterol. It seems odd that they wouldn't take it down if they no longer believe it to be true.

questionablemethods

Studies can say a whole lot of things, but a lot of studies are, unfortunately, bad science. Furthermore, often the abstract (frequently the only part people read--especially with so many journals behind a pay wall) says things that are not supported by the actual data.

I am personally adding The Cholesterol Delusion (http://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-Delusion-Ernest-Curtis-M-D/dp/1608447480) and Ignore the Awkward: How Cholesterol Myths are Kept Alive (http://www.amazon.com/Ignore-Awkward-Cholesterol-Myths-Alive/dp/1453759409/) to my Amazon wishlist. The Cholesterol Delusion, in particular, has an appendix with specific details on how to read original research precisely because of the aforementioned problems.

stroutman81

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2011/01/26/ajcn.110.004622

http://www.cambridgehealth.com.au/dissertation.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/889.short

http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/2/458.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843598/

There's research that supports the notion that SF intake is linked to problems. There's research that negates this same notion. If you look at the body of evidence as a whole with an objective eye, it's likely that you'll see that the hype surrounding SF intake is overstated. We can't say anything definitively except for the fact that we need more research on the subject.

If you're an active, otherwise healthy individual, I wouldn't personally be sweating SF intake unless you're woofing it down like candy.

Gigi_licious

Bcatt since you still won't cite anything, and you keep rambling on I will lend you a hand. (for the 20th time in fact)

Also "high in saturated fat" is subjective. Of course if you eat over your macro requirements you may have some problems. Like if you eat 300g of fats a day sure. If you have way too much calcium in a day, or too many carbs in a day.

Anyways, moving on to the studies:

Abstract
Background: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health.

Objective: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies.

Design: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD.

Results: During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

Received March 6, 2009.
Accepted November 25, 2009.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Next ....


I would like you to go to this next site, scroll down to the bottom and read all the studies or atleast some of them regarding Saturated Fat, Cholesterol, and CVD/CHD. I don't really feel the need to quote every single word. Just read.

http://www.askscooby.com/nutrition-39/the-truth-about-saturated-fat-and-cholesterol

Now that you have attacked all vegetarians as biased because we don't eat animals, I would like to suggest that you as a meat-eater, might also possess some bias. based upon your own logic. Perhaps some of us have become vegetarians because we have done research and have read studies and are convinced that eating whole plant-based foods is the healthiest way to live. .

Where did I attack all vegetarians? No one do I ever state or have ever had a problem with any vegetarian. I have alot of MFP friends that are vegetarians. I think you have the wrong person.

Joe did not attack vegetarians. NOBODY attacked vegetarians. I'M the one that asked bcatt if she was a vegetarian, the statement was not intended as an attack on vegetarians, it was more of a question and opinion based on things I have seen her say in other threads. It's all about perception. Agree to disagree on how it was intended and how it was perceived by others. I posted it and I KNOW that I was not attacking vegetarians.

bcattoes

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2011/01/26/ajcn.110.004622

http://www.cambridgehealth.com.au/dissertation.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/889.short

http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/2/458.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843598/

There's research that supports the notion that SF intake is linked to problems. There's research that negates this same notion. If you look at the body of evidence as a whole with an objective eye, it's likely that you'll see that the hype surrounding SF intake is overstated. We can't say anything definitively except for the fact that we need more research on the subject.

If you're an active, otherwise healthy individual, I wouldn't personally be sweating SF intake unless you're woofing it down like candy.

There is likely conflicting evidence on any subject you can name. And more research is needed on just about any subject. You posted 8 studies, but there are much more than that. This is why I choose to look to the professionals who spend their lives doing the research, comparing it to other studies and formulating the most likely theories. I work in health care and work with govt. agencies, so I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I've met very few people in either field that weren't genuinely working to improve healthcare.

stroutman81

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2011/01/26/ajcn.110.004622

http://www.cambridgehealth.com.au/dissertation.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/889.short

http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/2/458.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843598/

There's research that supports the notion that SF intake is linked to problems. There's research that negates this same notion. If you look at the body of evidence as a whole with an objective eye, it's likely that you'll see that the hype surrounding SF intake is overstated. We can't say anything definitively except for the fact that we need more research on the subject.

If you're an active, otherwise healthy individual, I wouldn't personally be sweating SF intake unless you're woofing it down like candy.

There is likely conflicting evidence on any subject you can name. And more research is needed on just about any subject. You posted 8 studies, but there are much more than that. This is why I choose to look to the professionals who spend their lives doing the research, comparing it to other studies and formulating the most likely theories. I work in health care and work with govt. agencies, so I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I've met very few people in either field that weren't genuinely working to improve healthcare.

I'd certainly agree with that. I've friends and family who work for a few of the gov't agencies. I also have friends who conduct research for a living. The research I threw out there is the primary papers on the subject in question. If I'm missing one that you feel is a primary paper, I'll be happy to take a look at it. The fact remains, it's far too early to make any categorical claims in either direction.

joejccva71

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2011/01/26/ajcn.110.004622

http://www.cambridgehealth.com.au/dissertation.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/889.short

http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/2/458.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843598/

There's research that supports the notion that SF intake is linked to problems. There's research that negates this same notion. If you look at the body of evidence as a whole with an objective eye, it's likely that you'll see that the hype surrounding SF intake is overstated. We can't say anything definitively except for the fact that we need more research on the subject.

If you're an active, otherwise healthy individual, I wouldn't personally be sweating SF intake unless you're woofing it down like candy.

There is likely conflicting evidence on any subject you can name. And more research is needed on just about any subject. You posted 8 studies, but there are much more than that. This is why I choose to look to the professionals who spend their lives doing the research, comparing it to other studies and formulating the most likely theories. I work in health care and work with govt. agencies, so I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I've met very few people in either field that weren't genuinely working to improve healthcare.

Bcatt what part of "insufficient evidence to support" don't you understand. LOL. There have been numerous studies not just at NIH but at your very own Harvard Science facility as well. There is NOTHING to support that SFA's are BAD for you, and there is nothing to support that SFA's are the cause of CVD and CHD.

I really hate repeating myself. I feel like I'm talking to a child. I'm not saying go chew on animal fat like it's a piece of candy. I'm not saying tip back a bottle of Crisco oil. No one is saying that. But to say to watch out for saturated fat because it will clog your arteries is a pretty subjective, vague, and above all...ignorant statement.

Not one of you besides myself or Stroutman have provided any kind of LEGITIMATE studies to try to prove your points.

If you find a study that actually PROVES eating SFA's will cause you to roll over and have a heart attack, then by all means...CITE THE STUDIES.

bcattoes

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2011/01/26/ajcn.110.004622

http://www.cambridgehealth.com.au/dissertation.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/889.short

http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/2/458.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843598/

There's research that supports the notion that SF intake is linked to problems. There's research that negates this same notion. If you look at the body of evidence as a whole with an objective eye, it's likely that you'll see that the hype surrounding SF intake is overstated. We can't say anything definitively except for the fact that we need more research on the subject.

If you're an active, otherwise healthy individual, I wouldn't personally be sweating SF intake unless you're woofing it down like candy.

There is likely conflicting evidence on any subject you can name. And more research is needed on just about any subject. You posted 8 studies, but there are much more than that. This is why I choose to look to the professionals who spend their lives doing the research, comparing it to other studies and formulating the most likely theories. I work in health care and work with govt. agencies, so I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I've met very few people in either field that weren't genuinely working to improve healthcare.

I'd certainly agree with that. I've friends and family who work for a few of the gov't agencies. I also have friends who conduct research for a living. The research I threw out there is the primary papers on the subject in question. If I'm missing one that you feel is a primary paper, I'll be happy to take a look at it. The fact remains, it's far too early to make any categorical claims in either direction.

Well, I'm not sure I agree. The public needs some guidelines and those guidelines can only come from the knowledge base at hand. None of these orgainizations are saying "if you eat saturated fat you will develop heart disease" or even "if eat saturated fat your LDL will go up". They are recommending you eat less saturated fat because it can increase your LDL and that in turn will increase your risk of heart disease. Just as they recommend exercising more because that lowers risk. It doesn't mean you won't have heart disease if you exercise regularly. Just that you may be less likely to.

Scoobies87

i go over my fat a lot. i think my diary is open to friends. I have been doing this for a couple weeks bc i have been eating a lor egg, avacado, nuts and olive oil. I have still been losing weight. I have found that if i go over as long as it is good fat i still do really well. i have picked sugar and carbs as the two things i worry most about

Thanks, I will have a look at your food diary and get some tips

joejccva71

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2011/01/26/ajcn.110.004622

http://www.cambridgehealth.com.au/dissertation.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/889.short

http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/2/458.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843598/

There's research that supports the notion that SF intake is linked to problems. There's research that negates this same notion. If you look at the body of evidence as a whole with an objective eye, it's likely that you'll see that the hype surrounding SF intake is overstated. We can't say anything definitively except for the fact that we need more research on the subject.

If you're an active, otherwise healthy individual, I wouldn't personally be sweating SF intake unless you're woofing it down like candy.

There is likely conflicting evidence on any subject you can name. And more research is needed on just about any subject. You posted 8 studies, but there are much more than that. This is why I choose to look to the professionals who spend their lives doing the research, comparing it to other studies and formulating the most likely theories. I work in health care and work with govt. agencies, so I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I've met very few people in either field that weren't genuinely working to improve healthcare.

I'd certainly agree with that. I've friends and family who work for a few of the gov't agencies. I also have friends who conduct research for a living. The research I threw out there is the primary papers on the subject in question. If I'm missing one that you feel is a primary paper, I'll be happy to take a look at it. The fact remains, it's far too early to make any categorical claims in either direction.

Well, I'm not sure I agree. The public needs some guidelines and those guidelines can only come from the knowledge base at hand. None of these orgainizations are saying "if you eat saturated fat you will develop heart disease" or even "if eat saturated fat your LDL will go up". They are recommending you eat less saturated fat because it can increase your LDL and that in turn will increase your risk of heart disease. Just as they recommend exercising more because that lowers risk. It doesn't mean you won't have heart disease if you exercise regularly. Just that you may be less likely to.

Recommendations aren't the same as supported evidence based on research. The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.

Scoobies87

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?

No it does not matter if you go over your fat ratio with good fats. The fats in your example foods are good fats.

You can alter MFP ratios to whatever ratios are consistent with your goals. Personally mine are set for 20% carbs, 50% fat, and 30% protein.

Mine are about the same. In addition to eggs, avocados, some nuts, and fatty fish, I put some whole cream in my coffee, olive oil in my salads and I cook in coconut oil or beef tallow.

Wow I would love to be able to do the same! I avoid olive oil like the plague, even though it is one of my favourite things! I may have a play around with my food diary and goals after this week. Thanks guys

questionablemethods

Okay, now this is really far afield, but I still think it is important as long as we're talking about evidence-based research.

Recommendations aren't the same as supported evidence based on research.

This is true. Sadly, sometimes I even wonder who to trust for evidence-based research. Here's an example I posted on another thread about a position paper put out by the American Dietetic Association. I'm not saying anything negative about any individual RDs or trying to start a debate about veganism. It is just something I have seen quoted quite a bit, so I read it myself and I feel like some things in the abstract are not, in fact, supported by evidence (or lack thereof) provided in the paper itself . http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357

This is from the abstract which, unfortunately is the only part that many lay audiences (the intended audience, I believe) read.

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

This is from a bit later in the body of the paper (p. 1267):

In this article, the term "vegetarian" will be used to refer to people choosing a lacto-ovo-, lacto-, or vegan vegetarian diet unless otherwise specified.

I then assume this pertains to the abstract, as well. Especially since the same language is repeated in the conclusion.

Now here is the evidence as it pertains to vegan diets for pregnancy and birth outcomes (emphasis added):

Macronutrient and Energy Intake.
EAL Conclusion Statement: ***No research was identified that focused on macronutrient intakes among pregnant vegans.*** Grade V = Not Assignable.

Birth Outcomes.
Four cohort studies were identified that examined the rela-tionship between maternal macronu-trient intake during pregnancy and birth outcomes such as birth weight and length (59-62). ***None of the studies focused on pregnant vegans.***

EAL Conclusion Statement: Limited rEsearch on non-US populations indicates that there are no significant health differences in babies born to nonvegan vegetarian mothers vs non-vegetarians. Grade III = Limited.

So, I don't see how the evidence of vegan diets in pregnancy (um, none?) lines up with what is stated in the abstract. Maybe someone can fill me in on the ADA's method for stating positions in light of non-existant evidence. Whatever it is, it isn't made clear in the paper from what I can tell.

bcattoes

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?

No it does not matter if you go over your fat ratio with good fats. The fats in your example foods are good fats.

You can alter MFP ratios to whatever ratios are consistent with your goals. Personally mine are set for 20% carbs, 50% fat, and 30% protein.

Mine are about the same. In addition to eggs, avocados, some nuts, and fatty fish, I put some whole cream in my coffee, olive oil in my salads and I cook in coconut oil or beef tallow.

Wow I would love to be able to do the same! I avoid olive oil like the plague, even though it is one of my favourite things! I may have a play around with my food diary and goals after this week. Thanks guys

Why would you avoid olive oil?

stroutman81

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2011/01/26/ajcn.110.004622

http://www.cambridgehealth.com.au/dissertation.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/889.short

http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/2/458.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843598/

There's research that supports the notion that SF intake is linked to problems. There's research that negates this same notion. If you look at the body of evidence as a whole with an objective eye, it's likely that you'll see that the hype surrounding SF intake is overstated. We can't say anything definitively except for the fact that we need more research on the subject.

If you're an active, otherwise healthy individual, I wouldn't personally be sweating SF intake unless you're woofing it down like candy.

There is likely conflicting evidence on any subject you can name. And more research is needed on just about any subject. You posted 8 studies, but there are much more than that. This is why I choose to look to the professionals who spend their lives doing the research, comparing it to other studies and formulating the most likely theories. I work in health care and work with govt. agencies, so I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I've met very few people in either field that weren't genuinely working to improve healthcare.

I'd certainly agree with that. I've friends and family who work for a few of the gov't agencies. I also have friends who conduct research for a living. The research I threw out there is the primary papers on the subject in question. If I'm missing one that you feel is a primary paper, I'll be happy to take a look at it. The fact remains, it's far too early to make any categorical claims in either direction.

Well, I'm not sure I agree. The public needs some guidelines and those guidelines can only come from the knowledge base at hand. None of these orgainizations are saying "if you eat saturated fat you will develop heart disease" or even "if eat saturated fat your LDL will go up". They are recommending you eat less saturated fat because it can increase your LDL and that in turn will increase your risk of heart disease. Just as they recommend exercising more because that lowers risk. It doesn't mean you won't have heart disease if you exercise regularly. Just that you may be less likely to.

I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me in reality. The only claim I've made is that the evidence is too divided to make any categorical statements. This means nothing about guidelines and opinions. I agree that the lay public needs some direction. But last I checked, and I'm not digging up the source this very moment, but SF, by percentage, wasn't very high in the average American diet. Yet, CHD is still the leading cause of death in the U.S.

After reviewing the evidence, the majority of quality research doesn't support the notion that you're making. I posted the large reviews and papers that are for and against it above. You claimed it's an incomplete list. And seriously, I'm as objective as they come. There's no such thing as pure objectivity as we're all perverted by our own biases. But I'm in pursuit of the truth and have no problem admitting when I've overlooked something or when I'm wrong. In fact, I love being wrong when it comes to this stuff as it presents the opportunity to learn something new.

So as I noted above, again, if you have some of these major publications that I've missed, I'd love to take a look at them please. And if you've not read the papers I posted above, and you're seriously interested in reading the data that fuels the guidelines these organizations dish to us... because remember... they're basing their opinions on the same body of literature... then I suggest reading them.

If you're not that interested and if you fully trust that the advice you're getting from these agencies and institutions is current... then by all means, don't read them. I honestly couldn't care less. I'm not here to preach or convert anyone. We're all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs.

Where I'm coming from... it's just like the current recommended protein intake espoused by the RDA. It's based on antiquated research. In the decades since, much more reliable and current data has surfaced suggesting higher protein intakes for active people and athletes. Yet the recommendation stands. I'm not sure about conspiracy theories. That's not my style. But I do believe there's a lot of inertia to these big agencies and institutions. It's difficult for them to retract and revise... or so it seems.

Scoobies87

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?

No it does not matter if you go over your fat ratio with good fats. The fats in your example foods are good fats.

You can alter MFP ratios to whatever ratios are consistent with your goals. Personally mine are set for 20% carbs, 50% fat, and 30% protein.

Mine are about the same. In addition to eggs, avocados, some nuts, and fatty fish, I put some whole cream in my coffee, olive oil in my salads and I cook in coconut oil or beef tallow.

Wow I would love to be able to do the same! I avoid olive oil like the plague, even though it is one of my favourite things! I may have a play around with my food diary and goals after this week. Thanks guys

Why would you avoid olive oil?

Because it has 14g of fat per tablespoon!!!! I use frylight instead

bcattoes

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2011/01/26/ajcn.110.004622

http://www.cambridgehealth.com.au/dissertation.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/889.short

http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/2/458.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843598/

There's research that supports the notion that SF intake is linked to problems. There's research that negates this same notion. If you look at the body of evidence as a whole with an objective eye, it's likely that you'll see that the hype surrounding SF intake is overstated. We can't say anything definitively except for the fact that we need more research on the subject.

If you're an active, otherwise healthy individual, I wouldn't personally be sweating SF intake unless you're woofing it down like candy.

There is likely conflicting evidence on any subject you can name. And more research is needed on just about any subject. You posted 8 studies, but there are much more than that. This is why I choose to look to the professionals who spend their lives doing the research, comparing it to other studies and formulating the most likely theories. I work in health care and work with govt. agencies, so I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I've met very few people in either field that weren't genuinely working to improve healthcare.

I'd certainly agree with that. I've friends and family who work for a few of the gov't agencies. I also have friends who conduct research for a living. The research I threw out there is the primary papers on the subject in question. If I'm missing one that you feel is a primary paper, I'll be happy to take a look at it. The fact remains, it's far too early to make any categorical claims in either direction.

Well, I'm not sure I agree. The public needs some guidelines and those guidelines can only come from the knowledge base at hand. None of these orgainizations are saying "if you eat saturated fat you will develop heart disease" or even "if eat saturated fat your LDL will go up". They are recommending you eat less saturated fat because it can increase your LDL and that in turn will increase your risk of heart disease. Just as they recommend exercising more because that lowers risk. It doesn't mean you won't have heart disease if you exercise regularly. Just that you may be less likely to.

I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me in reality. The only claim I've made is that the evidence is too divided to make any categorical statements. This means nothing about guidelines and opinions. I agree that the lay public needs some direction. But last I checked, and I'm not digging up the source this very moment, but SF, by percentage, wasn't very high in the average American diet. Yet, CHD is still the leading cause of death in the U.S.

After reviewing the evidence, the majority of quality research doesn't support the notion that you're making. I posted the large reviews and papers that are for and against it above. You claimed it's an incomplete list. And seriously, I'm as objective as they come. There's no such thing as pure objectivity as we're all perverted by our own biases. But I'm in pursuit of the truth and have no problem admitting when I've overlooked something or when I'm wrong. In fact, I love being wrong when it comes to this stuff as it presents the opportunity to learn something new.

So as I noted above, again, if you have some of these major publications that I've missed, I'd love to take a look at them please. And if you've not read the papers I posted above, and you're seriously interested in reading the data that fuels the guidelines these organizations dish to us... because remember... they're basing their opinions on the same body of literature... then I suggest reading them.

If you're not that interested and if you fully trust that the advice you're getting from these agencies and institutions is current... then by all means, don't read them. I honestly couldn't care less. I'm not here to preach or convert anyone. We're all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs.

Where I'm coming from... it's just like the current recommended protein intake espoused by the RDA. It's based on antiquated research. In the decades since, much more reliable and current data has surfaced suggesting higher protein intakes for active people and athletes. Yet the recommendation stands. I'm not sure about conspiracy theories. That's not my style. But I do believe there's a lot of inertia to these big agencies and institutions. It's difficult for them to retract and revise... or so it seems.

I don't lump the USDA into my "trusted medical organizaitons" and agree that their recommendations are outdated. No, not really outdated, just wrong. Many of their RDA were wrong to begin with and not based on medical evidence.