Why high dietary fat %? Are we trying to kill each other?
Replies
-
Guys can we all just shut up and notice that Sara, side steel and I are on the same side here? If THAT doesn't convince you, nothing will. Haha
Ha, officially awesome!
holy. ****.
amazing.0 -
.35g per pound is a figure that many bodybuilders use to set up there macros. they start there and adjust to get optimum results. i dont have any sources. it could be alittle bro science.Where is your basis for asserting that the information in our thread is dangerous?
Additionally, obese people may use lbm instead of total bodyweight but even still, considering that .35/lb is the minimum recommended value I don't see anything in that thread as being potentially dangerous.
Why is .35g per pound considered the minumum valiue? According to whom?0 -
.35g per pound is a figure that many bodybuilders use to set up there macros. they start there and adjust to get optimum results. i dont have any sources. it could be alittle bro science.Where is your basis for asserting that the information in our thread is dangerous?
Additionally, obese people may use lbm instead of total bodyweight but even still, considering that .35/lb is the minimum recommended value I don't see anything in that thread as being potentially dangerous.
Why is .35g per pound considered the minumum valiue? According to whom?
Finally, an honest answer. No medical evidence, just some guys talking around the weight rack. That makes perfectly good sense.0 -
Lol. You were looking for the answer you wanted to hear.
Clearly you do not know the physiological function of lipids0 -
.35g per pound is a figure that many bodybuilders use to set up there macros. they start there and adjust to get optimum results. i dont have any sources. it could be alittle bro science.Where is your basis for asserting that the information in our thread is dangerous?
Additionally, obese people may use lbm instead of total bodyweight but even still, considering that .35/lb is the minimum recommended value I don't see anything in that thread as being potentially dangerous.
Why is .35g per pound considered the minumum valiue? According to whom?
Finally, an honest answer. No medical evidence, just some guys talking around the weight rack. That makes perfectly good sense.
haven't read the thread deeply. what's YOUR medical evidence?0 -
I'm currently at 25/30/45 for carbs/protein/fat. i get my fats from nuts, avocados, olive oil, butter, full fat milk (which by the way is amazing) and MEAT.
also... i'm losing weight, not gaining.0 -
Dont waste your time on op.
.35g per pound is a figure that many bodybuilders use to set up there macros. they start there and adjust to get optimum results. i dont have any sources. it could be alittle bro science.Where is your basis for asserting that the information in our thread is dangerous?
Additionally, obese people may use lbm instead of total bodyweight but even still, considering that .35/lb is the minimum recommended value I don't see anything in that thread as being potentially dangerous.
Why is .35g per pound considered the minumum valiue? According to whom?
Finally, an honest answer. No medical evidence, just some guys talking around the weight rack. That makes perfectly good sense.
haven't read the thread deeply. what's YOUR medical evidence?
Good luck to your hormonal dysfunction goals of 20130 -
Dont waste your time on op.
.35g per pound is a figure that many bodybuilders use to set up there macros. they start there and adjust to get optimum results. i dont have any sources. it could be alittle bro science.Where is your basis for asserting that the information in our thread is dangerous?
Additionally, obese people may use lbm instead of total bodyweight but even still, considering that .35/lb is the minimum recommended value I don't see anything in that thread as being potentially dangerous.
Why is .35g per pound considered the minumum valiue? According to whom?
Finally, an honest answer. No medical evidence, just some guys talking around the weight rack. That makes perfectly good sense.
haven't read the thread deeply. what's YOUR medical evidence?
Good luck to your hormonal dysfunction goals of 2013
haha appreciate the heads up.0 -
i think a high percentage is a dangerous way to workout fat content, in particular anything over 50%, in the same respect with any macro though, i think making any macro over 50% is pointless tbh, my firm belief is everything in moderation, in particular for weight loss0
-
i think a high percentage is a dangerous way to workout fat content, in particular anything over 50%, in the same respect with any macro though, i think making any macro over 50% is pointless tbh, my firm belief is everything in moderation, in particular for weight loss
For weight loss, moderation is irrelevant.
For health it's incredibly important.
But random arbitrary guidelines are arbitrary.0 -
Where is your basis for asserting that the information in our thread is dangerous?
Additionally, obese people may use lbm instead of total bodyweight but even still, considering that .35/lb is the minimum recommended value I don't see anything in that thread as being potentially dangerous.
Why is .35g per pound considered the minumum valiue? According to whom?
I will make a fuller response later as I am on my phone - but could you answer the question please.
Every medical reference and study indicates that 25-35% of calories from fat is the max appropriate for good health and nutrition.
My question initially is where did your post originate? What is the reference? Certainly you can answer on your phone.
Please cite some of the references that say more than 0.35g is dangerous
And I said that I would answer more fully when I get to my computer.
At no time did I say that more than .35g is dangerous. When applied to people who are already overweight the percentage of fat from calories becomes excessive and can be harmful.. The accepted standard within the medical community is 25-35% as a percent of calories regardless of the source ("good" vs "bad" fat).
References:
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/fat/
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fat/nu00262/nsectiongroup=2
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/150083/E79832.pdf
Throw in AHA, ADA, etc.
you asked "are we trying to kill eachother?"
your body oxidizes multiple forms of energy at the same time, protein, fat, and carbs
selection of energy that your body chooses to oxidize is based upon intake and availability.
the higher fat you intake the more your body will oxidize it.
same with the other macronutrients.
some are more prone to oxidize than others. such as carbs.
saturated fat is not harmful. It can be considered harmful for those who are inactive and overweight. then again same with carbohydrates.
hypercaloric diet+high carbs=diabetes
hypercaoric diet+high fat= plaque build up in your vessels.
if you take hypercaloric out of the equation, neither of those will happen
the only bad macro is trans fat
any disease that is a complication of diet is usually related to malnourishment or overeating.
physical activity also plays a huge factor in whether people will get a disease or not
It have to disagree with your statement that saturated fat is not bad and that it plays no role as contributing to plaque buildup even in an active deficit diet (which is what you are referring). There are far to many variable to make a vague statement, such as genetics and hormones both of which play a huge role in plaque buildup. I know several and have known several individuals that are very active (always have been) yet still have plaque build up. Saturated fats "can" be bad for some individuals even though they have a very active lifestyle.0 -
i think a high percentage is a dangerous way to workout fat content, in particular anything over 50%, in the same respect with any macro though, i think making any macro over 50% is pointless tbh, my firm belief is everything in moderation, in particular for weight loss
For weight loss, moderation is irrelevant.
For health it's incredibly important.
But random arbitrary guidelines are arbitrary.
it's not irrelevant at all, moderation is the key to losing weight, over indulging on things and in particular calories is what makes people overweight?0 -
i think a high percentage is a dangerous way to workout fat content, in particular anything over 50%, in the same respect with any macro though, i think making any macro over 50% is pointless tbh, my firm belief is everything in moderation, in particular for weight loss
For weight loss, moderation is irrelevant.
For health it's incredibly important.
But random arbitrary guidelines are arbitrary.
it's not irrelevant at all, moderation is the key to losing weight, over indulging on things and in particular calories is what makes people overweight?
ah. i was under the impression you meant moderation in the TYPES of calories.
weight loss is only cal in/ cal out. thus, no dietary moderation is needed beyond calories consumed. even though you'll end up skinny and malnourished.0 -
There have been some posts recently which suggest setting fat as high as 70% of total calories. Why would someone eating at a deficit consume so much fat? The food volume is low, the overall diet lacks fiber and micronutrients due to the low carbs, and the protein is too low to protect muscle mass.
And while I'm asking questions that are sure to get me flamed, where did the often referred http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets originate? The idea of telling people who are obese to set their goals to "0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target" is poor science and could be harmful to their health. A 250 lb person eating 1700 cals per day would be consuming 45% of their calories in fat. Why are we perpetuating this?
Notes: 1) Yes, I know that carbs do not contain micronutrients but carb containing foods do. 2) A 250lb female my age and height, sedentary, would be consuming 1700 cals at TDEE -20%
Where have you seen posts that suggest setting fats as high as 70% of total calories?0 -
Should look up the french paradox. It may be may be a multi-hit factor but it cannot be soley blamed on saturated fat.Where is your basis for asserting that the information in our thread is dangerous?
Additionally, obese people may use lbm instead of total bodyweight but even still, considering that .35/lb is the minimum recommended value I don't see anything in that thread as being potentially dangerous.
Why is .35g per pound considered the minumum valiue? According to whom?
I will make a fuller response later as I am on my phone - but could you answer the question please.
Every medical reference and study indicates that 25-35% of calories from fat is the max appropriate for good health and nutrition.
My question initially is where did your post originate? What is the reference? Certainly you can answer on your phone.
Please cite some of the references that say more than 0.35g is dangerous
And I said that I would answer more fully when I get to my computer.
At no time did I say that more than .35g is dangerous. When applied to people who are already overweight the percentage of fat from calories becomes excessive and can be harmful.. The accepted standard within the medical community is 25-35% as a percent of calories regardless of the source ("good" vs "bad" fat).
References:
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/fat/
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fat/nu00262/nsectiongroup=2
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/150083/E79832.pdf
Throw in AHA, ADA, etc.
you asked "are we trying to kill eachother?"
your body oxidizes multiple forms of energy at the same time, protein, fat, and carbs
selection of energy that your body chooses to oxidize is based upon intake and availability.
the higher fat you intake the more your body will oxidize it.
same with the other macronutrients.
some are more prone to oxidize than others. such as carbs.
saturated fat is not harmful. It can be considered harmful for those who are inactive and overweight. then again same with carbohydrates.
hypercaloric diet+high carbs=diabetes
hypercaoric diet+high fat= plaque build up in your vessels.
if you take hypercaloric out of the equation, neither of those will happen
the only bad macro is trans fat
any disease that is a complication of diet is usually related to malnourishment or overeating.
physical activity also plays a huge factor in whether people will get a disease or not
It have to disagree with your statement that saturated fat is not bad and that it plays no role as contributing to plaque buildup even in an active deficit diet (which is what you are referring). There are far to many variable to make a vague statement, such as genetics and hormones both of which play a huge role in plaque buildup. I know several and have known several individuals that are very active (always have been) yet still have plaque build up. Saturated fats "can" be bad for some individuals even though they have a very active lifestyle.
]http://www.dietdoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fat-CVD.jpg
http://freetheanimal.com/images/2009/09/cholesterol-mortality.gif
America is the only one that says saturated fat causes heart disease.
its more than that such as inactivity and our lifestyle. multiple factors
image are too big to link
france has one of the lowest risks
average cholesterol is 210 and they have a high saturated fat intake
Colombia avg is 245 cholesterol and they are much lower than 90% of the other countries0 -
It have to disagree with your statement that saturated fat is not bad and that it plays no role as contributing to plaque buildup even in an active deficit diet (which is what you are referring). There are far to many variable to make a vague statement, such as genetics and hormones both of which play a huge role in plaque buildup. I know several and have known several individuals that are very active (always have been) yet still have plaque build up. Saturated fats "can" be bad for some individuals even though they have a very active lifestyle.
i dont think you understand what a hypocaloric diet truly is
multiple studies have said that a higher fat diet in a deficit improves plasma lipids
that includes cholesterol and triglycerides.0 -
It's not the high fat I have a problem with. I eat a crap load of fat. It's the extremely high deficits with poor nutrition thats a problem. Not fat. The person who wrote that link also suggests eating sensibly and not having a ginormous deficit.There have been some posts recently which suggest setting fat as high as 70% of total calories. Why would someone eating at a deficit consume so much fat? The food volume is low, the overall diet lacks fiber and micronutrients due to the low carbs, and the protein is too low to protect muscle mass.
And while I'm asking questions that are sure to get me flamed, where did the often referred http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets originate? The idea of telling people who are obese to set their goals to "0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target" is poor science and could be harmful to their health. A 250 lb person eating 1700 cals per day would be consuming 45% of their calories in fat. Why are we perpetuating this?
Notes: 1) Yes, I know that carbs do not contain micronutrients but carb containing foods do. 2) A 250lb female my age and height, sedentary, would be consuming 1700 cals at TDEE -20%
A 250lb person should not be having such a high deficit that they are eating the same as me. Bam.0 -
It's not the high fat I have a problem with. I eat a crap load of fat. It's the extremely high deficits with poor nutrition thats a problem. Not fat. The person who wrote that link also suggests eating sensibly and not having a ginormous deficit.There have been some posts recently which suggest setting fat as high as 70% of total calories. Why would someone eating at a deficit consume so much fat? The food volume is low, the overall diet lacks fiber and micronutrients due to the low carbs, and the protein is too low to protect muscle mass.
And while I'm asking questions that are sure to get me flamed, where did the often referred http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets originate? The idea of telling people who are obese to set their goals to "0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target" is poor science and could be harmful to their health. A 250 lb person eating 1700 cals per day would be consuming 45% of their calories in fat. Why are we perpetuating this?
Notes: 1) Yes, I know that carbs do not contain micronutrients but carb containing foods do. 2) A 250lb female my age and height, sedentary, would be consuming 1700 cals at TDEE -20%
A 250lb person should not be having such a high deficit that they are eating the same as me. Bam.
she already got her answer she was looking for after 50+ replies
a bunch of gym guys talked about the importance of fat0 -
Gee thanks, now I'm absolutely terrified. Reddy is agreeing with peopleshe already got her answer she was looking for after 50+ replies
a bunch of gym guys talked about the importance of fat
0 -
Consuming dietary fat does not add to bodily fat. Dietary fat helps the feeling of "fullness" just like carbs do, but carbs metabolize very differently than fat.
The recommendation would be made for someone on a low carb high fat diet. You can't eat potato chips and losing weight, but you can eat bacon and lose weight
It's not all about losing weight. We should be aiming for sustainable good health. Eating excessive fat at the cost of other nutrients negatively affects long-term health.
And yes, you can lose weight eating potato chips. As long as you stay at a caloric deficit.
There are a lot of fat soluable vitamins that are stored in fat. So not nutrient deficient in any way.........
I eat about 60-70% fat per day and I eat mostly fat and vegetables, 1 serving of fruit and then my protein and I am over on the RDA for almost all vitamins and minerals - that is without taking a multi-vitamin.......
With my vitamin and fish oil added in, I am reaching all of the recommended nutrient amounts easily.
The key is to eat natural foods..........not boxed and packaged CRAP.0 -
Because being extreme is the fad du jour. Blame the paleo/ primal folks for turning the overeating of bacon into a dieter's birthright.
Oh no no no. People following the Paleo diet should be limiting their processed meat intake. Including bacon. I don't know a single Paleo/Primal person who will tell you that you can eat unlimited processed meats. (and I'm not including internet people, only those who are Paleo/Primal that I actually know in person.)
Well being there is fresh pork belly to be had that is NOT PROCESSED - bacon is highly allowed.
Not that gross grocery store stuff, but REAL pork belly that you slice at home and then cook0 -
'eating that quantity of fat is likely to give too much unhealthy fat, that's asking for artery clogging '
^^^ Not true if person sticks to unprocessed foods
'The recommendation would be made for someone on a low carb high fat diet. You can't eat potato chips and losing weight, but you can eat bacon and lose weight '
^^^^ this :-)
.............. you just contradicted yourself in one post so well done for that lol
You got me, I missed out a word, enjoy the feeling of superiority...
no you just said unprocessed foods don't contain unhealthy fat then concurred to eating bacon (a processed food) which will have unhealthy fats
to add i don't care that it's processed and enjoy 300g of it every week, but if you want to talk as if you're going to eat a 70% fat diet without unprocessed foods and unhealthy fats clogging your arteries.... i disagree
What fat in bacon is unhealthy????? It sure isn't the saturated fat, because saturated fat is NOT unhealthy in any shape, form or fashion.
I get pork fat from the local farmer and render it down for fresh lard that is a very stable fat.0 -
i eat 55% fat.
dietary fat has no impact on body fat unless you're eating at a caloric surplus. fat is also great for long term energy whereas carbs are better for short term energy. I like long term energy.
55% fat, 25% carbs 20% protein
You are trying to gain weight - not lose. And you consume a ridiculously high calorie level that would require more fat due to density. I specifically said this is bad advice for those who are eating at a deficit and trying to support good health.
Would you suggest to your "clients" that they consume more fat and less protein and carbs than their body needs? Because that's what's happening here every day.
that's a great point, and one worth addressing
if you're eating at a deficit, it's MORE important to hit your micronutrient levels than it is to hit any particular fat macro. Absolutely. That's why using percentages is silly on the whole. Protein requirements are essentially static, and only change with your lean body mass. I personally feel that you can't reach your micro nutrient goals very well unless you're hitting at least 100g of carbs through mainly fruits and veggies (that's an opinion, I know there are a lot of Keto fans out there - I'm not one of them).
but once you know how much protein you need, and how many carbs your body feels good on and needs to hit nutrient levels, the rest can absolutely be taken up by fat if you so desire. It will NOT cause you any harm, as long as you avoid trans fats and stick to as many good fats as possible (coconut, avocado, olive, animal fats, etc)
so even in a deficit, you can have a "high fat" diet and see incredible results, and do so in a healthy way.
The problem wit Adkins was people take it to an extreme and do NO carb diets and thus are missing out on huge chunks of micronutrients the body needs to function.
The part about Atkins is entirely WRONG. Atkins is an elimination diet in the beginning and if you follow all 4 phases, it is a very, very healthy way of eating.
If you haven't done the Atkins plan, followed all 4 phases and seen what it is really about, please don't make false comments.0 -
Where is your basis for asserting that the information in our thread is dangerous?
Additionally, obese people may use lbm instead of total bodyweight but even still, considering that .35/lb is the minimum recommended value I don't see anything in that thread as being potentially dangerous.
Why is .35g per pound considered the minumum valiue? According to whom?
I will make a fuller response later as I am on my phone - but could you answer the question please.
Every medical reference and study indicates that 25-35% of calories from fat is the max appropriate for good health and nutrition.
My question initially is where did your post originate? What is the reference? Certainly you can answer on your phone.
Ha. You really trust main stream medical reference and studies??????
I sure don't.0 -
Where is your basis for asserting that the information in our thread is dangerous?
Additionally, obese people may use lbm instead of total bodyweight but even still, considering that .35/lb is the minimum recommended value I don't see anything in that thread as being potentially dangerous.
Why is .35g per pound considered the minumum valiue? According to whom?
I will make a fuller response later as I am on my phone - but could you answer the question please.
Every medical reference and study indicates that 25-35% of calories from fat is the max appropriate for good health and nutrition.
My question initially is where did your post originate? What is the reference? Certainly you can answer on your phone.
Ha. You really trust main stream medical reference and studies??????
I sure don't.
you are talking to someone that apparently has selective reading and selective hearing
I am suggesting for you not to waste your time0 -
If you're eating at a deficit, exercising, and getting all the micronutrients you need, there is zero reason NOT to front-load dietary fat. It's more satisfying and satiating to eat, it's calorie-dense, and when you maintain a deficit, you'll still be burning adipose. Why would it matter?0
-
If you're eating at a deficit, exercising, and getting all the micronutrients you need, there is zero reason NOT to front-load dietary fat. It's more satisfying and satiating to eat, it's calorie-dense, and when you maintain a deficit, you'll still be burning adipose. Why would it matter?
idk if its truly more satiating. i think it varyies from food.
I get fuller off eating 1 normal sized potato than 600 calories worth of cashews
just saying0 -
There have been some posts recently which suggest setting fat as high as 70% of total calories. Why would someone eating at a deficit consume so much fat? The food volume is low, the overall diet lacks fiber and micronutrients due to the low carbs, and the protein is too low to protect muscle mass.
And while I'm asking questions that are sure to get me flamed, where did the often referred http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets originate? The idea of telling people who are obese to set their goals to "0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target" is poor science and could be harmful to their health. A 250 lb person eating 1700 cals per day would be consuming 45% of their calories in fat. Why are we perpetuating this?
Notes: 1) Yes, I know that carbs do not contain micronutrients but carb containing foods do. 2) A 250lb female my age and height, sedentary, would be consuming 1700 cals at TDEE -20%
Where have you seen posts that suggest setting fats as high as 70% of total calories?
^^^That's what I'm wondering. 0.35 g/lb would actually only be 20% of my calories from fat. If I was eating at a deficit (say 1500 cal/day) that would still only be about 24% of my calories from fat. Either still sounds really low to me, as I eat more like 50%/30%/20% fat/carbs/protein. I don't understand where OP got 70%, unless she's been reading up on keto, but then why quote Sara's post?0 -
Ha. You really trust main stream medical reference and studies??????
I sure don't.
Yeah? How has that been working out for you?0 -
Ha. You really trust main stream medical reference and studies??????
I sure don't.
Yeah? How has that been working out for you?
Well it is working just fine for me. I am in better health than I have been in years thanks to eat just REAL FOOD............high fat, moderate protein and carbs which come from vegetables and some fruits.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions