question about saturated fats!

Options
amberx1127
amberx1127 Posts: 45
in Food and Nutrition
MyFitnessPal says my goal for saturated fat is 14g per day. Does this mean that it is recommended that you SHOULD eat 14 grams of saturated fat per day as part of a healthy diet? OR does it mean that you are ALLOWED that much, but you should aim to be lower? I was always under the impression that saturated fats are bad for the heart...
«1

Replies

  • ldula88
    ldula88 Posts: 169 Member
    Options
    Saturated fat actually has been disproven to be harmful (when eaten as part of a normal/balanced diet, obviously). It's really the trans fats that you should aim to limit or remove completely. Other than that, I usually don't pay attention to the breakdown of my fat intake anyway (saturated vs poly vs mono, etc.), as long as the overall percentage meets my daily macro goal :)
  • amberx1127
    amberx1127 Posts: 45
    Options
    Thanks for the reply :) I kind of thought it was a disproven fact but wasn't sure haha
  • cpdiminish
    cpdiminish Posts: 84
    Options
    Saturated fats still raise your LDL cholesterol levels. Not a problem if your levels are good, but perhaps a problem if you were trying to lower.
  • missiontofitness
    missiontofitness Posts: 4,074 Member
    Options
    I always aim lower, but don't lose sleep if I hit that 14g/day goal. :)
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,994 Member
    Options
    Saturated fats still raise your LDL cholesterol levels. Not a problem if your levels are good, but perhaps a problem if you were trying to lower.
    Do you know why?
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    Saturated fats still raise your LDL cholesterol levels. Not a problem if your levels are good, but perhaps a problem if you were trying to lower.
    Do you know why?

    Funny to see you on a sat fat thread!!!
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,994 Member
    Options
    Saturated fats still raise your LDL cholesterol levels. Not a problem if your levels are good, but perhaps a problem if you were trying to lower.
    Do you know why?

    Funny to see you on a sat fat thread!!!
    Well, dogmatology is an interest of mine.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Options
    Saturated fat actually has been disproven to be harmful (when eaten as part of a normal/balanced diet, obviously). It's really the trans fats that you should aim to limit or remove completely. Other than that, I usually don't pay attention to the breakdown of my fat intake anyway (saturated vs poly vs mono, etc.), as long as the overall percentage meets my daily macro goal :)

    What she said except I try my best to stay away from polyunsaturated fats in the form of vegetable oils.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Options
    Saturated fats still raise your LDL cholesterol levels. Not a problem if your levels are good, but perhaps a problem if you were trying to lower.

    Well, I have found that the more saturated fats I eat, the lower my LDL cholesterol goes and the more my HDL raises. My vLDL are almost no existent.
  • bpotts44
    bpotts44 Posts: 1,066 Member
    Options
    Saturated fat actually has been disproven to be harmful (when eaten as part of a normal/balanced diet, obviously). It's really the trans fats that you should aim to limit or remove completely. Other than that, I usually don't pay attention to the breakdown of my fat intake anyway (saturated vs poly vs mono, etc.), as long as the overall percentage meets my daily macro goal :)

    What she said except I try my best to stay away from polyunsaturated fats in the form of vegetable oils.

    Agreed. Each sat fats all you want, but avoid vegetable oils as much as possible. They are often rancid and always inflammatory.
  • pennyllayne
    pennyllayne Posts: 265
    Options
    Saturated fats still raise your LDL cholesterol levels. Not a problem if your levels are good, but perhaps a problem if you were trying to lower.

    As someone above said, this has been disproven and it turns out that sugar and trans fats raise LDL more than sat fat. Also, LDL levels only matter to the point of the ratio to HDL and also particle number. Elevated LDL alone means very little.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    Saturated fats still raise your LDL cholesterol levels. Not a problem if your levels are good, but perhaps a problem if you were trying to lower.

    As someone above said, this has been disproven and it turns out that sugar and trans fats raise LDL more than sat fat. Also, LDL levels only matter to the point of the ratio to HDL and also particle number. Elevated LDL alone means very little.

    Also LDL's are only harmful when they are oxidised. Eating a diet with a range of anti-oxidants is a good idea.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    Saturated fats still raise your LDL cholesterol levels. Not a problem if your levels are good, but perhaps a problem if you were trying to lower.

    Well, I have found that the more saturated fats I eat, the lower my LDL cholesterol goes and the more my HDL raises. My vLDL are almost no existent.

    To add to this the real thing to pay attention to is the ratio between your HDL and triglyceride (the ration the better). Exercise is a great way to increase your HDL.
  • jess17587
    jess17587 Posts: 153
    Options
    the limit set by the gov ect...
    is 20g of sat fat but i don't belive it is bad as they say and istead i keep more of a track on trans fats that can be down as hydrogenated oil on the ingredients because food manufactures dont put trans fats on the front of packaging for one of the traffic lights
  • lthames0810
    lthames0810 Posts: 722 Member
    Options
    Just this morning I read a short article in the local newspaper (ominously on the obituary page) about a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The article said the study found a correlation between sat fat intake and certain kinds of breast cancer in women.

    First I'm always suspicious of newspaper recaps of reportedly scientific studies. It seem like they pick interesting bits out of these studies for the purpose of attracting readers, not necessarily the conclusions actually made by the study. They never comment on the quality of the study either.

    Second, I remember eggs being vilified based on these kinds of articles, but later being exonerated.

    But, anyway, this is out there, for what it's worth. Sorry, I don't have a link.
  • pennyllayne
    pennyllayne Posts: 265
    Options
    Just this morning I read a short article in the local newspaper (ominously on the obituary page) about a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The article said the study found a correlation between sat fat intake and certain kinds of breast cancer in women.

    First I'm always suspicious of newspaper recaps of reportedly scientific studies. It seem like they pick interesting bits out of these studies for the purpose of attracting readers, not necessarily the conclusions actually made by the study. They never comment on the quality of the study either.

    Second, I remember eggs being vilified based on these kinds of articles, but later being exonerated.

    But, anyway, this is out there, for what it's worth. Sorry, I don't have a link.

    Yes and correlation does not prove causation either. This sounds like it was likely an observational study which really proves nothing. Observational studies are only useful to observe trends and to be used to then develop theories and test them in studies. So I do hate when people come out saying things like "Fat causes cancer" as a headline and then cite an observational study as proof. Do the people doing the reporting even understand what an observational study is? all they are doing is confusing the public!
  • lthames0810
    lthames0810 Posts: 722 Member
    Options
    Just this morning I read a short article in the local newspaper (ominously on the obituary page) about a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The article said the study found a correlation between sat fat intake and certain kinds of breast cancer in women.

    First I'm always suspicious of newspaper recaps of reportedly scientific studies. It seem like they pick interesting bits out of these studies for the purpose of attracting readers, not necessarily the conclusions actually made by the study. They never comment on the quality of the study either.

    Second, I remember eggs being vilified based on these kinds of articles, but later being exonerated.

    But, anyway, this is out there, for what it's worth. Sorry, I don't have a link.

    Yes and correlation does not prove causation either. This sounds like it was likely an observational study which really proves nothing. Observational studies are only useful to observe trends and to be used to then develop theories and test them in studies. So I do hate when people come out saying things like "Fat causes cancer" as a headline and then cite an observational study as proof. Do the people doing the reporting even understand what an observational study is? all they are doing is confusing the public!

    Thanks for the perspective. I count myself among the confused public, but I view these things with scepticism for the reasons I previously mentioned and now also for the reason you mentioned. Despite all this, though, I read these stupid articles and they do stick in my mind. Going to the source and reading the studies for myself is not all that helpfull without a grounding in the methods of scientific research as well as the subject specific technical jargon.
  • pennyllayne
    pennyllayne Posts: 265
    Options
    Just this morning I read a short article in the local newspaper (ominously on the obituary page) about a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The article said the study found a correlation between sat fat intake and certain kinds of breast cancer in women.

    First I'm always suspicious of newspaper recaps of reportedly scientific studies. It seem like they pick interesting bits out of these studies for the purpose of attracting readers, not necessarily the conclusions actually made by the study. They never comment on the quality of the study either.

    Second, I remember eggs being vilified based on these kinds of articles, but later being exonerated.

    But, anyway, this is out there, for what it's worth. Sorry, I don't have a link.

    Yes and correlation does not prove causation either. This sounds like it was likely an observational study which really proves nothing. Observational studies are only useful to observe trends and to be used to then develop theories and test them in studies. So I do hate when people come out saying things like "Fat causes cancer" as a headline and then cite an observational study as proof. Do the people doing the reporting even understand what an observational study is? all they are doing is confusing the public!

    Thanks for the perspective. I count myself among the confused public, but I view these things with scepticism for the reasons I previously mentioned and now also for the reason you mentioned. Despite all this, though, I read these stupid articles and they do stick in my mind. Going to the source and reading the studies for myself is not all that helpfull without a grounding in the methods of scientific research as well as the subject specific technical jargon.

    Yes this is what these "journalists" don't realise - the articles stick in people's minds as well as books etc. I don't know if you've ever heard of The China Study by T. Colin Campbell but it is a very in depth book about the apparent dangers of any type of animal protein and fat. He comes out and blasts them for causing cancer, diabetes, you name it and yet when you look at the actual research he did it doesn't back up what he's saying. But someone without a scientific background is going to get overwhelmed trying to sift through all the jargon and will probably just take his word for it because of his education. But the fact is, his theories were developed from observational studies and the tests he did to try prove his theories did not prove them yet he tells people they did! It's a very mucky subject nutrition is...but I applaud you for keeping an open mind! :)
  • jess17587
    jess17587 Posts: 153
    Options
    the limit set by the gov ect...
    is 20g of sat fat but i don't belive it is bad as they say and istead i keep more of a track on trans fats that can be down as hydrogenated oil on the ingredients because food manufactures dont put trans fats on the front of packaging for one of the traffic lights
    why does no one ever quote me :(
  • pennyllayne
    pennyllayne Posts: 265
    Options
    the limit set by the gov ect...
    is 20g of sat fat but i don't belive it is bad as they say and istead i keep more of a track on trans fats that can be down as hydrogenated oil on the ingredients because food manufactures dont put trans fats on the front of packaging for one of the traffic lights
    why does no one ever quote me :(

    There you go :)

    Take it as a good thing when no one quotes you because that usually means they have nothing to correct you on or to clarify about what you've said. What you said is pretty much spot on!

Categories