Poly and Moly unsaturated fats

A counterpoint to what specifically?

You just said that if I get 60 grams of fat; 20 grams being unsaturated fat, 20 grams polyunsaturated fat, 20 grams of monounsaturated fat from food that I'll be harming myself, so what would you recommend?

That's not exactly what I said.

Your recommendations (both original and revised) can imply an extremely high PUFA recommendation (for omega-3s specifically), which can be detrimental.
In terms of omega-3 dosage I would recommend around 10g of fish oil daily (assuming the individual is aspiring to improve their physique).
A typical fish oil capsule (1g) contains 300mg EPA and DHA (which is actually what is essential). There is a minimum and optimum level of EPA/DHA intake according to the AHA. The minimum level to reduce cardiac & all-cause mortality would be .5-1.8g per day of EPA & DHA (combined). In terms of fat loss, a slightly higher dose would be optimal (2-4g of EPA & DHA). This has been shown to effectively lower high triglyceride levels. Therefore, from a fat loss perspective, this translates into a range of 6-12g of fish oil,
and would certainly be reasonable as a generic recommendation.

The reason I questioned your statement (which you apparently just made up) is because I've seen no scientific evidence to support going much higher than that. To the contrary, such a high omega-3 intake will due more harm than good (i.e. suppressing immune function).
Moreover, the AHA warns against taking more than 3g of EPA/DHA a day without medical supervision, due to increased risk for excessive bleeding in certain individuals. Particularly relevant for those on blood-thinning medication.

If you're asking what I would recommend in terms of overall fat intake, that would depend on the context (the individual and their goal).

I don't remember even mentioning fish oil (I usually do have a tunafish sandwich for lunch though), I s,aid roughly equal amounts of each: saturated, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated. So if I have 60 grams of fat total, then saturated fat being roughly 20 grams, polyunsaturated fat 20 grams and monounsaturated fat 20 grams. The individual goal being to lose weight.

And yes, I am asking you in terms of overall fat intake.

So if I have 60 grams of fat total, then saturated fat being roughly 20 grams, polyunsaturated fat 20 grams and monounsaturated fat 20 grams. The individual goal being to lose weight.

Which is already about double of what is recommended. And if you're eating 75g, then that would dictate about 25g of PUFAs, which can be even worse. As I've explained, this can be a bad idea - more doesn't always equal better.

I don't remember even mentioning fish oil (I usually do have a tunafish sandwich for lunch though), I s,aid roughly equal amounts of each: saturated, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated.

I realize that. But it's implied in your recommendation. And it sounds like you need to read up more on this subject before giving specific recommendations, because you should know that polyunsaturated fat pretty much equates to fish oil (vaguely speaking, obviously there's other sources). I'll explain it a bit below.

PUFA = omega3/omega6. Another term for omega3 is alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) and omega6 is linoleic acid (LA). We don't need to worry about omega6 intake (it is found in abundance in the modern diet, and targeting to specifically increase that will do more harm than good). Therefore, all the hype is targeted to increase omega3/ALA intake. But note that the benefits that ALA provides are actually derived from EPA/DHA (ALA converts to these two compounds in the body).

So how do you increase omega-3 intake to the levels I mentioned in my previous post? Unless you eat fatty fish regularly, it will be difficult without supplementing. Hence the cost-effective recommendations for fish oil supplementation.

And yes, I am asking you in terms of overall fat intake.

Didn't see your edit until just now, but I'll have to answer it later, going to sleep.

If I was implying anything for a polyunsaturated fat source, it would be walnuts, which is one of the things I always keep stocked in my cupboard. For 200 calories you get 14 grams of polyunsaturated fat. Oatmeal with natural peanut butter and some chopped walnuts and walnut crusted fish go into my belly quite often.
If you're really that concerned about omega 3, then it seems more cost effective to me to get a fishing pole. Supplements just make you poop a lot.

If I was implying anything for a polyunsaturated fat source, it would be walnuts, which is one of the things I always keep stocked in my cupboard. For 200 calories you get 14 grams of polyunsaturated fat. Oatmeal with natural peanut butter and some chopped walnuts and walnut crusted fish go into my belly quite often.

Two main problems with that:

The first being that not everyone wants to to include walnuts/peanut butter/almonds/etc. in their diet on a daily basis - particularly if you are dieting and your caloric allowance is already restricted. Hence another reason to supplement, you don't have to worry about the plethora of tag-along calories, and it will free you from absolutely requiring certain foods.

Secondly, and more importantly, even if you do manage to increase your ALA intake from plant sources like walnuts/flaxseed/canola/etc on a daily basis, it's not going to matter much. The problem is that with these plant sources, the conversation of ALA to EPA/DHA in the body is extremely inefficient - so it's mostly pointless.

The bottom line is that reaching the optimal or even minimum levels of EPA/DHA recommended is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to do on a daily basis without supplementation of fish oil (or something similar). Unless you just really enjoy eating marine wildlife everyday.

If you're really that concerned about omega 3, then it seems more cost effective to me to get a fishing pole.

I certainly think its a valid concern seeing as how it's essential, and given that there's nearly a decade of solid evidence behind supplementation/whole-fish that support its numerous benefits (i.e. fat loss, muscle strength, cardiovascular disease prevention, reduced cardiac deaths). There also seems to be indication of its utility in treating cancer and many other diseases. The vast benefits far outweigh the minor potential negatives.

After reading the whole debate between Glucocorticoi and jg627, I declare Gluc the winner. Points well made and well supported. Congrats. :happy:

If I was implying anything for a polyunsaturated fat source, it would be walnuts, which is one of the things I always keep stocked in my cupboard. For 200 calories you get 14 grams of polyunsaturated fat. Oatmeal with natural peanut butter and some chopped walnuts and walnut crusted fish go into my belly quite often.

Two main problems with that:

The first being that not everyone wants to to include walnuts/peanut butter/almonds/etc. in their diet on a daily basis - particularly if you are dieting and your caloric allowance is already restricted. Hence another reason to supplement, you don't have to worry about the plethora of tag-along calories, and it will free you from absolutely requiring certain foods.

Secondly, and more importantly, even if you do manage to increase your ALA intake from plant sources like walnuts/flaxseed/canola/etc on a daily basis, it's not going to matter much. The problem is that with these plant sources, the conversation of ALA to EPA/DHA in the body is extremely inefficient - so it's mostly pointless.

Themselves bottom line is that reaching the optimal or even minimum levels of EPA/DHA recommended is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to do on a daily basis without supplementation of fish oil (or something similar). Unless you just really enjoy eating marine wildlife everyday.

If you're really that concerned about omega 3, then it seems more cost effective to me to get a fishing pole.

I certainly think its a valid concern seeing as how it's essential, and given that there's nearly a decade of solid evidence behind supplementation/whole-fish that support its numerous benefits (i.e. fat loss, muscle strength, cardiovascular disease prevention, reduced cardiac deaths). There also seems to be indication of its utility in treating cancer and many other diseases. The vast benefits far outweigh the minor potential negatives.

I really don't want to argue about fish oil. You're obviously very passionate about fish oil, which is fine.

Nothing to do with passion, everything I said is based off of scientific evidence.

I'm going continue to enjoy my grilled swordfish steaks and nutty tilapia and say thank you for the information, but fish oil gives me the runs.

Okay.. I already mentioned multiple times that eating fish is fine if you manage to do it on a daily basis, but since that isn't the case for most people, I really don't know what your point is.
[/quote]

The point is, there's just no reason to keep baiting me to argue about fish oil. I'm not arguing or debating about fish oil. I don't disagree with your argument about fish oil, so why would I want to argue about it?

I'm not "baiting" you to argue about anything. I wasn't arguing with you originally when all I did was ask you for your source, and I'm not arguing with you now. All I've done is pointed out the flaws/caveats to your made-up recommendation. If you had any evidence to support your statements, then sure, we could discuss it. What seems to be argument to you is me simply pointing out facts, mainly for the benefit of other people reading. Because the fact that you eat fish everyday is not applicable to most other people.

backfire effect

The "backfire effect" is a term coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler to describe how some individuals when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position even more strongly:

http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html

Then thank you for pointing out that eating an entire bottle of fish oil at once is not a healthy alternative to other polyunsaturated fat sources, such as walnuts or sunflower seeds. I hadn't thought of that.

I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

backfire effect

The "backfire effect" is a term coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler to describe how some individuals when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position even more strongly:

http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html

Yeah I've read that before - probably the case here. Still helps other folks who are reading though.

Then thank you for pointing out that eating an entire bottle of fish oil at once is not a healthy alternative to other polyunsaturated fat sources, such as walnuts or sunflower seeds. I hadn't thought of that.

I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

You said 25 grams of fish oil could be harmful. I agree. Thank you.

Regarding "eating an entire bottle" of fish oil - the bottles I buy (from Costco) contain 300 capsules, 1g each. They only cost about 5-6 bucks per bottle. I take 10g a day, so each bottle lasts a month. Given the benefits, it's well worth the cost for me.

Is this really what you've gotten out of this thread?

Then thank you for pointing out that eating an entire bottle of fish oil at once is not a healthy alternative to other polyunsaturated fat sources, such as walnuts or sunflower seeds. I hadn't thought of that.

If so, you've completely missed the point and your reading comprehension is more of an issue than I previously thought. I talked about how plant-based sources are not going to serve as viable alternatives. I'm not going to continue quoting things for you, you'll just have to re-read the thread a few times. Good luck!

That romance could continue for decades. Wait Glucocorticoi :


@jg627 : yes you provided an advice with no support, but it's no biggie :-)

Is that popcorn salty or sweet?



Edited because poopcorn is not really a snack!!

please realize that your understanding of the subject is a little askew, and that is what has detracted from the ability for well meant responders and has enabled journoterrorist to hijack and give answers intended to confuse or make them look right regardless of how misleading there half truths of manipulated data.

jg627 does his best to give factual information without all the hype, and it's hype that is journoterrorism. Thank you jg627, and I apologize for the blogger/journoterrorists that have detracted from this thread. They know nothing about science or the scientific method, computer "science" knowledge does not equal scientific knowledge of truths, in fact it is mostly computer "scientists" who detract from the masses being able to understand the truth, their saving grace is that computers are powerful communication tools, too bad CS people use them to spread untruths.

ANYWAY

first of all the prefixs of UNsaturated fat are poly and mono, not poly and moly,

second all, unsaturated fats are NOT bad, they in fact should be the majority of fat in your diet. In general, Unsaturated fat is healthier than saturated fat, as well as both poly and mono being better for you than trans fat, which is generally used to denote a synthetic, hydrogenated oil.

The reason that a web site would recommend O grams of fat, is because one gram is equal to one thousand milligrams. There was obviously a mistake is the units of measure such as the human entering grams (g) instead of milligrams (mg) and the computer program must have had a system of rounding to whole numbers so it displayed zero

These types of glitches are rampant in computer programming and the day the media fools the world into believing that computer science is an actual science, is the day that the next y2k or rounding 200mg to zero grams will cause catastrophic disasters which could have easily been prevented had it not been for arrogant men being more concerned with how they look to the masses

:bigsmile:

please people, enough of the journoterrorism

thank you, your pal

~Dusty

Whoa.

Unsaturated fats are the best kind of fats; both of them lower LDL (Low-Density Lipoproteins---the BAD cholesterol); they're found in things like olive oils, fish, nuts/seeds, flax, and avocados. They also help to RAISE HDL (High-Density Lipoproteins; the GOOD cholesterol).

Saturated fats--things that are usually SOLID at room temperatures (butters, coconut oil)--tend to RAISE the LDL & LOWER the HDL. Compared to transfats (which you should avoid at all costs--take in as little as possible), saturated fats are "okay" for you, and they won't entirely destroy your body like trans fats will.

Everything is okay (except for trans fats) in moderation---healthy living is all about balance and harmony between good & bad. So long as 80-90% of your daily diet is composed of healthy things, eating a small dessert or an "unhealthy" snack between lunch & dinner is okay. Make most of your choices healthy, and when you treat yourself, get back on the healthy bandwagon right after.

My sister's an RD (Registered Dietician---the only real "nutritionist" you should ever trust), and I'm big into health & nutrition myself. And I'm also pre-med, so I do know a thing or two haha.

I didn't read the whole thread because it's honestly a bunch of nonsense. Just to be clear, saturated fats have been shown to raise very-large LDL not very-small. Actually, they have been shown to decrease very small and increase very large. Very small are the bad ones that nudge themselves into vein walls and cause inflammation responses that lead to atherosclerosis. Very-large LDL are pretty benign. Saturated fats, as you say, are okay in moderation. I would go one step further and say they are GREAT in moderation.

HDL is over rated. It was once thought to decrease total cholesterol in the blood stream via reverse cholesterol transport system. While it most definitely does this its effects aren't quiet clear. For example, drugs that increase total HDL do not decrease likelihood for cardiovascular diseases. This becomes even more muddled in the event of elevated triglycerides.

I would go through the hassle of finding the studies that support all this but I'll just link this MD article that does all the work for me (including citations). I recommend reading all eight parts. Guy is a MD and does his research and supports everything he says with multiple citations of well-done studies.

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i

Also, plant sources of fat are not necessarily better, Plants are usually high in poly unsaturated fats. These are, of course, good but some decent studies have found that our ratio of poly/mono unsaturated fat intake is greatly skewed toward dramatically greater poly unsaturated fat. This isn't optimal. We need to intake more monounsaturated fats which are, sometimes, harder to find.

I wasn't sure I wanted to write this cause I know someone will call me on it and I'll have to do work but cholesterol, next to insulin, is the most misunderstood molecules in the body.