Unsaturated Fats

Options
Natorade95
Natorade95 Posts: 24 Member
in Food and Nutrition
i know that your Sat fat to unsaturated fat ratio should about 1:2, but what about your poly to mono unsaturated fat ratio?
«1

Replies

  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    It's not 1995 anymore. That means you don't have to worry about your saturated fat to unsaturated fat ratio. In regard to poly unsaturated and mono unsaturated, there is no ratio or balancing to worry about. It is important to get an adequate amount of omega-3's (especially if you're eating a lot of omega-6's). But once again, ratios aren't important.
  • Natorade95
    Natorade95 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    You'd fail intro to Nutrition with that kind of answer.
  • emiliabuchanan
    emiliabuchanan Posts: 4
    Options
    ratio of omega 6 to 3 should be anywhere from 1:1 to 1:4. Omega 9 is made in your body from those fats so technically isn't essential. That said, it absolutely doesn't hurt to eat them, especially since many people don't get the essential fatty acids they need. Saturated (not the same as trans fat), Monounsaturated and Polyunsaturated fats are all good and safe to consume. They provide energy for your body and are fuel for your heart.





  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    LOL, I suppose that's because your intro to nutrition is being taught by the same idiots who've been recommending we limit dietary cholesterol for the past 30 years.

    Please help educate me and point me toward a decent study demonstrating the benefit of eating specific ratios of of different types of fats! And I'm not talking about studies that have an endpoint of cholesterol (although sat fat has not been shown increase the worst type of cholesterol, VLDL, and has it has also been shown to increase both LDL and HDL proportionately). I'm talking about studies that actually demonstrate significant outcomes (like cardiovascular events, mortality, etc.).
  • Natorade95
    Natorade95 Posts: 24 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    1) No; profs never emphasize limiting dietary cholesterol.
    2) Saturated fats increase LDL; this is common knowledge (if you want a specific study why didn't you give me a study for the BS that you are talking about?). You should get 10% or less of your calories from sat fats and about 20% of your calories from unsaturated fat.
    3) I'm not really sure what you're so worked up about. Your horrible grammar makes it hard to even understand what you're trying to say.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    1) No; profs never emphasize limiting dietary cholesterol.
    They did for decades and only recently stopped (despite the data never being there in the first place).
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    2) Saturated fats increase LDL; this is common knowledge (if you want a specific study why didn't you give me a study for the BS that you are talking about?). You should get 10% or less of your calories from sat fats and about 20% of your calories from unsaturated fat.

    Sat fat increases LDL and HDL proportionately. And as you must know, the ratio of those numbers is much more important than total LDL. Furthermore, LDL is not just LDL. There are different types. The main type of LDL that we worry about is VLDL (very low density). Sat fat does not significantly increase VLDL.

    Furthermore, replacing sat fat with carbs has been shown to raise cholesterol. Probably because most people who are told to avoid sat fat replace it with highly processed carbs or bread.
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    3) I'm not really sure what you're so worked up about. Your horrible grammar makes it hard to even understand what you're trying to say.

    Okay, then go ahead and stick with out-dated dietary recommendations based on debunked epidemiology studies.
  • peter56765
    peter56765 Posts: 352 Member
    Options
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.
  • Natorade95
    Natorade95 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    peter56765 wrote: »
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.

    I like it! Good stuff.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,021 Member
    Options
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.

    I like it! Good stuff.
    Oh yes, epidemiology at it's finest.

  • jddnw
    jddnw Posts: 319 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    Isn't it also possible that no major public health organization wants to risk being the first organization to buck the status quo? (Even among scientists, there is a certain kind of occupational safety that comes with not sticking your neck out.)

    As to the "olive oil and almond producers," you realize of course that our supermarkets are filled with endless, colorful, profitable, boxes of "heart healthy," low fat, food-like-substances that sustain the profits of all the biggest corporate food conglomerates.

    Imagine if people starting thinking it was better to skip all those "heart healthy," low fat, boxes of stuff and just grab real food from the periphery of the market--even the meat and dairy with fat in it.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    jddnw wrote: »
    Isn't it also possible that no major public health organization wants to risk being the first organization to buck the status quo? (Even among scientists, there is a certain kind of occupational safety that comes with not sticking your neck out.)

    As to the the "olive oil and almond producers," you realize of course that our supermarkets are filled with endless colorful, boxes of profitable, "heart healthy," low fat, food-like-substances that sustain the profits of all the biggest corporate food conglomerates.

    Imagine if people starting thinking it was better to skip all those "heart healthy," low fat, boxes of stuff and just grab real food, even the meat and dairy with fat in it, from the periphery of the market.

    Meat and dairy also sustain giant food conglomerates. I don't have an opinion on the matter, but let's not act as if meat and dairy producers don't have significant business and lobbying forces behind them also.

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    Removing double post

  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.

    I like it! Good stuff.

    LOL, did you read it?

    Given that the link specifically stated that sat fat was found to be no worse than carbs, I'm confused as to why you recommend limiting sat fat but not carbs??
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    peter56765 wrote: »
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.


    And what was misleading about the data? Did you read your own link?

    Yes, there are foods like nuts and fish that contain lots of other types of fats that have major health benefits. Just because saturated fat doesn't have the same health benefits as omega-3's doesn't mean that it unhealthy or needs to be avoided. And once again, sat fat has been shown to be no worse than carbs (your link doesn't dispute that, and in fact reiterates it).

    Most prospective data suggests that sat fat is at worse "neutral." You link doesn't dispute that fact.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    ahamm002 wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.

    I like it! Good stuff.

    LOL, did you read it?

    Can I just point out, someone forgot to flag this dudes last two post - come on, consistency people.

    Either you're butthurt or you're not (pfft amateurs) !!
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    ahamm002 wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    1) No; profs never emphasize limiting dietary cholesterol.
    They did for decades and only recently stopped (despite the data never being there in the first place).
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    2) Saturated fats increase LDL; this is common knowledge (if you want a specific study why didn't you give me a study for the BS that you are talking about?). You should get 10% or less of your calories from sat fats and about 20% of your calories from unsaturated fat.

    Sat fat increases LDL and HDL proportionately. And as you must know, the ratio of those numbers is much more important than total LDL. Furthermore, LDL is not just LDL. There are different types. The main type of LDL that we worry about is VLDL (very low density). Sat fat does not significantly increase VLDL.

    Furthermore, replacing sat fat with carbs has been shown to raise cholesterol. Probably because most people who are told to avoid sat fat replace it with highly processed carbs or bread.
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    3) I'm not really sure what you're so worked up about. Your horrible grammar makes it hard to even understand what you're trying to say.

    Okay, then go ahead and stick with out-dated dietary recommendations based on debunked epidemiology studies.

    Also to add to this.

    On a diet low in carbs and high in sat fats!

    * Increased size of LDL particles.
    * Reduced triglyceride levels
    * improved HDL / Triglyceride ratios (which at the end of the day, this is what really matters - LDL levels are a bit of a red herring)
  • Laura732
    Laura732 Posts: 244 Member
    Options
    Good discussion! Many things to be aware of. The one bad thing about the internet is that there can be too much information out there. This is probably one of those situations where its possible to see just how diverse the information is.

    Are any of you that have posted nutrition professionals?
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,021 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    ahamm002 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.


    And what was misleading about the data? Did you read your own link?

    Yes, there are foods like nuts and fish that contain lots of other types of fats that have major health benefits. Just because saturated fat doesn't have the same health benefits as omega-3's doesn't mean that it unhealthy or needs to be avoided. And once again, sat fat has been shown to be no worse than carbs (your link doesn't dispute that, and in fact reiterates it).

    Most prospective data suggests that sat fat is at worse "neutral." You link doesn't dispute that fact.
    You may want to read this. Also the study of dyslipidemia is fairly new and kinda throws a monkey wrench into the mix. Actually it's not new, it's just getting clinically referenced more, because, you know, that old context and dosage train wreck that seems to happen when you get a snapshot of the bigger picture.

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/

  • Natorade95
    Natorade95 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    ahamm002 wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.

    I like it! Good stuff.

    LOL, did you read it?

    Given that the link specifically stated that sat fat was found to be no worse than carbs, I'm confused as to why you recommend limiting sat fat but not carbs??


    "Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies."

    Try reading it again until you can find the obvious sarcasm.
  • Natorade95
    Natorade95 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Natorade95 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    At best the jury is still out on saturated fat. The big 2014 meta analysis study that said saturated fat is AOK was highly publicized and reported everywhere, usually with snarky headlines: "Bacon is back on the menu!", "Haha, those scientists were all wrong about butter!".

    What hardly got attention, however, was the significant criticism that followed the study, pointing out mistakes and missed data points.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

    In the end, no major public health organization anywhere in the world from Hong Kong to the USA changed its recommendation to limit saturated to some percentage of total fat intake. Yes, it could be some vast worldwide conspiracy by the evil olive oil and almond producers against the oppressed beef and dairy industry - or maybe the experts everywhere were just unconvinced by the new data in light of the criticism and when looking at the results of previous studies.

    I like it! Good stuff.
    Oh yes, epidemiology at it's finest.

    I don't think you know what epidemiology means lmao
This discussion has been closed.

Categories