Confused about fat!?
lorna_v_johnstone
Posts: 6
If saturated fats are 'bad fats' and unsaturated fats are 'good fats', why does MFP advise I consume 13g of saturated and 0g of unsaturated fats daily? I'm confused. Can someone explain this for me?
0
Replies
-
-
Thank you for the reply. But my question remains unanswered - perhaps saturated fats are 'not as bad as we used to think', but why are no unsaturated fats allowed?0
-
Because in the right amounts they give health benefits.0
-
Those are daily recommended limits, but there is no recommended limit for unsaturated so they don't give you one.0
-
I know this is not an answer for your question but here is some more info. I just started using coconut oil to help my digestive movement. Fiber was not working but the coconut oil has been working well. Also look up MCT.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/the-fat-burning-fat-the-coconut-is-natures-premiere-thermogenic.html
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/coconut-oil-the-greatest-fat-youve-never-tried.html?searchterm=coconut
0 -
Unsaturated fats are unevil so they don't bother to tell you how much to consume, but because saturated fat is evil, they want to make sure you don't get heart disease. Simple really.0
-
No limit is set for unsat and it may be optional on labels too hence hard to track.0
-
Unsaturated fats aren't "not allowed," there's just no specific limit for them.
It's confusing, but tracking them will have to depend on you setting a limit or goal that you want to reach.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Unsaturated fats are unevil so they don't bother to tell you how much to consume, but because saturated fat is evil, they want to make sure you don't get heart disease. Simple really.
How so?0 -
Sarcasm?0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sarcasm?
Probably, I'm still waiting for the world to come out with a sarcasm font to make things easier0 -
never2bstopped wrote: »Those are daily recommended limits, but there is no recommended limit for unsaturated so they don't give you one.
^^ THIS^^ Some things (fiber) are a minimum. Some things are a maximum. It's confusing.
And, I suspect in the coming years the MFP will be tweaking the fats AND the sugars.0 -
That's because MFP macros are incorrect. Saturated fat is NOT bad. Meats, and butter are good for you. Carbs and sugar are not. MFP is still using the USDA Food Pyramid that wants us load up on breads and fruit. Hence the reason the world is increasingly fat with increased illnesses and diseases despite the lowest fat diet in history.0
-
1stplace4health wrote: »That's because MFP macros are incorrect. Saturated fat is NOT bad. Meats, and butter are good for you. Carbs and sugar are not. MFP is still using the USDA Food Pyramid that wants us load up on breads and fruit. Hence the reason the world is increasingly fat with increased illnesses and diseases despite the lowest fat diet in history.
What's wrong with carbs?
0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »1stplace4health wrote: »That's because MFP macros are incorrect. Saturated fat is NOT bad. Meats, and butter are good for you. Carbs and sugar are not. MFP is still using the USDA Food Pyramid that wants us load up on breads and fruit. Hence the reason the world is increasingly fat with increased illnesses and diseases despite the lowest fat diet in history.
What's wrong with carbs?
What's wrong with sugar?0 -
Short version: ignore MFP for types of fats.
Transfats: limit those. They are found in some snacks and packaged products. Do eat enough daily fats and oils:
http://www.pennmedicine.org/health_info/nutrition/how_much.html
0 -
Bumping this post in the hopes that people will actually read it. When the landmark meta analysis study came out last year giving the green light to saturated fat, the media jumped all over it. You can find scores of articles online proclaiming butter and bacon to be AOK now. What got very little attention, however, was the criticism of the study that came shortly after it was released.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/
Interestingly, after all the evidence was weighed not a single major health agency in the world decided to alter its recommendation to limit saturated fat in your diet.0 -
There are no official (US FDA or EFSA) daily reference values (DRVs) for poly- or monounsaturated fats. There are only DRVs for total fat, saturated fat, and trans fat. Since there are no published DRVs, the goals are set to N/A on the Web version and Android mobile apps.
There is a reported issue on the iOS app where it incorrectly displays the poly- and monounsaturated fats goals as zero instead of N/A as on the Web version and Android version.
Please see this thread for the reported issue.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/31712316#Comment_317123160 -
peter56765 wrote: »
Bumping this post in the hopes that people will actually read it. When the landmark meta analysis study came out last year giving the green light to saturated fat, the media jumped all over it. You can find scores of articles online proclaiming butter and bacon to be AOK now. What got very little attention, however, was the criticism of the study that came shortly after it was released.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/
Interestingly, after all the evidence was weighed not a single major health agency in the world decided to alter its recommendation to limit saturated fat in your diet.
Why do you keep copy/pasting the exact same garbage? Troll? Or just unable to learn?
0 -
peter56765 wrote: »
Bumping this post in the hopes that people will actually read it. When the landmark meta analysis study came out last year giving the green light to saturated fat, the media jumped all over it. You can find scores of articles online proclaiming butter and bacon to be AOK now. What got very little attention, however, was the criticism of the study that came shortly after it was released.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/
Interestingly, after all the evidence was weighed not a single major health agency in the world decided to alter its recommendation to limit saturated fat in your diet.
Why do you keep copy/pasting the exact same garbage? Troll? Or just unable to learn?
Please. Enlighten me.0 -
dp
0 -
I'll help you. I'm referring to this from the link:
"This paper is bound to cause confusion. A central issue is what replaces saturated fat if someone reduces the amount of saturated fat in their diet. If it is replaced with refined starch or sugar, which are the largest sources of calories in the U.S. diet, then the risk of heart disease remains the same. However, if saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fat or monounsaturated fat in the form of olive oil, nuts and probably other plant oils, we have much evidence that risk will be reduced."
Go ahead. Fire away. If I misinterpreted that, I have no problem admitting it.0 -
peter56765 wrote: »I'll help you. I'm referring to this from the link:
"This paper is bound to cause confusion. A central issue is what replaces saturated fat if someone reduces the amount of saturated fat in their diet. If it is replaced with refined starch or sugar, which are the largest sources of calories in the U.S. diet, then the risk of heart disease remains the same. However, if saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fat or monounsaturated fat in the form of olive oil, nuts and probably other plant oils, we have much evidence that risk will be reduced."
Go ahead. Fire away.
This paper is bound to cause confusion. A central issue is what replaces saturated fat if someone reduces the amount of saturated fat in their diet. If it is replaced with refined starch or sugar, which are the largest sources of calories in the U.S. diet, then the risk of heart disease remains the same. However, if saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fat or monounsaturated fat in the form of olive oil, nuts and probably other plant oils, we have much evidence that risk will be reduced.
^^^the actual quote, and bolded is the part that makes this less than conclusive. There is "much evidence" for many things.
Edit because I misread post.0 -
never2bstopped wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »I'll help you. I'm referring to this from the link:
"This paper is bound to cause confusion. A central issue is what replaces saturated fat if someone reduces the amount of saturated fat in their diet. If it is replaced with refined starch or sugar, which are the largest sources of calories in the U.S. diet, then the risk of heart disease remains the same. However, if saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fat or monounsaturated fat in the form of olive oil, nuts and probably other plant oils, we have much evidence that risk will be reduced."
Go ahead. Fire away.
This paper is bound to cause confusion. A central issue is what replaces saturated fat if someone reduces the amount of saturated fat in their diet. If it is replaced with refined starch or sugar, which are the largest sources of calories in the U.S. diet, then the risk of heart disease remains the same. However, if saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fat or monounsaturated fat in the form of olive oil, nuts and probably other plant oils, we have much evidence that risk will be reduced.
^^^the actual quote, and bolded is the part that makes this less than conclusive. There is "much evidence" for many things.
Edit because I misread post.
Yes, but remember I am linking a criticism of the meta-analysis study on saturated fat. It's not a separate study, it's a criticism of the conclusions from another study (which itself was just a meta analysis of many previous studies). As to the "much evidence", the next couple paragraphs read:
"The meta-analysis of dietary fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease by Chowdhury et al. (1) contains multiple errors and omissions, and the conclusions are seriously misleading, particularly the lack of association with N-6 polyunsaturated fat. For example, two of the six studies included in the analysis of N-6 polyunsaturated fat were wrong. The relative risks for Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) (2) and Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Study (KIHD) (3) were retrieved incorrectly and said to be above 1.0. However, in the 20-year follow-up of the NHS the relative risk for highest vs lowest quintile was 0.77 (95 percent CI: 0.62, 0.95); ptrend = 0.01 (the authors seem to have used the RR for N-3 alpha-linolenic acid from a paper on sudden cardiac death), and in the KIHD the relative risk was 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.71) (the origin of the number used in the meta-analysis is unclear). Also, relevant data from other studies were not included (4 and 5).
Further, the authors did not mention a pooled analysis (6) of the primary data from prospective studies, in which a significant inverse association between intake of polyunsaturated fat (the large majority being the N-6 linoleic acid) and risk of CHD was found. Also, in this analysis, substitution of polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat was associated with lower risk of CHD. Chowdhury et al. also failed to point out that most of the monounsaturated fat consumed in their studies was from red meat and dairy sources, and the findings do not necessarily apply to consumption in the form of nuts, olive oil, and other plant sources. Thus, the conclusions of Chowdhury et al. regarding the type of fat being unimportant are seriously misleading and should be disregarded."
The point is that the sweeping conclusion of the oft quoted 2014 meta-analysis study on saturated fat is overly broad and is not supported by the evidence.0 -
peter56765 wrote: »never2bstopped wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »I'll help you. I'm referring to this from the link:
"This paper is bound to cause confusion. A central issue is what replaces saturated fat if someone reduces the amount of saturated fat in their diet. If it is replaced with refined starch or sugar, which are the largest sources of calories in the U.S. diet, then the risk of heart disease remains the same. However, if saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fat or monounsaturated fat in the form of olive oil, nuts and probably other plant oils, we have much evidence that risk will be reduced."
Go ahead. Fire away.
This paper is bound to cause confusion. A central issue is what replaces saturated fat if someone reduces the amount of saturated fat in their diet. If it is replaced with refined starch or sugar, which are the largest sources of calories in the U.S. diet, then the risk of heart disease remains the same. However, if saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fat or monounsaturated fat in the form of olive oil, nuts and probably other plant oils, we have much evidence that risk will be reduced.
^^^the actual quote, and bolded is the part that makes this less than conclusive. There is "much evidence" for many things.
Edit because I misread post.
Yes, but remember I am linking a criticism of the meta-analysis study on saturated fat. It's not a separate study, it's a criticism of the conclusions from another study (which itself was just a meta analysis of many previous studies). As to the "much evidence", the next couple paragraphs read:
"The meta-analysis of dietary fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease by Chowdhury et al. (1) contains multiple errors and omissions, and the conclusions are seriously misleading, particularly the lack of association with N-6 polyunsaturated fat. For example, two of the six studies included in the analysis of N-6 polyunsaturated fat were wrong. The relative risks for Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) (2) and Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Study (KIHD) (3) were retrieved incorrectly and said to be above 1.0. However, in the 20-year follow-up of the NHS the relative risk for highest vs lowest quintile was 0.77 (95 percent CI: 0.62, 0.95); ptrend = 0.01 (the authors seem to have used the RR for N-3 alpha-linolenic acid from a paper on sudden cardiac death), and in the KIHD the relative risk was 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.71) (the origin of the number used in the meta-analysis is unclear). Also, relevant data from other studies were not included (4 and 5).
Further, the authors did not mention a pooled analysis (6) of the primary data from prospective studies, in which a significant inverse association between intake of polyunsaturated fat (the large majority being the N-6 linoleic acid) and risk of CHD was found. Also, in this analysis, substitution of polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat was associated with lower risk of CHD. Chowdhury et al. also failed to point out that most of the monounsaturated fat consumed in their studies was from red meat and dairy sources, and the findings do not necessarily apply to consumption in the form of nuts, olive oil, and other plant sources. Thus, the conclusions of Chowdhury et al. regarding the type of fat being unimportant are seriously misleading and should be disregarded."
The point is that the sweeping conclusion of the oft quoted 2014 meta-analysis study on saturated fat is overly broad and is not supported by the evidence.
This paper is bound to cause confusion. A central issue is what replaces saturated fat if someone reduces the amount of saturated fat in their diet. If it is replaced with refined starch or sugar, which are the largest sources of calories in the U.S. diet, then the risk of heart disease remains the same. However, if saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fat or monounsaturated fat in the form of olive oil, nuts and probably other plant oils, we have much evidence that risk will be reduced.
But with the bolded it is conceded that Given the way people eat in America the risks are the same.
I thought that was the point to the study. I could easily be wrong.0 -
The study's finding about replacing saturated fat with starch or sugar is not in question. There is no benefit in doing so and this should finally put to bed the "low fat" diet fad from years past. However, there does appear to be a benefit with replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, at least if the unsaturated fat is from nuts and olive oil. The Chowdhury conclusion stating that there is no benefit ever from replacing saturated fat in your diet is therefore not entirely correct.0
-
peter56765 wrote: »The study's finding about replacing saturated fat with starch or sugar is not in question. There is no benefit in doing so and this should finally put to bed the "low fat" diet fad from years past. However, there does appear to be a benefit with replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, at least if the unsaturated fat is from nuts and olive oil. The Chowdhury conclusion stating that there is no benefit ever from replacing saturated fat in your diet is therefore not entirely correct.
While you may splitting hairs about which fats may or may not be more healthy. The fact is that increasing your fat intake even in the form of bacon and butter is no less healthy than increasing your carb intake to compensate for lower fat.
It's kind of like getting kids to eat veggies. You introduce them to the starchy and sweet ones first to get them over their fear of veggies, then you go in and talk about which ones have more fiber/minerals/vitamins.
Just because mono and polyunsaturated may have a more positive impact on heart disease doesn't change the conclusion that saturated fats don't have a negative effect.0 -
peter56765 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »
Bumping this post in the hopes that people will actually read it. When the landmark meta analysis study came out last year giving the green light to saturated fat, the media jumped all over it. You can find scores of articles online proclaiming butter and bacon to be AOK now. What got very little attention, however, was the criticism of the study that came shortly after it was released.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/
Interestingly, after all the evidence was weighed not a single major health agency in the world decided to alter its recommendation to limit saturated fat in your diet.
Why do you keep copy/pasting the exact same garbage? Troll? Or just unable to learn?
Please. Enlighten me.
I already did in a previous thread where you posted the exact same thing word for word.
0 -
peter56765 wrote: »The study's finding about replacing saturated fat with starch or sugar is not in question. There is no benefit in doing so and this should finally put to bed the "low fat" diet fad from years past. However, there does appear to be a benefit with replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, at least if the unsaturated fat is from nuts and olive oil. The Chowdhury conclusion stating that there is no benefit ever from replacing saturated fat in your diet is therefore not entirely correct.
So olive oil and nuts have health benefits? Wow, that's not exactly new or surprising info!
I imagine if you compared most foods with nuts and olive oil (or raw veggies, etc.) you would find "much evidence" that heart disease risk could be reduced by replacing it with those foods.
That doesn't mean we have to avoid anything that isn't as healthy as nuts, especially if we're already getting plenty of healthy fats in our diets.0 -
never2bstopped wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »The study's finding about replacing saturated fat with starch or sugar is not in question. There is no benefit in doing so and this should finally put to bed the "low fat" diet fad from years past. However, there does appear to be a benefit with replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, at least if the unsaturated fat is from nuts and olive oil. The Chowdhury conclusion stating that there is no benefit ever from replacing saturated fat in your diet is therefore not entirely correct.
While you may splitting hairs about which fats may or may not be more healthy. The fact is that increasing your fat intake even in the form of bacon and butter is no less healthy than increasing your carb intake to compensate for lower fat.
Again, this is not in dispute.Just because mono and polyunsaturated may have a more positive impact on heart disease doesn't change the conclusion that saturated fats don't have a negative effect.
Disagree. It is premature to draw such a conclusion based merely on the observation that substituting saturated fat for carbohydrates is not any better. It would be akin to claiming that just because replacing arsenic in your diet with lead paint did not result in fewer deaths, we can therefore conclude arsenic has no negative effect.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions