Thoughts on diet high in fat??
Options
Replies
-
My nutritional happy place is about 50-60% of calories from fat. I don't distinguish between saturated and unsaturated, but I avoid man-made fats completely (hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils, for example). After about a year of eating that way I was at my lowest adult weight and my blood work was great--slightly high "good" cholesterol and very low "bad" cholesterol.
I think that if your body likes it, a high-fat diet can be a wonderful thing. I'm trying to get back to mine right now--I veered off into the carb-heavy wasteland for a while, there.
0 -
Saturated fat is healthy and not realted to increased risk of health issues, only on MFP and nowhere else
Two website pieces from temples of conventional wisdom and one opinion from Walter Walrus Willett, so deep in the Lipid Hypothesis you can't see him anymore, trying to slag off a study. That all you got ? LOL.
Willett should produce a peer reviewed analysis that supports his position, not try to scare people off evidence that counters it.
Key issue for me is that the saturated fat level in the bloodstream is not a function of that in the diet.
0 -
Thanks to all who replied so far. This is probably a stupid questions but I take you can't test your cholestrol yourself and it would take a visit to the doctor??
Ive heard a lot of good stuff about higher fat diets recently myself and I think there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding it and heart disease, other heath issues etc but its kind of hard to know what to believe.
Excellent idea about keeping a diary, I'll definitely be doing that.
There's a place near where I live called "Any Lab Test Now" where you can go in and have them test your blood for lipids. The website states that it's $49 for a lipid panel which will give you your cholesterol. There may be similar type places in your area.
0 -
Thanks folks, just started working on my diet. Ordered some Coconut Oil from MyProtein, looking forward to trying the stuff out. I've heard a lot of good things!0
-
Check out dietdoctor.com. I've had great success and I feel much better. Mood, joint pain, weight, skin, hair, health (readings from bloodwork), all improved. I still have a good bit of weight to lose too.0
-
biggsterjackster wrote: »I eat both equally. Unsaturated and saturated. My favorites are salmon, nuts, nut butters, cheese (like Brie), avocado and of course meat. My LDL levels are better than ever. So I am not worried about high cholesterol.
My LDL, total, and Tri levels are spectacular. I eat a diet pretty high in fat as well. (I avoid the industrial transfats).. I've been increasing my fat, and lowering my carbs to see if it affects menopause. For me, it does.0 -
Saturated fat is healthy and not realted to increased risk of health issues, only on MFP and nowhere else
Two website pieces from temples of conventional wisdom and one opinion from Walter Walrus Willett, so deep in the Lipid Hypothesis you can't see him anymore, trying to slag off a study. That all you got ? LOL.
Willett should produce a peer reviewed analysis that supports his position, not try to scare people off evidence that counters it.
Key issue for me is that the saturated fat level in the bloodstream is not a function of that in the diet.
Last time I checked, Willett was the head of Nutrition department in one of the most high ranking schools on Health, not the banana girl or some random blogger. I understand that people like complicated and exotic, or at least unconventional diets. We all want to be special snowflakes, and just following some boring calorie counting balanced nutrients "normal" eating plan does not sound that exciting. Eating at 80% fat or eating bacon only or bananas only or other similar things does sound more exciting, and might even work for some, but from there to dismissing health concerns from reputable medical sites and reputable health professionals, because they are "conventional"... what can I say? I hope the average person has the common sense to evaluate the advice of boring health professionals over the advice of random people on the internet, although I must admit the number of fruitaritarians, paleo eaters, cleanse fanatics etc make me doubt this. In the end, we are all responsible for own lifestyle choices, the risks we are willing to take and the long term impact on our health.0 -
Saturated fat is healthy and not realted to increased risk of health issues, only on MFP and nowhere else
Two website pieces from temples of conventional wisdom and one opinion from Walter Walrus Willett, so deep in the Lipid Hypothesis you can't see him anymore, trying to slag off a study. That all you got ? LOL.
Willett should produce a peer reviewed analysis that supports his position, not try to scare people off evidence that counters it.
Key issue for me is that the saturated fat level in the bloodstream is not a function of that in the diet.
Last time I checked, Willett was the head of Nutrition department in one of the most high ranking schools on Health, not the banana girl or some random blogger. I understand that people like complicated and exotic, or at least unconventional diets. We all want to be special snowflakes, and just following some boring calorie counting balanced nutrients "normal" eating plan does not sound that exciting. Eating at 80% fat or eating bacon only or bananas only or other similar things does sound more exciting, and might even work for some, but from there to dismissing health concerns from reputable medical sites and reputable health professionals, because they are "conventional"... what can I say? I hope the average person has the common sense to evaluate the advice of boring health professionals over the advice of random people on the internet, although I must admit the number of fruitaritarians, paleo eaters, cleanse fanatics etc make me doubt this. In the end, we are all responsible for own lifestyle choices, the risks we are willing to take and the long term impact on our health.
Out of curiosity: how much do you know about the diet and lifestyle Dr. Willett advocates? "normal" (meaning mainstream here) isn't how I'd describe it.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Saturated fat is healthy and not realted to increased risk of health issues, only on MFP and nowhere else
Two website pieces from temples of conventional wisdom and one opinion from Walter Walrus Willett, so deep in the Lipid Hypothesis you can't see him anymore, trying to slag off a study. That all you got ? LOL.
Willett should produce a peer reviewed analysis that supports his position, not try to scare people off evidence that counters it.
Key issue for me is that the saturated fat level in the bloodstream is not a function of that in the diet.
Last time I checked, Willett was the head of Nutrition department in one of the most high ranking schools on Health, not the banana girl or some random blogger. I understand that people like complicated and exotic, or at least unconventional diets. We all want to be special snowflakes, and just following some boring calorie counting balanced nutrients "normal" eating plan does not sound that exciting. Eating at 80% fat or eating bacon only or bananas only or other similar things does sound more exciting, and might even work for some, but from there to dismissing health concerns from reputable medical sites and reputable health professionals, because they are "conventional"... what can I say? I hope the average person has the common sense to evaluate the advice of boring health professionals over the advice of random people on the internet, although I must admit the number of fruitaritarians, paleo eaters, cleanse fanatics etc make me doubt this. In the end, we are all responsible for own lifestyle choices, the risks we are willing to take and the long term impact on our health.
Out of curiosity: how much do you know about the diet and lifestyle Dr. Willett advocates? "normal" (meaning mainstream here) isn't how I'd describe it.
I am not American. If what you say is true, perhaps my mainstream is not the American mainstream, which I have no reason to doubt. So for me, what he advocates is pretty much "normal". I suspect for most of the world it is not that far from mainstream, but this is based on my very limited personal experience, not on any research.
The Harvard pyramid is not that exotic to me, it is actually very close to traditional for me
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2012/10/healthy-eating-pyramid-700-link.jpg
And even if he was advocating something really unusual, he still is the head of a very reputable medical school, I think he is the most referenced scientist in his field, so dismissing (not you) his work as if he were just one more clueless person, it makes me roll my eyes.0 -
And even if he was advocating something really unusual, he still is the head of a very reputable medical school, I think he is the most referenced scientist in his field, so dismissing (not you) his work as if he were just one more clueless person, it makes me roll my eyes.
I didn't suggest he was clueless, just that he is so invested in one approach that he'll take it to the grave.
I can't think of a better illustration of his eminence based approach attacking the meta-study that failed to find a problem with saturated fat - purely because it conflicts with his cast in stone view. The outcome was unacceptable to him, regardless of the quality of the analysis and the investigators - "From the University of Cambridge and Medical Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom; and Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands."
If Willett has a stronger case than http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638 then let's see it published.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Saturated fat is healthy and not realted to increased risk of health issues, only on MFP and nowhere else
Two website pieces from temples of conventional wisdom and one opinion from Walter Walrus Willett, so deep in the Lipid Hypothesis you can't see him anymore, trying to slag off a study. That all you got ? LOL.
Willett should produce a peer reviewed analysis that supports his position, not try to scare people off evidence that counters it.
Key issue for me is that the saturated fat level in the bloodstream is not a function of that in the diet.
Last time I checked, Willett was the head of Nutrition department in one of the most high ranking schools on Health, not the banana girl or some random blogger. I understand that people like complicated and exotic, or at least unconventional diets. We all want to be special snowflakes, and just following some boring calorie counting balanced nutrients "normal" eating plan does not sound that exciting. Eating at 80% fat or eating bacon only or bananas only or other similar things does sound more exciting, and might even work for some, but from there to dismissing health concerns from reputable medical sites and reputable health professionals, because they are "conventional"... what can I say? I hope the average person has the common sense to evaluate the advice of boring health professionals over the advice of random people on the internet, although I must admit the number of fruitaritarians, paleo eaters, cleanse fanatics etc make me doubt this. In the end, we are all responsible for own lifestyle choices, the risks we are willing to take and the long term impact on our health.
Out of curiosity: how much do you know about the diet and lifestyle Dr. Willett advocates? "normal" (meaning mainstream here) isn't how I'd describe it.
I am not American. If what you say is true, perhaps my mainstream is not the American mainstream, which I have no reason to doubt. So for me, what he advocates is pretty much "normal". I suspect for most of the world it is not that far from mainstream, but this is based on my very limited personal experience, not on any research.
The Harvard pyramid is not that exotic to me, it is actually very close to traditional for me
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2012/10/healthy-eating-pyramid-700-link.jpg
And even if he was advocating something really unusual, he still is the head of a very reputable medical school, I think he is the most referenced scientist in his field, so dismissing (not you) his work as if he were just one more clueless person, it makes me roll my eyes.
A diet that relegates red meat to "use sparingly" is not very mainstream American.
And a diet that is based HEAVILY on vegetables isn't very popular it seems either.
I'd be fine with his diet if it weren't for "whole grains at most meals". Blech. I'd feel like crap.
Vegetables, nuts, seeds, fruits, seafood, tofu, legumes etc. sure!
PS: many of the low carb/HIGH fat names you hear floating around are professors of medical schools etc. as well.
cheers
pps: good vegetarian low carb/high fat diet for fun.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Saturated fat is healthy and not realted to increased risk of health issues, only on MFP and nowhere else
Two website pieces from temples of conventional wisdom and one opinion from Walter Walrus Willett, so deep in the Lipid Hypothesis you can't see him anymore, trying to slag off a study. That all you got ? LOL.
Willett should produce a peer reviewed analysis that supports his position, not try to scare people off evidence that counters it.
Key issue for me is that the saturated fat level in the bloodstream is not a function of that in the diet.
Last time I checked, Willett was the head of Nutrition department in one of the most high ranking schools on Health, not the banana girl or some random blogger. I understand that people like complicated and exotic, or at least unconventional diets. We all want to be special snowflakes, and just following some boring calorie counting balanced nutrients "normal" eating plan does not sound that exciting. Eating at 80% fat or eating bacon only or bananas only or other similar things does sound more exciting, and might even work for some, but from there to dismissing health concerns from reputable medical sites and reputable health professionals, because they are "conventional"... what can I say? I hope the average person has the common sense to evaluate the advice of boring health professionals over the advice of random people on the internet, although I must admit the number of fruitaritarians, paleo eaters, cleanse fanatics etc make me doubt this. In the end, we are all responsible for own lifestyle choices, the risks we are willing to take and the long term impact on our health.
Out of curiosity: how much do you know about the diet and lifestyle Dr. Willett advocates? "normal" (meaning mainstream here) isn't how I'd describe it.
Definitely dr. Willet is another person that would be crucified here on MFP:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/interviews/willett.html
0 -
And even if he was advocating something really unusual, he still is the head of a very reputable medical school, I think he is the most referenced scientist in his field, so dismissing (not you) his work as if he were just one more clueless person, it makes me roll my eyes.
I didn't suggest he was clueless, just that he is so invested in one approach that he'll take it to the grave.
I can't think of a better illustration of his eminence based approach attacking the meta-study that failed to find a problem with saturated fat - purely because it conflicts with his cast in stone view. The outcome was unacceptable to him, regardless of the quality of the analysis and the investigators - "From the University of Cambridge and Medical Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom; and Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands."
If Willett has a stronger case than http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638 then let's see it published.
I can't read the study you cite without subscribing to the site, some common issues with these studies that cause confusion is when the study is about increased fat consumption without lowering carb intake. Processing substantial amounts of carbohydrates involve metabolic processes that already increase lipids in the blood. In addition, the high availability of blood sugar prevents the cellular adaptations that use blood lipids for fuel. This is the mechanism which provides lchf eating with benefits. To a large extent, the seemingly contradictory data is attributable to the lack of common definitions. Some studies count less that 150g of carbs as low carb. This level doesn't provide the conditions needed for keto adaptation for most individuals. Also it's well recognized that there is an adaptation process individuals experience when changing the bodies fuel source. Some studies do not extend beyond that 14 day period required for the adaptation.
If those factors are taken into account some of the seemingly contradictory data actually is supportive.0 -
Discussing the effects of fat intake without taking into account overall calorie consumption is pointless. Eating a fat-rich diet while at maintenance or below is an entirely different thing than eating a fat-rich diet while on a caloric surplus.
OP is not in surplus and, barring any medical conditions, can thrive across an extremely wide range of macro ratios. I wouldn't even begin to worry about it unless one of the macros went below 20% for an extended period of time - and even then it might not be an issue.
OP - if those ratios work for you, personally, have at it! :drinker:0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Saturated fat is healthy and not realted to increased risk of health issues, only on MFP and nowhere else
Two website pieces from temples of conventional wisdom and one opinion from Walter Walrus Willett, so deep in the Lipid Hypothesis you can't see him anymore, trying to slag off a study. That all you got ? LOL.
Willett should produce a peer reviewed analysis that supports his position, not try to scare people off evidence that counters it.
Key issue for me is that the saturated fat level in the bloodstream is not a function of that in the diet.
Last time I checked, Willett was the head of Nutrition department in one of the most high ranking schools on Health, not the banana girl or some random blogger. I understand that people like complicated and exotic, or at least unconventional diets. We all want to be special snowflakes, and just following some boring calorie counting balanced nutrients "normal" eating plan does not sound that exciting. Eating at 80% fat or eating bacon only or bananas only or other similar things does sound more exciting, and might even work for some, but from there to dismissing health concerns from reputable medical sites and reputable health professionals, because they are "conventional"... what can I say? I hope the average person has the common sense to evaluate the advice of boring health professionals over the advice of random people on the internet, although I must admit the number of fruitaritarians, paleo eaters, cleanse fanatics etc make me doubt this. In the end, we are all responsible for own lifestyle choices, the risks we are willing to take and the long term impact on our health.
Out of curiosity: how much do you know about the diet and lifestyle Dr. Willett advocates? "normal" (meaning mainstream here) isn't how I'd describe it.
Definitely dr. Willet is another person that would be crucified here on MFP:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/interviews/willett.html
YUP YUP!0 -
Discussing the effects of fat intake without taking into account overall calorie consumption is pointless. Eating a fat-rich diet while at maintenance or below is an entirely different thing than eating a fat-rich diet while on a caloric surplus.
OP is not in surplus and, barring any medical conditions, can thrive across an extremely wide range of macro ratios. I wouldn't even begin to worry about it unless one of the macros went below 20% for an extended period of time - and even then it might not be an issue.
OP - if those ratios work for you, personally, have at it! :drinker:
Cheers Mr Knight, I think like others have said its just a matter of experimenting with it.
At the minute im working out all my Macros ahead of time using MFP to see what foods are going to help me achieve my Macros. I tend to use it to work out quantities of food to meet my goal and write them down, instead of using it on an ongoing basis to record my intake.
The Keto diet seems a bit too extreme, I still want to eat some carbs, just want to limit them a lot more and see how I get on.
I was comtemplating ditching the protein shakes as well, my thinking behind this was because its not a natural food, so that might be something I try out as well. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated also?? (all be it probably a topic for another thread in fairness).
0 -
I ditched protein powder not too long ago. My morning shake now consists of heavy whipping cream, raw eggs and cinnamon 0
-
I ditched protein powder not too long ago. My morning shake now consists of heavy whipping cream, raw eggs and cinnamon
I tend to eat about a maintenance level of protein, maybe just a little higher in case I actually do the strength training I plan on doing. lol. The body turns excess protein into carbs anyway. My morning drink is coffee, eggs, cocoa and coconut oil. LOVE it!0 -
As long as you're consuming healthy fats from plants such as avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil - go for it! If you're into meat, stick with organic, grass fed lean meat - just don't go over 300 mg of cholesterol. If you get your fat from plants, you will not have to worry about cholesterol at all.0
-
As long as you're consuming healthy fats from plants such as avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil - go for it! If you're into meat, stick with organic, grass fed lean meat - just don't go over 300 mg of cholesterol. If you get your fat from plants, you will not have to worry about cholesterol at all.
LOL, I go over 1,000 mg of cholesterol daily...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions