Why is there a goal for Saturated Fat? Shouldn't that be 0 and any Fats goals be for Unsaturated?

billcarlson4716
billcarlson4716 Posts: 6 Member
in Food and Nutrition

On Healthline.com I read that the recommendation is to consume no more than 10% of calories per day in Saturated Fats and for Unsaturated: "Replace saturated fats with these as often as possible." So why is there a goal for Saturated Fats on MFP and how is it determined? It would seem to make more sense to have that goal be listed for Unsaturated Fats and have Saturated listed with a goal of 0. I'll paste a partial screenshot from Healthline.com below:

Screenshot 2025-03-24 10.23.39 PM.png

Answers

  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,879 Member

    I believe the "goal" is an upper limit, not a target, based on the amount of total fat a person is allocated when setting their goals.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,862 Member

    Realistically, some of the nutrition goals should be treated as limits, and others as minimums, IMO, though in practice "close enough on average" is probably reasonable in both limits and minimums.

    IMO: Saturated fats should be treated as a limit. Protein should be a minimum, though it might need to be customized/personalized for best outcomes, ditto for total fats. Conceptually, calories are a limit if trying to lose, maybe a minimum if trying to gain, but once a personalized goal is established for calories, it makes sense to average close to it.

    It's probably OK to exceed most of the water-soluble vitamin goals short of mega-dosing, probably OK to somewhat exceed some of the fat-soluble vitamins from food sources but not as much so from typical supplements (different form of the vitamin in foods vs. supplements). Some minerals can be exceeded to a certain extent without issues, others - selenium for example - have a tolerable upper limit that's pretty low. And of course people with certain health conditions need to limit, maximize, avoid or manage certain nutrients in ways that people without that health condition don't need to worry about.

    When there's a single goal number in the software . . . well, reality is more complicated than that. Fortunately, humans are adaptive omnivores, and we have some flexibility, as long as eating semi-decently. Good nutrition is not a magic spell where every detail needs to be exactly exact ever single day, or bad things will happen. If that were true, the human race would've been wiped out millennia ago.

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,538 Member
    edited March 25

    Actually reading those points with the exception of trans fats really addresses the disconnect the USDA has from the actual scientific data and a good reason to do your own research, imo. I will give them credit though for saying "synthetic trans fats" which excludes the natural ones.

    Anyway why saturated fat shows up is to limit it's consumption and they feel replacing it with unsaturated fat has "No upper limit for a healthy limit" so they're basically saying "don't worry" your good to go. A ridiculous and unscientific statement to make, again in my opinion.

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,538 Member
    edited March 25

    Also, to address your question "It would seem to make more sense to have that goal be listed for Unsaturated Fats and have Saturated listed with a goal of 0."

    A goal of "0" for saturated fat intake would be impossible simply because anytime we find any kind of fat naturally in any food, plant or animal, we'll find a combination of all three, saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat.

    For example there's 2.1 g's of saturated fat in 100g's of avocado and 1.2 g's in 100g's of tofu and boneless skinless chicken breast has 0.3g's for 100g's and eye of the round beef steak has 1.4g's, cashews have 7.8g's and macadamia nuts have 12.1 g's, so maybe we should replace avocado and tofu and some nuts for chicken and beef. Kidding and just making a point. 😁

Categories