Poly and Moly unsaturated fats

Where in your link do they support what you said?

What, that saturated fat isn't the devil?

No, that's not what you said. You said "your dietary fat should be roughly equal amounts of saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated" fats. Where in your link do they support your statement?

Page 2 gives example calorie amounts, total fat amounts and saturated fat amounts.

Page 2 doesn't really say what you recommended - I still don't understand how you arrived at your recommendation.

Maybe if you made it clear what exactly you are trying to argue about, I could argue back more efficiently. Are you trying to debate that there is any need at all for conditionally essential fatty acids or that saturated fat is not needed at all? I don't quite understand.

Not sure how you got the impression that I was arguing with you. All I did was ask you a question (along with pointing out that monounsaturated fats are not essential).

Overly defensive much? All I did was ask you for your source. I'd hate to see how you react when someone does actually argue with you (which I'll do now).

Are you saying it was not a recommendation?
This sure does sound like a recommendation to me:
" Your dietary fat should be roughly equal amounts of each; saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated"

It's just 'easier' if you get somewhere around a third of your fats from saturated fat and the majority of your fat from polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat and not have to worry about it

Unfortunately, what you said above and what you originally said are not the same thing.

If I bake a pie and slice it into pieces, each piece representing a different classification of fatty acid, then, compared to the one piece of pie representing saturated fat, the rest would be considered the majority.

Why are you backpedaling on what you originally said? I'll quote it one last time for you:

Your dietary fat should be roughly equal amounts of each; saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated

That means each part of the pie is roughly 1/3. Which is different than your revised statement (which could very well indicate about 33% saturated fat, 60% polyunsaturated fat, and 7% monounsaturated fat.. which is also equally silly). Do you see the distinction now? Not sure how much more simply I can spell it for you.

The bottom line is, based on your original recommendation, if I ingest about 75g of fat per day, I should ingest roughly 25g of fat from polyunsaturated fats. Which many would take to mean that they should consume roughly 25g of fish oil/day to reach meet that target (since it's the most cost-effective way to meet omega-3 intakes of such a high level). Which is overkill in most cases. Evidence shows that it can very well be detrimental (i.e. such a high dosage of w-3s can harm immune function). More doesn't always equal better.

If I bake a pie and slice it into pieces, each piece representing a different classification of fatty acid, then, compared to the one piece of pie representing saturated fat, the rest would be considered the majority.

Why are you backpedaling on what you originally said? I'll quote it one last time for you:

Your dietary fat should be roughly equal amounts of each; saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated

That means each part of the pie is roughly 1/3. Which is different than your revised statement (which could very well indicate about 33% saturated fat, 60% polyunsaturated fat, and 7% monounsaturated fat.. which is also equally silly). Do you see the distinction now? Not sure how much more simply I can spell it for you.

The bottom line is, based on your original recommendation, if I ingest about 75g of fat per day, I should ingest roughly 25g of fat from polyunsaturated fats. Which many would take to mean that they should consume roughly 25g of fish oil/day to reach meet that target (since it's the most cost-effective way to meet omega-3 intakes of such a high level). Which is overkill in most cases. Evidence shows that it can very well be detrimental (i.e. such a high dosage of w-3s can harm immune function). More doesn't always equal better.

So stop beating around the bush and tell us what your recommendation would be.

Right, so basically you pulled your recommendation out of thin air and can't provide any evidence to support it. That's all I wanted to know, thanks.
The problem with making things up is that it can be potentially harmful to others (as I alluded to in my previous post). Please try to refrain from doing so in the future.

Keep in mind, the OP was asking for a simple solution that he can easily put into practice.

The OP's question has already been answered. He never asked for any specific recommendations on fat intake. He asked why unsaturated fats are "bad", and multiple posters have already answered that question.

A counterpoint to what specifically?

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).

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.

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.

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.