PDA

View Full Version : How bad are saturated fats and trans fats exactly?



Getter_done
10-11-2013, 05:44 PM
Title.

Raphyx
10-11-2013, 05:46 PM
From what I've read saturated fats are fine. Some people say that natural trans fats(dairy, meat) are okay but industrial trans fats are the devil(hydrogenated oil etc).

cumminslifter
10-11-2013, 06:08 PM
saturated fats are really nothing to concern yourself with. however (artificial) trans fats can cause health issues and need to be avoided as much as possible

carcayawarrior
10-11-2013, 07:14 PM
Saturated fats are not bad. A good balance of them help you to have a regulated metabolism and hormone balance. The reason trans fats are hard on your system is that the human metabolism is designed to beta oxidize cis- fats. Trans fats take a much more difficult route. Because of this, most natural fats coming from "real" food consist of cis based fats. Stay away from the crackers, cookies, and chips. Eat the eggs and animal fats in moderation.

eriquee
10-11-2013, 09:44 PM
saturated fats are really nothing to concern yourself with. however (artificial) trans fats can cause health issues and need to be avoided as much as possible

This^^

Eat as much eggs, and animal fat you want, it wont harm you at all.

MikeK46
10-11-2013, 10:34 PM
SFAs have plenty of beneficial functions, but they don't do anything to protect your cardiovascular system. So SFAs aren't harmful, but it's important to have a good balance of all three types: SFA's, PUFAs and MUFAs. Don't go nuts and eat primarily SFAs. MUFAs especially have cardioprotective benefits and you want that. Also make sure you're getting a few grams of Omega-3's per day...most diets are lacking.

Artificial trans fats decrease HDL cholesterol and as such, should be avoided.

respawn
10-11-2013, 10:44 PM
I have done 2 nutrition courses as well as my stupid PT courses. at the time I done them saturated fats were classed as BAD, the cause of cardiovascular diseases.

Bout 2 weeks ago now I was corrected. I did more recent research and found that there was now evidence that saturated fats contributed. My courses were out of date I am sure and were not updated

As MikeK46 said. I have seen a few of his posts and he is right so far with all I have seen. the 3 fats are good. RDI recommends 20g of saturated fats a day. polly and monounsaturated fats are the best but. trans fats are the worst found a lot in deep fried fast foods.

redandgold007
10-11-2013, 10:46 PM
Trans fats clog your arteries and veins.

MikeK46
10-11-2013, 11:21 PM
Trans fats clog your arteries and veins.

Two adjustments to your statement...

It's artificial trans fats specifically that are harmful. Natural trans fats, such as CLA, are healthy.

Artificial trans fats don't clog your arteries directly. They lower levels of cardioprotective HDL, which in turn increases the risk of type-B LDL's accumulating in your arteries.

Mr.Cooper69
10-12-2013, 01:21 AM
Two adjustments to your statement...

It's artificial trans fats specifically that are harmful. Natural trans fats, such as CLA, are healthy.

Artificial trans fats don't clog your arteries directly. They lower levels of cardioprotective HDL, which in turn increases the risk of type-B LDL's accumulating in your arteries.

One adjustment to your statement

CLA may not be so healthy, depending on your level of insulin resistance (read: http://suppversity.blogspot.com/)

cumminslifter
10-12-2013, 01:08 PM
One adjustment to your statement

CLA may not be so healthy, depending on your level of insulin resistance (read: http://suppversity.blogspot.com/)just read this yesterday^

cumminslifter
10-12-2013, 01:09 PM
I have done 2 nutrition courses as well as my stupid PT courses. at the time I done them saturated fats were classed as BAD, the cause of cardiovascular diseases.

Bout 2 weeks ago now I was corrected. I did more recent research and found that there was now evidence that saturated fats contributed. My courses were out of date I am sure and were not updated

As MikeK46 said. I have seen a few of his posts and he is right so far with all I have seen. the 3 fats are good. RDI recommends 20g of saturated fats a day. polly and monounsaturated fats are the best but. trans fats are the worst found a lot in deep fried fast foods.just like pretty much all of your information?

WonderPug
10-12-2013, 01:18 PM
I have done 2 nutrition courses as well as my stupid PT courses. at the time I done them saturated fats were classed as BAD, the cause of cardiovascular diseases.

Bout 2 weeks ago now I was corrected. I did more recent research and found that there was now evidence that saturated fats contributed. My courses were out of date I am sure and were not updated

As MikeK46 said. I have seen a few of his posts and he is right so far with all I have seen. the 3 fats are good. RDI recommends 20g of saturated fats a day. polly and monounsaturated fats are the best but. trans fats are the worst found a lot in deep fried fast foods.It seems like most everything you think you know about nutrition is, in fact, totally wrong, based on the posts you've made on this forum to date.

You really need to start learning the most basic aspects of nutrition before answering people's questions.

respawn
10-12-2013, 02:46 PM
It seems like most everything you think you know about nutrition is, in fact, totally wrong, based on the posts you've made on this forum to date.

You really need to start learning the most basic aspects of nutrition before answering people's questions.

tell me what I said here was wrong

rand18m
10-12-2013, 05:56 PM
tell me what I said here was wrong

That's a fair question, but based on your prior posts I suspect if he did you wouldn't listen!

You have an interest in learning I think, but so far you don't seem to want to hear.

cumminslifter
10-12-2013, 05:57 PM
tell me what I said here was wrongnot here, everywhere else

respawn
10-12-2013, 06:22 PM
not here, everywhere else

everywhere else huh? so your wrong. so your post in here was wrong and incorrect.

If everything I say is so wrong how come i have results? if diet is the main factor then why am i getting + results. If I am so wrong I should not be getting anywhere and should be going backwards.

Even if everything I say is out dated and in the 90's. how do you explain people in the 90's got great results when everything was wrong.

let me tell you. in a few years time you will be having some new kid tell you everything your saying is wrong now. and in a few years time someone else will tell him he is wrong. its peoples theories and research and opinions on their research that make new facts, the way they write these facts always leave room for error in what they are saying and state that not all results were the same.

I fail to see how you realize this

it always changes and new experts bring out new facts all the time and other experts release facts at the same time to contradict someone else. I ahve asked you questions and you have so far been unable to provide me any evidence to say that you know anything. you only jump on the band wagon and contribute next to nothing from what I have seen in your posts.

cumminslifter
10-12-2013, 06:33 PM
everywhere else huh? so your wrong. so your post in here was wrong and incorrect.

If everything I say is so wrong how come i have results? if diet is the main factor then why am i getting + results. If I am so wrong I should not be getting anywhere and should be going backwards.

Even if everything I say is out dated and in the 90's. how do you explain people in the 90's got great results when everything was wrong.

let me tell you. in a few years time you will be having some new kid tell you everything your saying is wrong now. and in a few years time someone else will tell him he is wrong. its peoples theories and research and opinions on their research that make new facts, the way they write these facts always leave room for error in what they are saying and state that not all results were the same.

I fail to see how you realize this

it always changes and new experts bring out new facts all the time and other experts release facts at the same time to contradict someone else. I ahve asked you questions and you have so far been unable to provide me any evidence to say that you know anything. you only jump on the band wagon and contribute next to nothing from what I have seen in your posts.not sure wha you are talking about in the bolded part.

however yes i am sure that there will be studies in the future that prove what we know now as "wrong" that is the beauty of science, its always changing. more studies, more results, more information. that why you have to keep u p with the
LATEST <---(THIS IS WHERE YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND) information.

mattvdh
10-12-2013, 06:41 PM
I have done 2 nutrition courses as well as my stupid PT courses. at the time I done them saturated fats were classed as BAD, the cause of cardiovascular diseases.

Bout 2 weeks ago now I was corrected. I did more recent research and found that there was now evidence that saturated fats contributed. My courses were out of date I am sure and were not updated

As MikeK46 said. I have seen a few of his posts and he is right so far with all I have seen. the 3 fats are good. RDI recommends 20g of saturated fats a day. polly and monounsaturated fats are the best but. trans fats are the worst found a lot in deep fried fast foods.

I'm having the same sort of issue, I'm taking an online course and it's really annoying to memorize information that is out of date. They also recommend a super carb heavy diet and suggest protein be kept at a moderate intake and fat very low. ahhhh!!! I hate learning obsolete information. Reminds me of my IT course when they forced us to study highly detailed information on windows 3.1/95 when windows 7 was just being released.

does anyone know of an online course that teaches a more modern approach to dieting and nutrition? I'm really considering dropping the current course I'm in, I can't digest the thought of having to study obsolete information which I'll be graded on.

respawn
10-12-2013, 06:57 PM
I'm having the same sort of issue, I'm taking an online course and it's really annoying to memorize information that is out of date. They also recommend a super carb heavy diet and suggest protein be kept at a moderate intake and fat very low. ahhhh!!! I hate learning obsolete information. Reminds me of my IT course when they forced us to study highly detailed information on windows 3.1/95 when windows 7 was just being released.

a lot of it is based on the RDI bro. which most people know is total bull****. the studies are done on regular every day people. a lot of it is very basic as well. I myself and fully qualified and up to date as of end of 2012. one of my coursed said that an athlete must have 11 - 12g of carbs per kg of body weight to function correct.

the education system seems to be behind a bit. I am pretty sure that when these new experts discover new information due to their research it has to be put through to education system to be confirmed and tested which can take years before it will be deemed correct for teaching by law.

a professor cant just do some research and say that his results are facts and tell everyone that that is now how its done and update the education system with what he found. think of it this way. in the army we have a program called PMKeyS. to change the slightest little thing, like create a new button it would take years to be implemented as it has to be tested to make sure there are no infliction with anything else. just the same as medical research. this is why they word it always to leave room for error or differences. chit changes all the time in areas. if these experts did not do more research and find new findings they they would have no money. so they are trying to do everything they can to find different answers

people in the forum dont seem to realize this.

cert 3 and cert 4 are needed by law as they teach a trainer what is accepted by the education system. they are just a tick in the box to get work. the smartest person in this forum with no qualifications but is all self taught would not legally be able to work in a gym. if they did then the gym could get sued. if a trainer does not abide by the teachings they can get sued. the way you word things is important. just the way the law is.

mattvdh
10-12-2013, 07:11 PM
also just for my peace of mind, and also to shove down the throat of the admins at the school I'm attending, does anyone have any leigit, peer reviewed articles which details that SFA's are in fact healthy, or at least not the devil that it's being toted as? Because I can find all kinds of articles and videos on how SFA's are unhealthy for the heart and I need some more legit proof rather than a few guys on a message board giving their opinions.

cumminslifter
10-12-2013, 07:32 PM
also just for my peace of mind, and also to shove down the throat of the admins at the school I'm attending, does anyone have any leigit, peer reviewed articles which details that SFA's are in fact healthy, or at least not the devil that it's being toted as? Because I can find all kinds of articles and videos on how SFA's are unhealthy for the heart and I need some more legit proof rather than a few guys on a message board giving their opinions.PM wonderpug for all your peer review studies on sat. fats needs

respawn
10-12-2013, 08:09 PM
also just for my peace of mind, and also to shove down the throat of the admins at the school I'm attending, does anyone have any leigit, peer reviewed articles which details that SFA's are in fact healthy, or at least not the devil that it's being toted as? Because I can find all kinds of articles and videos on how SFA's are unhealthy for the heart and I need some more legit proof rather than a few guys on a message board giving their opinions.

I dun like the guy byt his name is AwaysTrying I think. I think it was him who sent me a link on saturated fats that changed my view on them.

if the link was true or not I dunno just like the thousands of other sites out there that contradict 1 story with their own claiming to be latest studies.

if no one changed any studies then all of these professionals would be out of business. it will never end

Mrpb
10-12-2013, 10:47 PM
also just for my peace of mind, and also to shove down the throat of the admins at the school I'm attending, does anyone have any leigit, peer reviewed articles which details that SFA's are in fact healthy, or at least not the devil that it's being toted as? Because I can find all kinds of articles and videos on how SFA's are unhealthy for the heart and I need some more legit proof rather than a few guys on a message board giving their opinions.

http://canceranddiet.nl/cardiovascular_disease/dietary-fat.html

A very good thread on the topic: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=136089021&page=1

Mrpb
10-12-2013, 11:00 PM
If everything I say is so wrong how come i have results? if diet is the main factor then why am i getting + results. If I am so wrong I should not be getting anywhere and should be going backwards.


I'll give you an example. Let's say someone believes that he needs protein in the middle of the night to get results. He diligently sets his alarm at 3 AM and drinks his protein shake before going back to bed. He does this for a couple of years, follows a good lifting program and eats plenty of calories. Would he get results? You'll probably agree that he would.

But him getting results had nothing to do with waking up every night to drink a protein shake.

Now it's the same with you avoiding saturated fats for example. You've been avoiding saturated fats for years but still you got results.

The same for you taking dextrose after your workout. You think that taking dextrose after your workout helped you get results. But did it really? Or were you getting results because you were applying progressive overload and getting enough calories.

Think about it.

To take a more extreme example: Someone may get excellent results with always bench pressing with his head facing north. After that he may believe that his head facing north was important in him getting results.

respawn
10-12-2013, 11:11 PM
I'll give you an example. Let's say someone believes that he needs protein in the middle of the night to get results. He diligently sets his alarm at 3 AM and drinks his protein shake before going back to bed. He does this for a couple of years, follows a good lifting program and eats plenty of calories. Would he get results? You'll probably agree that he would.

But him getting results had nothing to do with waking up every night to drink a protein shake.

Now it's the same with you avoiding saturated fats for example. You've been avoiding saturated fats for years but still you got results.

The same for you taking dextrose after your workout. You think that taking dextrose after your workout helped you get results. But did it really? Or were you getting results because you were applying progressive overload and getting enough calories.

Think about it.

To take a more extreme example: Someone may get excellent results with always bench pressing with his head facing north. After that he may believe that his head facing north was important in him getting results.

well according to the latest study I was given today timings of food play a huge part. but they contradict themselves withtheir answers noting that other results should be taken note that it was not the same for other people.

said carbs + protein enhance protein synthesis. which we all know and layne noton explained as boxing. dextrose is a carb.

I haven't been avoiding saturated fats at all lol. I eat a ton of meat as well as eggs. definably get my saturated fats regardless of what I thought of them at the time.

So looking at the science that I was given it mentioned fasting and carb and protein intake and amino absorption. turns out that over the years it fitted pretty much perfectly in with what I was doing with training. and work and my diet at the time.

I forgot the dude who gave me the links name. he was decent about it and not a smart ass like some others. after reading it I am a little more in disbelieve with hi GI carbs as it said there was no need for them and it didn't make a difference. so high gi or low GI its still a carb which I was consuming with my protein for gains.

if something works I dont see how someone can say its wrong. when I mention things I mention the theory behind it as well as my own experience. when professors submit their facts its based on their theory and their experience. they also mention that there is room for error or other results in everything they say.

Mrpb
10-12-2013, 11:30 PM
well according to the latest study I was given today timings of food play a huge part.

It seems like you didn't see the point I was making. Instead you started addressing the hypothetical examples I was giving.

I'll rephrase it: Just because you were getting results with taking dextrose after your workout doesn't mean that taking dextrose after your workout had anything to do with you getting results.

I hope you get that by now and stop using your argument: 'i got results so I must be right'.

PS. I was the one who showed you the research on saturated fats.

MikeK46
10-12-2013, 11:48 PM
Results because of what you did, versus results despite what you did is a huge difference that I would say a majority of people don't realize. How can they, if they don't understand the science behind what they're doing to begin with?

It's also how broscience spreads around gyms. Cuz that jacked dude says he ate 11.5 meals per day with plastic utensils only, so i'ma do the same thing.

thepowerof140
10-13-2013, 12:12 AM
A video (http://www.plantpositive.com/blog/2012/3/26/the-futility-of-cholesterol-denialism-3-a-process-of-elimina.html) and article that cites multiple studies from accredited sources and offers an interesting take on saturated fat consumption.

respawn
10-13-2013, 01:53 AM
It seems like you didn't see the point I was making. Instead you started addressing the hypothetical examples I was giving.

I'll rephrase it: Just because you were getting results with taking dextrose after your workout doesn't mean that taking dextrose after your workout had anything to do with you getting results.

I hope you get that by now and stop using your argument: 'i got results so I must be right'.

PS. I was the one who showed you the research on saturated fats.

dextrose is a carb. the latest studies showed that protein + carbs promoted protein synthesis.

not sure where your going with this. I was pretty much doing what the latest science claims works.

from memory yeah was you who linked the saturated fat information. cheers again you changed my perspective on it

respawn
10-13-2013, 01:57 AM
A video (http://www.plantpositive.com/blog/2012/3/26/the-futility-of-cholesterol-denialism-3-a-process-of-elimina.html) and article that cites multiple studies from accredited sources and offers an interesting take on saturated fat consumption.

in short. was the video and writing promoting that saturated fats cause CVD or do not cause it?

what is the date of the research for this video compared to the information that Mrpb provided?

MichielN
10-13-2013, 02:23 AM
Anyone who says saturated fats are unhealthy or should be limited has no idea what he or she is talking about, period.

They have nothing to do with heart disease, if any they have a slighly protective effect compared to unsaturated fats.

In fact they are very healthy, mainly because they stabilize cell membranes, which is critical to proper cell functioning and protection. Did you know that most cell membranes require at least 50%!! saturated fat?
It's no wonder mortality and cancer rates increase when saturated fats are replaced with polyunsaturated fat..

thepowerof140
10-13-2013, 02:53 AM
in short. was the video and writing promoting that saturated fats cause CVD or do not cause it?

what is the date of the research for this video compared to the information that Mrpb provided?

Watch it and find out, if you are curious. The reason I posted it was because the video itself is about 20 minutes long and contains multiple sources of information (modern and historical) which listing individually would be an inefficient waste of time, when one can simply watch the video, note the references (I noted down a couple that interested me when I first watched it), and then research further.

thepowerof140
10-13-2013, 07:04 AM
It's no wonder mortality and cancer rates increase when saturated fats are replaced with polyunsaturated fat..

I assume by this you are referring to this (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/68/1/142.full.pdf) study?


there is concern that long-term consumption of large amounts of
linoleic acid might increase cancer risk.

A concern, one that the study ruled inconclusive. But, if we take it to mean something - in essence - if you are already consuming large amounts of saturated fat and swap it out for large amounts of unsaturated fats, you are essentially trading the increased risk of cardiovascular disease for an increased risk in developing cancer.

I plead the case for moderation. The idea of 0.4g per lb of bodyweight being a "macro minimum" doesn't sit well with me because I am somebody particularly concerned/interested with long term health, my concerns about fat in relation to this forum is specifically, when there are so many people who aren't concerned with what kinds of fats make up that 0.4g per lb of BW amount. The evidence for consuming more than a lower to moderate amount of saturated fats exponentially increasing the risk of CVD (amongst other health issues) far outweighs the evidence that suggests saturated fats have little to no impact upon health.

Bodybuilding isn't historically a culture overly concerned with health and wellbeing (see steroids, saturation of supplements, and obesity when on bulk cycles), but this is a nutrition forum, no evidence-backed ideas and factual information need be hidden.

respawn
10-13-2013, 07:16 AM
who is the guy that has a link to daily fat % or dosages?

thepowerof140
10-13-2013, 07:24 AM
who is the guy that has a link to daily fat % or dosages?

That would be me:

link (http://www.issfal.org/statements/adequate-intakes-recommendation-table)

respawn
10-13-2013, 07:42 AM
That would be me:

link (http://www.issfal.org/statements/adequate-intakes-recommendation-table)

cheers buddy

MichielN
10-13-2013, 07:54 AM
I assume by this you are referring to this (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/68/1/142.full.pdf) study?
There is plenty to find, see this for example: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707



A concern, one that the study ruled inconclusive. But, if we take it to mean something - in essence - if you are already consuming large amounts of saturated fat and swap it out for large amounts of unsaturated fats, you are essentially trading the increased risk of cardiovascular disease for an increased risk in developing cancer.
You are trading good health for increased risk of several diseases, cancer AND cardiovascular disease included. Saturated fats don't increase your risk of heart disease, people who say these things don't understand how heart disease develops.


I plead the case for moderation. The idea of 0.4g per lb of bodyweight being a "macro minimum" doesn't sit well with me because I am somebody particularly concerned/interested with long term health, my concerns about fat in relation to this forum is specifically, when there are so many people who aren't concerned with what kinds of fats make up that 0.4g per lb of BW amount. The evidence for consuming more than a lower to moderate amount of saturated fats exponentially increasing the risk of CVD (amongst other health issues) far outweighs the evidence that suggests saturated fats have little to no impact upon health.
There is no good evidence at all to suggest saturated fats increase risk of CVD. Only bad evidence, misinterpretations and fraud.

I suggest you stop listening to whatever government instutitions advise.

I also suggest you start thinking about the following things: (1) if saturated fats are bad, why on earth does human breast milk (or milk from other mammals for that matter) contain so much of it? Is there some huge flaw in evolution? Does the human race understand these things better than Mother Nature? Are we going to suggest that human breast milk doesn't promote good health?
(2) and if polyunsaturated fats are so beneficial, why on earth do they appear in only very small amounts in nature?

respawn
10-13-2013, 08:04 AM
There is plenty to find, see this for example: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707



You are trading good health for increased risk of several diseases, cancer AND cardiovascular disease included. Saturated fats don't increase your risk of heart disease, people who say these things don't understand how heart disease develops.


There is no good evidence at all to suggest saturated fats increase risk of CVD. Only bad evidence, misinterpretations and fraud.

I suggest you stop listening to whatever government instutitions advise.

I also suggest you start thinking about the following things: (1) if saturated fats are bad, why on earth does human breast milk (or milk from other mammals for that matter) contain so much of it? Is there some huge flaw in evolution? Does the human race understand these things better than Mother Nature? Are we going to suggest that human breast milk doesn't promote good health?
(2) and if polyunsaturated fats are so beneficial, why on earth do they appear in only very small amounts in nature?

do you have a recent study for the polyunsaturated fats mate?

MichielN
10-13-2013, 08:08 AM
do you have a recent study for the polyunsaturated fats mate?

The one I posted dates from december 2012. I can also give you a Dutch review of the effects of polyunsaturated fats on heart disease risk (which also analyses data etc., and which concludes that there are zero studies that actually show lowered risks of heart disease with increased polyunsaturated fat intakes, even though they - temporarily I should add - have the ability to reduce blood cholesterol levels). Do you speak Dutch?

respawn
10-13-2013, 08:13 AM
The one I posted dates from december 2012. I can also give you a Dutch review of the effects of polyunsaturated fats on heart disease risk (which also analyses data etc., and which concludes that there are zero studies that actually show lowered risks of heart disease with increased polyunsaturated fat intakes, even though they - temporarily I should add - have the ability to reduce blood cholesterol levels). Do you speak Dutch?

roger that. nah english only. will scroll up and try find it.

appears I am a little out of the loop with some things even though my courses were up to date by the education system. but if the education system has adopted the new studies as confirmed facts yet I dont know. so worth a look

do the web sites hold credibility or are they just some random website written by another guy trtng to make some money?

MichielN
10-13-2013, 08:23 AM
roger that. nah english only. will scroll up and try find it.

appears I am a little out of the loop with some things even though my courses were up to date by the education system. but if the education system has adopted the new studies as confirmed facts yet I dont know. so worth a look

do the web sites hold credibility or are they just some random website written by another guy trtng to make some money?

You mean that Dutch analysis I was referring to? The guy has had some of his stuff accepted to PubMed. Same guy who did the review on saturated fat that WonderPug likes to quote so much (and right he is): http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=131925243&p=631314573&viewfull=1#post631314573
In my view he definitely holds credibility, he just tries to objectively look at the data and compare his findings with the commonly accepted dietary guidelines.

respawn
10-13-2013, 08:28 AM
You mean that Dutch analysis I was referring to? The guy has had some of his stuff accepted to PubMed. Same guy who did the review on saturated fat that WonderPug likes to quote so much (and right he is): http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=131925243&p=631314573&viewfull=1#post631314573
In my view he definitely holds credibility, he just tries to objectively look at the data and compare his findings with the commonly accepted dietary guidelines.

roger that. will have a look at it tomoro. Its time for me to grow in my slumber

thepowerof140
10-13-2013, 08:57 AM
I suggest you stop listening to whatever government instutitions advise.

It's not the government's recommendations that I have formed my opinions upon. But now you mention it, what possible reason could a government have from deterring people from saturated fat, if it didn't pose a health risk?


I also suggest you start thinking about the following things: (1) if saturated fats are bad, why on earth does human breast milk (or milk from other mammals for that matter) contain so much of it?

The nutritional requirements of infants is very different to that of adults. Not to mention the fact that any study that looks at the risks of saturated fat consumption, are clear about it being on a long term basis. The average infant is fed on breast milk for around 6-8 months these days I believe?

respawn
10-13-2013, 09:06 AM
It's not the government's recommendations that I have formed my opinions upon. But now you mention it, what possible reason could a government have from deterring people from saturated fat, if it didn't pose a health risk?



The nutritional requirements of infants is very different to that of adults. Not to mention the fact that any study that looks at the risks of saturated fat consumption, are clear about it being on a long term basis. The average infant is fed on breast milk for around 6-8 months these days I believe?

bro recent studies show saturated fats are not the cause of CVD. I was unaware of this as well about 2 weeks ago. saturated fats are not the cause in new research. i was in the same boat as you 2 weeks ago.

if the government is still not accepting it yet its cos the educational system has not yet implemented it yet. as far as I am aware. a lot of research has to be put forward before making big changes which are underway.

BTW yes i was going to bed but some people have got me fired up about what we do on operations in the military because they watch too many Hollywood movies. total lack or respect and education of what we do over there people have

MichielN
10-13-2013, 09:07 AM
It's not the government's recommendations that I have formed my opinions upon. But now you mention it, what possible reason could a government have from deterring people from saturated fat, if it didn't pose a health risk?
Bad science, bad scientists, bad interpretations, listening to the wrong people, media hype, vegetable oil industry lobbying etc (yes, industries do a lot of lobbying, this is no conspiracy lol, only the naive will think it's not happening)


The nutritional requirements of infants is very different to that of adults. Not to mention the fact that any study that looks at the risks of saturated fat consumption, are clear about it being on a long term basis. The average infant is fed on breast milk for around 6-8 months these days I believe?
Sure, but so to be clear, saturated fat is healthy for infants, and once we grow up it's bad all of a sudden? Where is the logic in that.

thepowerof140
10-13-2013, 09:18 AM
Sure, but so to be clear, saturated fat is healthy for infants, and once we grow up it's bad all of a sudden? Where is the logic in that.

We do need a certain amount of it, I've never said otherwise. All I know is, whilst I don't avoid saturated fats in my diet, I don't consume a lot of it either. I'm a vegetarian, and I don't seem to eat many foods that are dense in saturated fats, nor do I need to, it has had no negative effects on anything I do. My rate of progression in strength training, has been the same except when I've been on a calorie deficit.

MichielN
10-13-2013, 09:35 AM
We do need a certain amount of it, I've never said otherwise. All I know is, whilst I don't avoid saturated fats in my diet, I don't consume a lot of it either. I'm a vegetarian, and I don't seem to eat many foods that are dense in saturated fats, nor do I need to, it has had no negative effects on anything I do. My rate of progression in strength training, has been the same except when I've been on a calorie deficit.

Your body can make its own saturated fats. Getting plenty of saturated fat is less important than keeping polyunsaturated fat intake low.

Saturated fats are chemically very stable, monounsaturated are also stable (just a tad less), polyunsaturated fats are chemically unstable. Fats that you eat heavily influence cell membrane phospholipid structure. These cell membranes need to be stable, this is vital for proper cell functioning and protection. Most cell membranes require at least 50% saturated fat. Saturated fats stabilize your cell membranes, along with cholesterol. Like I said, monounsaturated fats are also fairly stable, but polyunsaturated fats are very unstable.

What happens when you eat excess polyunsaturated fats (vegetable oils etc), is that these replace the saturated fats in the cell membranes, thus making them less stable. Picture saturated fats having no holes, monounsaturated fats 1 and polyunsaturated fats more than 1. These holes cause instability. Cholesterol fills up these holes so to speak, to stabilize the cell membranes again. So what happens when polyunsaturated fats replace saturated fats, is that cholesterol requirements in the cell membranes go up. Cholesterol is taken from the blood and driven into the cell membranes to stabilize them again. This is how poly fats lower cholesterol levels.

But one of cholesterol's primary functions is repairing damaged tissue. When you damage your arteries, e.g. tears or cracks occur, cholesterol is send from the liver (by (V)LDL) to patch up this damage, after which HDL sends cholesterol back to be excreted. Think of it like a leak tire, and cholesterol is the material you use to patch it up. Since elevated LDL levels are a sign if your risk of heart disease, it was thought that high cholesterol is a sign, or a cause, of heart disease.

But 1. there is no cholesterol in your blood, instead there is cholesterol that is carried by lipoproteins in your blood. These lipoproteins are transport mechanisms so to say for cholesterol, and the total amount of cholesterol they contain is measured. But total cholesterol levels are meaningless, it's about your VLDL/LDL/HDL ratios, elevated LDL meaning more damaged arteries than your body can handle, thus a build up of plaque.
And 2, lowering the body's repair substance obviously isn't the way to do it, the right way to lower risk of heart disease is by lowering inflammation (lowering/preventing arterial damage).

Basically what I'm trying to say is that most fats should be saturated and monounsaturated, and that polyunsaturated fat intake should be minimal. The amounts of saturated and monounsaturated fat is of secondary importance, I for one prefer saturated fat to be higher.