Is there a change in attitude towards fat in diet?

phater phagan

Lately I've been reading and hearing article on fat in the diet.

Some commentators on radio ( eg Pat Kenny ), and in periodicals have been saying that fat is not bad for you anymore and the Low Fat foods are actually not that good for you.

I'm totally confused - having changed to a strictly no fat diet and wonder if perhaps I should rethink my dietary needs and include some fat into it.

Any nutritionists out there with information?

Crappyghost

Fats were never bad for you, i.e eggs, nuts, avocados, real butter, olives etc, etc. Its just that there is a lot of money behind the low fat food industry and its shoved into peoples faces!

And no low fat food is not good for you as the vast majority of it is processed and contains lots of added sugar. That includes rubbish "health" yogurts, low fat spreads, milks, treats, shakes, diet products.... anything that comes in a box and says lower fat really....

Just cut out the processed food as much as you can, prepare meals from fresh ingredients and you will be golden.

phater phagan

Crappyghost wrote: »

Fats were never bad for you, i.e eggs, nuts, avocados, real butter, olives etc, etc. Its just that there is a lot of money behind the low fat food industry and its shoved into peoples faces!

And no low fat food is not good for you as the vast majority of it is processed and contains lots of added sugar. That includes rubbish "health" yogurts, low fat spreads, milks, treats, shakes, diet products.... anything that comes in a box and says lower fat really....

Just cut out the processed food as much as you can, prepare meals from fresh ingredients and you will be golden.

That's very interesting. Is their a correlation between fats in the diet and high cholesterol, do you think? What about the Flora Pro Activ stuff - does that come under the same banner as low fat food? If fat in food doesn't affect cholesterol levels ( which was my purpose for asking the question) then what do you understand to be the cause of it? I was eating a lot of desserts and buttery type foods and was diagnosed with high cholesterol and my MD told me to cut out the eggs, butter etc. Is your background in nutritional science?

Crappyghost

i believe there is a correlation between trans fats and high cholesterol. Imo i think it depends on the food, if a diet is clean and healthy fats like i mentioned are consumed then cholesterol shouldn't be an issue. In fact cholesterol is a perfectly normal bodily function. It is responsible for cell repair. Its importance is the same as the cement in a house.

Its the processed foods high in sugar, trans fats and refined carbs that cause the damage/ raised cholesterol. When they are consumed they cause damage, then cholesterol is dispatched from the liver to repair the damage. If the damage keeps occurring, more cholesterol is put out.

If a person continues to eat bad, more damage occurs than cholesterol has time to fix it, hence the high levels. Debris from the damage starts to build up which leads to plaque and blockages. Unfortunately cholesterol is blamed so rubbish products like "Flora Pro Activ stuff" can be sold to people who are worried.... iv never heard of a doctor prescribe that stuff to a patient, its just crap from television.

I have a science background, not specifically nutritional but i like to follow studies/evidence. There is just no solid evidence the low fat is healthy. A diet can have foods that are naturally low in fat but there is just no need for crappy products.

spongebob89

Everyday theres a new scientific discovery about foods.. today it could be "toast linked to tumers" I seen one recently saying "we are now not meant to be drinking milk in adulthood". It would drive ya mental reading to much into all the scientific researches on what to eat and what not. Good fats are very healthy even in abundance, carbs is what makes you fat (bad carbs)

Btw op, stay away from low fat foods as they replaced the fat with sugar which makes people fat!. low calorie drinks, they take the sugar out an replace it with these low calorie artificial sweetners that are nasty

Crappyghost

Think you have it in a nutshell there sponge bob.... To be fair its not that hard to be healthy;

1.learn to cook,
2.prepare meals from fresh
3.Cut out most of the processed crap (anything that is made in a factory)

Unfortunately alot of people are fooled into taking there nutritional advice from television adds as they use bogus science and lovely models!

smcgiff

There was a study recently that we may not be taking enough salt. Previously to this it was stated that salt intake was a major killer.

This latest salt study would benefit the food companies so I'll take it with a pinch of.... erm... pepper?

Crappyghost

Study was probably funded by the food companies lol

EoghanIRL

Low in fat means increased sugar and and high in fat means less sugar .

If you check the label on low fat foods you will often see a high sugar content .

runawaybishop

phater phagan wrote: »

Lately I've been reading and hearing article on fat in the diet.

Some commentators on radio ( eg Pat Kenny ), and in periodicals have been saying that fat is not bad for you anymore and the Low Fat foods are actually not that good for you.

I'm totally confused - having changed to a strictly no fat diet and wonder if perhaps I should rethink my dietary needs and include some fat into it.

Any nutritionists out there with information?

Fat is, and always has been, critical to the bodies normal healthy functioning. Lot fat foods tend to simply replace fat with sugar as without fat they taste like cardboard in general. If your fats are coming from unprocessed foods they are most likely fine and good for you, assuming moderation of course.

echo beach

I big problem is the way foods are labelled. You would need to have a very good grounding in figures (percentages, decimals, and fractions), a calculator and a magnifying glass to decide what spread to put on your bread. Even within the same range of spreads the calories, content of fat and of saturated fat can vary hugely.
Same applies to things like pasta sauces and just about any processed food. While I agree with cooking from scratch the reality is that most of us can't/won't/don't and deserve to be able to see clearly what we are buying and eating. Proposals for a simple 'traffic light' system of labeling showing red, orange or green for fat, sugar and salt according to a standard definition of high, med or low have been resisted by the food industry and it seems nobody is promoting the interests of the consumers.

runawaybishop

echo beach wrote: »

Proposals for a simple 'traffic light' system of labeling showing red, orange or green for fat, sugar and salt according to a standard definition of high, med or low have been resisted by the food industry and it seems nobody is promoting the interests of the consumers.

Good to hear they have been resisted as it is fundamentally daft tbh. Whats red for you could be green for me and vice versa. Fat, salt and now sugar is being demonised by whatever company isnt selling them as a main product and none of that is in the consumers interest.

echo beach

runawaybishop wrote: »

Good to hear they have been resisted as it is fundamentally daft tbh. Whats red for you could be green for me and vice versa.

It is a way of conveying information about what the food contains, not of telling you what is 'good' or 'bad'. Red would say that the fat content was above a certain level, not that you shouldn't eat it. You would then decide how much, if any, of it you would eat.

When you have the information you can make a choice. At the moment people are buying food labelled saying 'low fat' and assuming that it is 'good' without being able to see clearly what the total picture is and that it may well be less 'healthy' than the full fat alternative beside it.

Are you happy with the way food is labelled now?

runawaybishop

echo beach wrote: »

It is a way of conveying information about what the food contains, not of telling you what is 'good' or 'bad'. Red would say that the fat content was above a certain level, not that you shouldn't eat it. You would then decide how much, if any, of it you would eat.

When you have the information you can make a choice. At the moment people are buying food labelled saying 'low fat' and assuming that it is 'good' without being able to see clearly what the total picture is and that it may well be less 'healthy' than the full fat alternative beside it.

Are you happy with the way food is labelled now?

Red means bad to most people. Fat is not bad for you, labelling goods with green and red symbols is a poor way to convey nutritional info. I have no issue understanding current labelling for the foods I buy.

steddyeddy

It's carbs that are the bad guy IMHO. Trans fat maybe.

virtual_kick in the face

runawaybishop wrote: »

Red means bad to most people. Fat is not bad for you, labelling goods with green and red symbols is a poor way to convey nutritional info. I have no issue understanding current labelling for the foods I buy.

In the UK Labels can legally be out by 30% (probably 50% in corrupt old Ireland)...they sell all their crap here so are you minus-ing a third from the Vits + Mins and plus-ing a third in the Fat + Sugar when doing all those sums in your head??




OP, have a read round in the Health & Fitness Forum aswell. And the sub Nutrition & Diet Forum in it. Lots of threads on this.

http / www . boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=252


But as mentioned above, you're just gonna get the current thinking, which will no doubt turn out to kill ya in a few years.

We know diddly squat about Food/ and all that. Not much point listening to anyone really.

Not sure what Fat Free was gonna do for ya??

Do what your Granny always said, everything in moderation. At least it won't be bland.