I start at 22 now and eat the same healthy 3000 calorie diet every day with a certain fat/carbs/protein breakdown, but with 75% of my fat (grams) as saturated animal fat and some moderate trans-fatty acid intake as well.
I do the same, but with only 5% of my fat intake (grams) as saturated animal fat and the rest really healthy oils (flax, olive, peanut, ect… no trans-fatty acids)
For the sake of details, let’s say my total fat intake every day is 75 grams, with 5 meals a day.
Let’s say these two diets are as similar in every other dietary aspect as they could possibly be under these conditions. Fiber, fruit, everything. Let’s also say my lifestyle in these two scenarios is as similar as possible, lifting weights, jogging, sports, ect.
In which scenario will I have the better body composition after 20 years?
Bump, because I can’t understand why this wouldn’t get attention… it’s only something that everyone in the world who has ever existed needs to know in order to get the most out of life… I know, it’s not as relevant as how much a cat can eat, but…
Bump, because I can’t understand why this wouldn’t get attention… it’s only something that everyone in the world who has ever existed needs to know in order to get the most out of life… I know, it’s not as relevant as how much a cat can eat, but…
So, if the non-saturated, non-hydrogenated fats don’t store as much as saturated/hydrogenated fats do, then where do they go? Unused calories down the toilet? That doesn’t sound right. Please give me some details!
I do agree that your response has to be correct, I just don’t understand how it could be correct.
The other fats (called monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat)are used for other purposes, like testerone production, decreasing LDL cholesterol levels, increasing HDL cholesterol levels, and reducing triglycerides.
There is no such thing as an unused calorie. Every calorie counts.
Body composition? WTF? Saturated fats are unhealthy because they cause atherosclerosis; I don’t know what “body composition” is supposed to have to do with anything – I’m not even sure what you mean by it.
Body composition= four-way ratio of fat:muscle:bone:total weight.
vandal: So, about how many grams of fat per day do you think could go to towards those things you listed, for a healthy 200 lb male? I would speculate not many grams at all. And if so, I would have to ask again, why would there be a difference in fat storage from my two scenarios?
Because different types of fat are metabolized differently. They have different chemical structures, and so they don’t react the same way with all of the chemical processes in the body.
As far as fat intake goes, you can have a very high intake of the sorts of fats vandal talks about and still not have them go to fat storage. The specific number depends on how active you are, your genetics, your body composition, when you eat the fat, what you eat it with, and various other things, but for a 3000 calorie diet, you could probably handle 150 g/day.
This thread is making it hard to understand the “calories in, calories out” concept… that is a viable biological principle, isn’t it?
How could the same amount of calories produce different body compositions, if indeed vandal is correct and there is “no such thing as an unused calorie”.
My thoughts are that if one diet is producing less fat storage than another with equivalent amounts of calories, fat and other relevant variables, then the diet producing less fat storage must be disposing of the extra calories somehow. So, what is this mechanism and where do the calories physically go? Our bodies are not nuclear reactors, ya know!
I’m not trying to be difficult here, I just think that the info in this SDMB thread is not sufficient to explain this phenomenon you all are claiming exists. I understand that fats have different chemical properties, but that doesn’t help explain the question of where the calories go.
It can go into building lean mass (organs/bones/muscle/anything other than fat).
And energy can be taken out of the last two.
Calories in versus calories out is an oversimplification. You do have to worry about total energy balance, but you have to worry about where your caloric intake is going, and where you’re getting energy from.
AFAIK (I’ve only taken one intro nutrition course in college), there isn’t a signicant difference in the bioavailability of calories from saturated vs. unsaturated fats. Bioavailability is how much the body actual absorbs of a certain nutrient, as opposed to how much of that nutrient the food actually contains. For example, many vitamins are absorbed at different rates depending on what food they are in, or what other foods are eaten at the same time.
The main long-term health difference between eating most saturated fats instead of unsaturated would be your cholesterol levels, chances of developing heart disease, etc…
So, this is an extremely simple question with no communicable simple answer? I don’t buy that.
I am not formally educated in this field, but between my above-average grasping abilities and your Straight Doper communication abilities, we ought to be able to come to a general understanding of where fat energy gets distributed between two similarly controlled, simple diet scenarios.
I asked a question and you all answered confidently… but you seem to be having trouble explaining why you believe what you believe (or you are not up to the task of explaining this phenomenon to a layman such as I, which is understandable).
It’s really a matter of what you expressed in parentheses, that this is difficult to explain to a layperson. If you want to go much beyond my earlier answer of “They have different chemical structures, and so they don’t react the same way with all of the chemical processes in the body,” you really need to start looking at the biochemistry of digestion, which is pretty complicated.
I have yet to come across a “Fats For Dummies” type work, although I have heard good things–from sources I trust–about Udo Erasmus and this book. I haven’t read it yet, but intend to do so.
All the calories are used for energy (as long as you are alive, your body is always burning calories, whether you are active or not).
However, when there is an excess amount of calories, they are stored through the buildup of fat (your body anticipates that you’ll need the energy later).
And, although a calorie is a calorie, they are not created equal. For instance, let’s take a stalk of brocolli and a 12 oz can of Coke. The Coke has 150 calories, and we’ll say our stalk also has 150 calories.
While they both have 150 calories, clearly one item has an advantage over the other. There are numerous vitamins, minerals, proteins, and fiber contained in the 150 calories from the brocolli.
The Coke’s 150 calories all come from sugar, with none of the aforementioned. The sugar will have a negative effect on the storage of your body’s fat (negative, in that, you’ll have more of it).
The brocolli’s 150 calories, on the other hand, will work in your favor. The vitamins, minerals, proteins, and fiber can be used for other functions, rather than fat storage.
I did some searching and found this abstract (may require registration to view):
The influence of the type of dietary fat on postprandial fat oxidation rates: monounsaturated (olive oil) vs saturated fat (cream)
L S Piers, K Z Walker, R M Stoney, M J Soares and K O’Dea International Journal of Obesity
June 2002, Volume 26, Number 6, Pages 814-821
Thanks for your input, but you should really read more thoroughly. I stated in the OP that the ratio of fat carbs and protein are the same in each diet. But, I do appreciate your help.
Waenara: Quick question: How does the oxidation rate of a fat affect it’s storage rate?
Is oxidation rate simply the time it takes the body to modulate (digest?) the components into energy? If so, why does the time matter? It’ still inside the body and still has energy to be either used or stored, correct?