3 ms·
>What about all the serious recent research showing little correlation between fat in diet and all the diseases? I don't think that is the best way to interpre
by voidlogic 12y ago
>What about all the serious recent research showing little correlation between fat in diet and all the diseases?
I don't think that is the best way to interpret them, the way I read the gist of recent research is roughly:
0. Calories you didn't eat are better than:
1. Calories from protein are better than:
2. Calories from mono-unsat. fat are better than:
3. Calories from sat. fat are better than:
4. Calories from poly-unsat. fat are better than:
5. Calories from complex carbs are better than:
6. Calories from simple carbs are better than:
7. Calories from trans. fat are better than:
But nothing is better for then the calorie you didn't eat (assuming you have met your caloric needs for the day).
- Evgeny 12y ago2. Calories from mono-unsat. fat are better than: 3. Calories from sat. fat are better than: 4. Calories from poly-unsat. fat are better than: I'm wondering about the reasoning for this particular order. There are different arguments, including the one that sat. fat is the best, as it is the least reactive: it is already fully saturated, while mono and poly have still potential to acquire more hydrogens. This is why some people prefer cooking with animal fat: they assume it is more "inert" under heating. Anyway, wouldn't it make sense to order them in order of saturation, either sat > mono > poly, or in reverse, poly > mono > sat?
- voidlogic 12y agoMy understanding is monounsaturated fats are known to be cardiovascularly protective and polyunsaturated are less stable, hence the ordering.