Hello Jordan,
Like the title says, I’m curious why the bound for saturated fat intake is based on your calorie intake instead of your bodyweight or a flat amount. Have research papers considered g/kg models?
This is extremely hard to search for because I get inundated with high level articles with only the basic recommendation, so I’d thought I’d ask here. The reason I’m curious is because I’d like to know if changes in caloric intake necessitate or allow a change in saturated fat intake. I personally find it odd that if I cut calories that my ability to tolerate saturated fat would go down. Like, what does my energy expenditure have to do with it?
Our friends at Sigma do a thorough review of these topics here:
It is not necessarily that your ability to “tolerate” SFA goes down, but rather that if that percentage of overall intake is changing, it matters what it’s being substituted with (or what it is substituting). At very low levels of absolute intake, the percentages become of lesser concern.
1 Like
Hello Austin,
Thanks for your reply. I read the articles you linked. They emphasized percentages like you said, but I’m still a little uncertain. My OP was motivated by the fact that a person’s caloric intake can change in the short run and in the long run, and it made me wonder if the absolute intake of sat.fat mattered or which caloric intake is the correct one to use. If it doesn’t matter, then I guess I was just overly curious I guess. It can seem like I split hairs sometimes.
Am I correct to think that if a person moderately increases calories over time and keeps % from sat.fat constant (and <10%), that their non-hdl cholesterol would stay normal despite sat.fat increasing absolutely?