Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ParanoidAndroid
I've read from a couple of sources that saturated fats have a higher tendency than mono or ploy fat to be stored as bodyfat. Anyone know if this is true?
Thanks for the help.
|
The human data on this question is a combination of vague & alloverthemap. Your best bet is regressing towards a boring balance & moderation of the various types of FA, and here's why...
There's some fairly recent research correlating n-3 and n-6 fatty acids to reduced fat cell size according to the storage depot on the body. SFA intake correlated with an increase in fat cell size and number. n-9 FAs had no significant correlation with fat cell size, but did correlate with a reduced number of fat cells. The problem with such data is that it's based on subject's self-reports, which severely limits the level control, and it was done on a post-gastric-surgical obese population. There well could be drastically different results in the non-obese/athletic/active population.
Sat fats are not created equal. They have markedly variable physiological effects from the detrimental all the way to the beneficial. Given this, it depends on which sat fats you wanna throw on the theoretical chopping block. Stearic acid, an SFA abundant in meat & milk fat, has been consistently observed to actually reduce blood platelet aggregation. This is a good thing. In contrast, trans fats have been observed to screw up your blood lipids. This is a bad thing.
Ironically, experimental research exists on healthy humans showing the least fat was oxidized on the monounsat fat dietary treatment, and the most fat oxidized on a trans fat diet. This result echoes what's been seen in rats as well. It appears that the tighter the control of the study, the less "superior" unsat fats turn out to be for any presumed effect on bodycomp compared to SFAs. Throw in the fact that a reducing SFA intake and increasing the degree of unsaturation of fatty acids reduces androstenedione, testosterone and free testosterone levels, then you have yet another wrinkle in the mix to concern yourself with.
Then you have MCTs, which are SFAs that exibit physiological behavior that's closer to CHO than fat. MCT has been hyped to death by those who sell it. But the point is that they are a type of SFA that may have some potential miniscule benefit on body comp & fat loss. I personally wouldn't spend a dime on them, but they nevertheless illustrate the fact that SFAs are a complex and highly varied groiup of compounds in terms of effect on health and bodycomp. The effects of each type of FA undoubtedly are gonna vary with the population in question, and they're gonna vary with the individual's response and individual protocol.
Not to mention, in the larger scheme of the diet, variations in degree of saturation of fat intake are probably not gonna make a damn bit of difference unless we're comparing diets that are composed predominantly of fat. so, that basically ends the discussion... Even then, we probably wouldn't see any comparable differences in the case of a calorie deficit, wherein FA saturation would make even less impact. To segue into theory, if one were concerned about maximizing test levels during a calorie deficit, he might want to specifically make sure he doesn't neglect the intake of SFA.
Ramble, ramble.. lol. Somebody get the duct tape
Do Sat. fats preferably get stored as body fat?
Linear Mode
