Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
SPORT SCIENTIST
Banned
O.K., I've had a couple of slices:
From a health perspective, overall the body needs so little
fat to synthesise viable (but not optimal) levels of eicosanoids etc that inclusion at
just slightly above the 3% dietary energy or so required of EFA's
will almost certainly cover requirements. The detail of the
competition between metabolic pathways is far from clear in
this area and something I'd be hard pushed without considerable
reading to tell you about. Remember that when you research about
one thing it seems like its responsible for everything. Yes, there
is an effect of fat profile on sex hormone production.
If you start reading about protein, you'll find the same thing,
and carbohydrate the same thing. And that's all before you
even consider the timing of meal ingestion relative to training
or exercise!
Overall I would say. I tend to agree that the honeymoon period
for PUFA's is definitely over. For health monos are the clear
winners based on todays evidence.
Just as an aside- probably a random thought,
If a supplement is designed for endurance/weight loss - maybe the customer will
endure higher mct content to achieve their aim. If someone is
bulking up then increased energy per se is reqd in addition to protein. Also the look, taste and smell of the mix . . . . .
When you look at the shelves and decide on a supplement YOU
may look closely at the ingredients and follow much of what it
says on the packet. I'd estimate less than 5% of customers take
that much care. The way the pack looks and the cleverness of the
claims relative to the reality of what the stuff might do are much
more important, this is my gripe with most supplement companies.
Bon chance.
From a health perspective, overall the body needs so little
fat to synthesise viable (but not optimal) levels of eicosanoids etc that inclusion at
just slightly above the 3% dietary energy or so required of EFA's
will almost certainly cover requirements. The detail of the
competition between metabolic pathways is far from clear in
this area and something I'd be hard pushed without considerable
reading to tell you about. Remember that when you research about
one thing it seems like its responsible for everything. Yes, there
is an effect of fat profile on sex hormone production.
If you start reading about protein, you'll find the same thing,
and carbohydrate the same thing. And that's all before you
even consider the timing of meal ingestion relative to training
or exercise!
Overall I would say. I tend to agree that the honeymoon period
for PUFA's is definitely over. For health monos are the clear
winners based on todays evidence.
Just as an aside- probably a random thought,
If a supplement is designed for endurance/weight loss - maybe the customer will
endure higher mct content to achieve their aim. If someone is
bulking up then increased energy per se is reqd in addition to protein. Also the look, taste and smell of the mix . . . . .
When you look at the shelves and decide on a supplement YOU
may look closely at the ingredients and follow much of what it
says on the packet. I'd estimate less than 5% of customers take
that much care. The way the pack looks and the cleverness of the
claims relative to the reality of what the stuff might do are much
more important, this is my gripe with most supplement companies.
Bon chance.
, but i was already pretty familiar with GI. What i meant was recc. for other types of oil to pick up at the store that are good to use when im in a cutting diet. I currently use olive oil just about anywhere butter would be used, such as a little to help cook eggs or chicken breasts, and the stuff that I buy is Phillip Berrio Extra Virgin and says on the bottle "great for cooking or frying"
