Here's a good post on the macro breakdown of carbohydrates. http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/01/is-it-good-to-eat-sugar/comment-page-1/#comments Note: author changes his recommendations in the comments to 50% glucose 50% fructose/galactose combo.
Not scientific but interesting post on the macro breakdown of fats. http://nutritionovereasy.com/2012/05/is-there-an-optimal-ratio-of-pufas-mufas-and-saturated-fats/
Sorry to belabor the point, but since it was in the link you posted, I'm compelled to point out that refined (junk) carbs should not be grouped with good carbs: However, as researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health pointed out, it really depends on what you replace those saturated fats with. Those who cut back on saturated fats and replaced those calories with refined carbohydrates (low-fat cookies, for example) or hydrogenated oils (margarine, for example) may have jumped from the frying pan into the fire in terms of heart-damaging ingredients. On the other hand, those who cut back on saturated fats and replaced them with PUFAs did enjoy a 20% reduction in their heart disease risk. That excerpt is at odds with your earlier post: Just saying.
Haha, I knew you were going to point that out. There is no disputing that complex carbs are more complete and nutrient dense than refined carbs but refined carbs are not "bad" if not eaten with fat at the same meal. Also as long as refined carbs keep your macro carbs in the 50% glucose 50% ( fructose/galactose ) range, they may not do any heart-damaging at all.
This is where we disagree, and I'm quite convinced that you are wrong: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutrit...avid-ludwig-clears-up-carbohydrate-confusion/ The business of macronutrient separation in meals makes little sense to me. It may have provided for the interesting study and observation you linked earlier, but that is about the extent of it. If they absolutely must because they can't help themselves, people can get away with eating junk from time to time and in limited quantities, but let's not lose sight of the fact that it is junk. There is no nutritional justification for it, unlike the carbs found in whole foods. "Bad" carbs don't suddenly become "good" carbs because of the company they keep (or don't keep) at meals.
Disagree indeed. Although not entirely on topic : http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/03/05/eating-times-affect-circadian-rhythm-study-finds/ Pay particular attention to the correction at the end.
No worries. Have you found any justification for this conclusion: You realize, of course, that omega-3 fatty acids are polyunsaturated fats.
Geek science but readable : http://evilcyber.com/nutrition/disrobing-dogma-polyunsaturated-fat-and-health/ In other words, PUFA promote obesity by reducing the amount of heat fat cells (adypocytes) produce as part of their metabolic cycle : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4264041/
Tarnation! You're giving me vertigo. But in one of your prior links, as I quoted earlier: "...On the other hand, those who cut back on saturated fats and replaced them with PUFAs did enjoy a 20% reduction in their heart disease risk." http://nutritionovereasy.com/2012/05/is-there-an-optimal-ratio-of-pufas-mufas-and-saturated-fats/ You're freaking me out, bro.
Studies refute studies and all studies depend on variables, funding and time frame. Ultimately it is on the individual to figure out what works best for them. You asked a question on PUFA and I cited references. Coin flip, you decide...