Fat: why are we so confused about whether or not we should include it in our diet?

Jul 29, 2021

5 min

Dr Duane Mellor

You’d be forgiven for being confused about whether or not you should eat fat. For a long time, people were told to stay well away from it entirely. But lately, fat seems to be back on the table – but only certain types of fat.


With so many conflicting messages about which types of fat to eat, it’s no wonder many people are confused about whether or not they should it. Here are just a few reasons why the advice about fat is so confusing – and how much fat you should really eat.


Some fat is essential in our diet as it gives us energy and helps us absorbs certain vitamins, including vitamin A, D and E. But there are many different types of fats and eating too much of certain types can be harmful to us. Unsaturated fats (also called monounsaturated or polyunsaturated) are known as “good” fats and are important for helping us lower cholesterol and keep our heart healthy. Unsaturated fats can be found in foods such as avocados, olive or peanut oils, and fish.


But saturated fats can be bad for us when eaten in excess, and can raise cholesterol and increase risk of heart disease. Trans fats can also increase cholesterol levels. Foods that contain saturated and trans fats include butter, cheese, bacon, biscuits and fried foods.


Fat is important

Many health authorities worldwide agree fat is an important part of a healthy diet – but that we should only get so many calories daily from fats.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends people get no more than 30% of their daily calories from fat – of which only 10% of daily calories should be from saturated fats, and less than 1% from trans fats.


The UK’s recommendations are much the same, limiting saturated fats to only 10% of our daily calorie intake – around 30g per day for men (around 270 calories) and 20g for women (around 180 calories).


But in Europe, health recommendations suggest fat should comprise between 20-35% of our total daily calories. There’s also no recommendations for how many calories should be from saturated or trans fats – just that these should be limited. In the US, people are only advised to limit saturated fat intake to less than 10% of daily calories.


So while there seems to be agreement in how much fat people should eat, the slight variations in these recommendations – as well as variations in how much of certain types of fat we should eat – might explain the confusion over whether or not we should eat fat and how much of it we should eat.


Misleading advice

If all the different recommendations weren’t confusing enough, there’s also a lot of information out there that’s either too simplistic or incorrect. This makes the recommendations about eating fat all the more complicated.


For example, the Joint British Societies (which publishes recommendations to help people reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease) recommends that only around 10% of a person’s total fat intake should come from saturated fats. As typically we consume 30-40% of our calories from fat, and international and government bodies recommend that around 30% of daily calories should come from fat, limiting saturated fats to 10% of this would mean they’d make up only 3% of our day’s calories. This would amount to little more than about 7g of saturated fat -– around two teaspoons of butter.


This differs from many other recommendations – such as from WHO – which states 10% of all the calories people eat daily should come from saturated fats. It’s also unclear whether such a strict restriction of saturated fats would have any benefit and would be difficult for many people to achieve as a variety of healthy foods – such as olive oil – can also contain saturated fats.


There’s also a lot of advice that’s too simplistic, which can be inadvertently misleading.


For example, one tip the British Heart Foundation recommends for swapping saturated for unsaturated fats is to use a spray oil or measuring oils, instead of just pouring it straight from the bottle.


But this doesn’t account for the fact that different types of oil have different saturated fat levels. Sunflower oil, for example, is already low in saturated fat, so using less would significantly reduce calories but only modestly reduce saturated fat levels.


Other advice from the British Heart Foundation includes avoiding frying foods and switching to semi-skimmed milk. But focusing on methods that have a minimal effect on saturated fat levels can make it more confusing to know which foods (and fats) to avoid. The easiest way to avoid saturated fats is avoiding foods like pies, cakes and biscuits. These foods are high in saturated fats and tend to be the greatest sources of them in most peoples’ diets.


Getting the right amount

Research suggests that we should get around a third of our energy from fat – two-thirds of which should be unsaturated fats.


Of course, certain food sources will contain different types of fats, and different levels of fats. For example, avocados and pies are both high in fat. But avocados are high in healthy monounsaturated fats, which are good for heart health and can lower cholesterol. Pies, on the other hand, are high in saturated fats, which can be bad for your heart and cholesterol levels.


The easiest way to make sure you’re eating enough of the right fats is to avoid foods that contain saturated and trans fats – such as butter, hard cheeses, pies, biscuits, pastries, cakes, processed meats and crisps. These foods are also high in salt, carbohydrates and sugar, so can also have other health harms such as increasing risk of high blood pressure.


Instead, try including sources of healthy fats – such as avocados, olive oil, nuts and fish. This will ensure that you’re not only getting enough fat in your diet, but that you’re getting the right kind of fats (around 75g a day for women and 90g for men).


Connect with:
Dr Duane Mellor

Dr Duane Mellor

Visiting Academic

Dr Mellor is an award-winning dietitian, science communicator, medical educator and researcher.

Food ScienceDieteticsDiabetesObesityNutrition
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts