"Twenty-three international health experts say they are concerned about the possible health effects of a harmful chemical found in some popular foods.
The experts made the announcement at the end of a recent meeting of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. The W-H-O and the Food and Agriculture Organization called the meeting to examine the results of earlier studies of the chemical, acrylamide (a-KRILL-a-mide). Acrylamide causes cancer in laboratory animals. There is no proof that it causes cancer in humans. However, it is known to damage the human nervous system.
In April, Swedish scientists found high levels of acrylamide in several kinds of carbohydrate foods that are fried or baked at high temperatures. They include French fried potatoes, potato chips, crackers, breakfast cereals and bread. Millions of people around the world eat these foods.
Sweden?s National Food Administration tested more than one-hundred different kinds of carbohydrate foods. It found that a bag of potato chips contained five-hundred times more acrylamide than is considered safe by the W-H-O. Researchers also tested French fried potatoes from an American fast-food eating place. They found one-hundred times the safe limit of acrylamide. They also found high levels of the chemical in some cereals. Similar results were found in later studies done in Norway, Britain, Switzerland, Germany and the United States."
"Twenty-three international health experts say they are concerned about the possible health effects of a harmful chemical found in some popular foods.
The experts made the announcement at the end of a recent meeting of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. The W-H-O and the Food and Agriculture Organization called the meeting to examine the results of earlier studies of the chemical, acrylamide (a-KRILL-a-mide). Acrylamide causes cancer in laboratory animals. There is no proof that it causes cancer in humans. However, it is known to damage the human nervous system.
In April, Swedish scientists found high levels of acrylamide in several kinds of carbohydrate foods that are fried or baked at high temperatures. They include French fried potatoes, potato chips, crackers, breakfast cereals and bread. Millions of people around the world eat these foods.
Sweden?s National Food Administration tested more than one-hundred different kinds of carbohydrate foods. It found that a bag of potato chips contained five-hundred times more acrylamide than is considered safe by the W-H-O. Researchers also tested French fried potatoes from an American fast-food eating place. They found one-hundred times the safe limit of acrylamide. They also found high levels of the chemical in some cereals. Similar results were found in later studies done in Norway, Britain, Switzerland, Germany and the United States."
I think the point in bringing up french fries in the first place was to show that they do not need a relatively ridiculous amount of trans fats to taste good, and that they are simply an example of McDonalds cutting corners. Now I'm horrible at organic chemistry and absolutely nothing of a dietician, but why should there be 11g of trans fats when it's perfectly feasible to just have .5g? I don't think it is "laughable" to be concerned over needlessly accruing trans fat, when it could be quite detrimental to your diet.
Of course, this doesn't automatically make french fries healthy or anything like that as they still have to be considered in context of what other things a person eats. But there's no point in tossing a can of margarine on your salad, yknow? (It's ok if you don't, I'm not sure quite where that metaphor came from myself.)
Fries without trans fat are a little limp. It's the trans fat that gives it that extra crunch.
The other alternative is to use more saturated fats like peanut oil, palm oil, etc, but lots of people are allergic to these. Or lard (hmm-hmm Grandma Utz Potato Chips). These of course, being saturated fats, are just as bad for you. Just not trendy to hate on.
But french fries only exist to taste good. They're not healthy. They'll never be healthy. They're fried carb. And trans fats aren't unhealthy enough to warrant anywhere near the hysteria they've received in the past couple of years.
Finally, McDonalds french fries don't contain "ridulous"amounts of trans fat.
1 medium serving contains 4g trans fat, 3g saturated fat, and 11g unsaturated fat. (11g trans fat is only in the supersize, I'm assuming...) That's still a healthier proportion of unsaturated to trans/saturated fats than butter.
The two issues we are talking about here has nothing to do with the calorie balance (what in the case of trans fatty acid is clear from the study cited by BRussel). That would be like saying second hand smoking would be cured by a daily workout
There is no reason why we should have artificial trans fatty acids in our food. Greg insist in being wrong about trans fatty acids: We have had margarine w/o trans fatty acids before the ban, we have it now and its not any more expensive. And again: the McD frensh fries taste just like the german, spanish, english and hungarian ones that contains trans fatty acids, There, Is, No. Degrading. In. TASTE!!!! McD use sunflower and Rapeseed oils and it works perfect.
A Big Mac in Denmark costs US$4.49, the second highest in the world.
Here in Hong Kong, it costs only US $1.55.
Do the math.
Even if the price parity for fries is not three times (which I have no idea whether it's the case or not), you know costs across the menu subsidize each other.
That has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
I am talking about the price change from before they went trans fatty acid free until now. That chart most likely reflects the difference in wage for workers at McDs across countries.Here it is MINIMUM $16/h here (plus 10% pension), around $10/h after tax for +18 year olds (PDF here. One dollar is about six danisk kr).
Besides I don´t know where they get that price from. Big Macs costs $3.30 here in Copenhagen, gone DOWN from about $4-4.20 before the new legislation. So trans fatty acid free fat must be cheaper than ordinary fat, right?
The best way to see it is by looking at the margarine price from before and after the legislation because it factors out stuff that also affects the price and there has been no price change.PDF here
Get off your fat ass and exercise and there's very few limitations one need impose on their diet.
The "Exercise Or Die, Fatty" line is a crowd pleaser, sure, but it is not a good basis for policy. Such thinking could extend to any dangerous behaviors people want to take part in.
Why not completely deregulate all alcohol, tobacco and drugs? I mean, it's not like anyone forces people to do these things.
Part of the government's job is to regulate industries for the benefit of the people at large. That's the logic behind all regulatory laws, even those no one argues with (slavery, for instance).
We shouldn't just write off Fat America. Saying "just exercise" doesn't do anything except make someone who isn't a giant fatty feel better about themselves.
People shouldn't be so fat. People should exercise. Skinny people have every right to be irritated when fatty hangs over into their seat on an airplane. The point of regulation isn't to forgive fatty for being fat (or make it seem like it's ok to be fat, because it's not), but to hold an industry a little tiny bit responsible for the impact of the product it spends hundreds of millions of dollars to sell to the people.
I really don't understand why people get so angry in favor of these food manufacturers/sellers who purposely increase the health risks inside their food to make very small gains in price.
Take a step back from the fat hate for a second and look at what's going on.
What's worse: Regulating the fast/snack/junk food industries or rising social health care costs because Fatty McNomoney clogged up his arteries and now the taxpayer has to pay for the quintuple bypass?
Let's make the fast food companies clean up their act.
Let's take candy and soda out of schools.
Let's limit how much and what kind of advertising sellers/producers of risky food can direct towards kids.
Let's invest money in experimental food sources like omega3 pigs.
Technology has reduced our workload and increased our calorie-load. Let's start using technology for our benefit.
America is suffocating in its own fat rolls and the best we can come up with is, "hey, don't be so fat you stupid fatty!"?
In addition to what has been said about the very real, very proven unsafe nature of TFA's (as currently consumed by the average American eating the average American diet).....In general, it's simply unsafe to fry or cook nearly any oil at high temps....because oxygen combines with the oil's unsaturated fat resulting in free radicals - known carcinogens.
I believe 100º Celsius/212º Farenheit and below is the safe temp. for cooking with oils.
Speaking of high temps & french fries - French fries, whether Danish or American, are loaded with Acrolein - a carcinogen the WHO is concerned about....and clearly states DOES cause cancer in Lab animals.
gregmightdothat, try doing a google search on Coconut/Palm oil. It is, in fact, NOT an oil people are widely allergic to. A plurality of Naturopaths that I know (I work in health care) from Northwest College of Natural Medicine would find your statement..not quite verifiable.
Finally, McDonalds french fries don't contain "ridulous"amounts of trans fat.
1 medium serving contains 4g trans fat, 3g saturated fat, and 11g unsaturated fat. (11g trans fat is only in the supersize, I'm assuming...) That's still a healthier proportion of unsaturated to trans/saturated fats than butter.
I'm sorry, gregmightdothat, to disagree with you...but, ahhh, there is NO such thing as "safe" amount of TFA's.
Here, let me give you a link, I hope you can trust the very conservative source:
? Consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids and less than 300 mg/day of cholesterol, and keep trans fatty acid consumption as low as possible.
And, another piece of info, again from a rather conservative source "in April 2004, the FDA Food Advisory Committee voted in favor of recommending that trans fatty acid intake level be reduced to "less than 1% of energy (2g per day of a 2000 kcal diet)"
Now, less conservative sources (Naturopaths, or essentially anyone who is NOT connected to the political/lobbyist money-tit) say that Zero TFA is the safest way to go.
ps: We know the FDA is --only-- recommending that TFA's be <1% of daily intake (instead of Zero) because they are so owned by monstrously huge/rich corporations that churn out tons of that crap...and churn out tons of political dollars for their political whores. Food is only safe, in the U.S., as the amount of Money backing the FDA study...Dig?
The "Exercise Or Die, Fatty" line is a crowd pleaser, sure, but it is not a good basis for policy. Such thinking could extend to any dangerous behaviors people want to take part in.
Why not completely deregulate all alcohol, tobacco and drugs? I mean, it's not like anyone forces people to do these things.
Part of the government's job is to regulate industries for the benefit of the people at large. That's the logic behind all regulatory laws, even those no one argues with (slavery, for instance).
We shouldn't just write off Fat America. Saying "just exercise" doesn't do anything except make someone who isn't a giant fatty feel better about themselves.
People shouldn't be so fat. People should exercise. Skinny people have every right to be irritated when fatty hangs over into their seat on an airplane. The point of regulation isn't to forgive fatty for being fat (or make it seem like it's ok to be fat, because it's not), but to hold an industry a little tiny bit responsible for the impact of the product it spends hundreds of millions of dollars to sell to the people.
I really don't understand why people get so angry in favor of these food manufacturers/sellers who purposely increase the health risks inside their food to make very small gains in price.
Take a step back from the fat hate for a second and look at what's going on.
What's worse: Regulating the fast/snack/junk food industries or rising social health care costs because Fatty McNomoney clogged up his arteries and now the taxpayer has to pay for the quintuple bypass?
Let's make the fast food companies clean up their act.
Let's take candy and soda out of schools.
Let's limit how much and what kind of advertising sellers/producers of risky food can direct towards kids.
Let's invest money in experimental food sources like omega3 pigs.
Technology has reduced our workload and increased our calorie-load. Let's start using technology for our benefit.
America is suffocating in its own fat rolls and the best we can come up with is, "hey, don't be so fat you stupid fatty!"?
I don't want to argue against regulating TFAs per say but it is a bit naive to think that it is the solution to the problem. It will help, but personal responsibility for one's weight and heath is far more important. It's a 'crowd pleaser' for conservatives to blame the fatty but also a 'crowd pleaser' for liberals to blame big business. IMO regulating TFAa alone will have a minor impact on health and obesity. It won't hurt, but the major cause of obesity in the USA is sedentary lifestyles.
The two issues we are talking about here has nothing to do with the calorie balance (what in the case of trans fatty acid is clear from the study cited by BRussel). That would be like saying second hand smoking would be cured by a daily workout
Actually, that study pointed to an increase in heart disease, which is a result of high cholesterol. Assuming that one gets their cholesterol checked up every few years, and it's reasonable, than trans fats are fine for them.
If your cholesterol levels ARE high, then obviously you need to avoid trans fats, saturated fats, etc, until you get them under control.
By the way, that's a terrible analogy.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
McD use sunflower and Rapeseed oils and it works perfect.
Really? I would've assumed they'd use more saturated fats.
Just because it is merely a guideline doesn't negate the dangers of TFA's.
If TFA's weren't bad for the health, then the FDA would't be recommending that they *only* make up <1% of daily energy intake.
btw: it's a guideline because in the United States, we have a so-called Democracy with a free people who can't be ordered/commanded to eat well. Were we a Fascist Dictatorship, then I'm sure it would be a Mandate.
I don't want to argue against regulating TFAs per say but it is a bit naive to think that it is the solution to the problem. It will help, but personal responsibility for one's weight and heath is far more important. It's a 'crowd pleaser' for conservatives to blame the fatty but also a 'crowd pleaser' for liberals to blame big business. IMO regulating TFAa alone will have a minor impact on health and obesity. It won't hurt, but the major cause of obesity in the USA is sedentary lifestyles.
Exactly. Even if you're eating properly (because someone outlawed any food that might possibly be slightly unhealthy, or taste good ), you can still develop heart problems from not exercising.
Also, different people have different dietary needs (thus the USDA turning the food pyramid on it's side. (Although what's the point of a recommended guideline if they're no longer recommending anything? )
For instance, one of my friends is a 21 female and ridulously skinny. Lipitor for life.
I, on the other hand, grew up fairly chubby, and didn't take off the weight until a few years ago. For some reason, though, I can eat all the fat I want; it doesn't affect me. I butter everything up and my cholesterol's fine. But pasta is death to me. (Also, to be honest, I hardly eat any trans fat at all I did have some Oreo's the other day, that's about it.)
Actually, that study pointed to an increase in heart disease, which is a result of high cholesterol. Assuming that one gets their cholesterol checked up every few years, and it's reasonable, than trans fats are fine for them.
If your cholesterol levels ARE high, then obviously you need to avoid trans fats, saturated fats, etc, until you get them under control.
By the way, that's a terrible analogy.
That was the point! Rageous was talking about regular obesity which isn´t the same as the problem with saturated fat, TFAs and cholesterol. You can be thin because of an energy balanced diet but have cloghed veins. Obesity is a energy balance problem. Heart problems are (mostly) a result of the types of fat you eat.
That was the point! Rageous was talking about regular obesity which isn´t the same as the problem with saturated fat, TFAs and cholesterol. You can be thin because of an energy balanced diet but have cloghed veins. Obesity is a energy balance problem. Heart problems are (mostly) a result of the types of fat you eat.
Right, but it's slightly deeper than that. Unsaturated fats actually lower your cholesterol. Additionally, your response to trans fats and saturated fats is largely genetic.
People with high cholesterol need to avoid trans fats. Most people don't have to worry.
Comments
Originally posted by icfireball
Trans Fats are bloody hell for your body.
Just as bad is high fructose corn syrup, which is found in oh so many different foods and drinks.
Nobody mentioned Acrylamide:
"Twenty-three international health experts say they are concerned about the possible health effects of a harmful chemical found in some popular foods.
The experts made the announcement at the end of a recent meeting of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. The W-H-O and the Food and Agriculture Organization called the meeting to examine the results of earlier studies of the chemical, acrylamide (a-KRILL-a-mide). Acrylamide causes cancer in laboratory animals. There is no proof that it causes cancer in humans. However, it is known to damage the human nervous system.
In April, Swedish scientists found high levels of acrylamide in several kinds of carbohydrate foods that are fried or baked at high temperatures. They include French fried potatoes, potato chips, crackers, breakfast cereals and bread. Millions of people around the world eat these foods.
Sweden?s National Food Administration tested more than one-hundred different kinds of carbohydrate foods. It found that a bag of potato chips contained five-hundred times more acrylamide than is considered safe by the W-H-O. Researchers also tested French fried potatoes from an American fast-food eating place. They found one-hundred times the safe limit of acrylamide. They also found high levels of the chemical in some cereals. Similar results were found in later studies done in Norway, Britain, Switzerland, Germany and the United States."
VOA story
Wikipedia information concerning acrylamide
Acrylamide Infonet
Fellows
Originally posted by Fellowship
Trans-fat is just but one problem...
Nobody mentioned Acrylamide:
"Twenty-three international health experts say they are concerned about the possible health effects of a harmful chemical found in some popular foods.
The experts made the announcement at the end of a recent meeting of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. The W-H-O and the Food and Agriculture Organization called the meeting to examine the results of earlier studies of the chemical, acrylamide (a-KRILL-a-mide). Acrylamide causes cancer in laboratory animals. There is no proof that it causes cancer in humans. However, it is known to damage the human nervous system.
In April, Swedish scientists found high levels of acrylamide in several kinds of carbohydrate foods that are fried or baked at high temperatures. They include French fried potatoes, potato chips, crackers, breakfast cereals and bread. Millions of people around the world eat these foods.
Sweden?s National Food Administration tested more than one-hundred different kinds of carbohydrate foods. It found that a bag of potato chips contained five-hundred times more acrylamide than is considered safe by the W-H-O. Researchers also tested French fried potatoes from an American fast-food eating place. They found one-hundred times the safe limit of acrylamide. They also found high levels of the chemical in some cereals. Similar results were found in later studies done in Norway, Britain, Switzerland, Germany and the United States."
VOA story
Fellows
Yuck. I just mixed up a beaker of that stuff!
Originally posted by Fellowship
Trans-fat is just but one problem...
Nobody mentioned Acrylamide...
Wonderful. As if Bird Flu isn't bad enough, now potato chips might kill us.
There is no end of things to worry about in this life.
Originally posted by Lupa
I think the point in bringing up french fries in the first place was to show that they do not need a relatively ridiculous amount of trans fats to taste good, and that they are simply an example of McDonalds cutting corners. Now I'm horrible at organic chemistry and absolutely nothing of a dietician, but why should there be 11g of trans fats when it's perfectly feasible to just have .5g? I don't think it is "laughable" to be concerned over needlessly accruing trans fat, when it could be quite detrimental to your diet.
Of course, this doesn't automatically make french fries healthy or anything like that as they still have to be considered in context of what other things a person eats. But there's no point in tossing a can of margarine on your salad, yknow? (It's ok if you don't, I'm not sure quite where that metaphor came from myself.)
Fries without trans fat are a little limp. It's the trans fat that gives it that extra crunch.
The other alternative is to use more saturated fats like peanut oil, palm oil, etc, but lots of people are allergic to these. Or lard (hmm-hmm Grandma Utz Potato Chips). These of course, being saturated fats, are just as bad for you. Just not trendy to hate on.
But french fries only exist to taste good. They're not healthy. They'll never be healthy. They're fried carb. And trans fats aren't unhealthy enough to warrant anywhere near the hysteria they've received in the past couple of years.
Finally, McDonalds french fries don't contain "ridulous"amounts of trans fat.
1 medium serving contains 4g trans fat, 3g saturated fat, and 11g unsaturated fat. (11g trans fat is only in the supersize, I'm assuming...) That's still a healthier proportion of unsaturated to trans/saturated fats than butter.
We're all eating farmer's breakfasts, then going out and working banker's hours.
The information society is killing us, as millions sit in front of computer terminals all day, then come home and watch tv.
That's the real problem.
The two issues we are talking about here has nothing to do with the calorie balance (what in the case of trans fatty acid is clear from the study cited by BRussel). That would be like saying second hand smoking would be cured by a daily workout
There is no reason why we should have artificial trans fatty acids in our food. Greg insist in being wrong about trans fatty acids: We have had margarine w/o trans fatty acids before the ban, we have it now and its not any more expensive. And again: the McD frensh fries taste just like the german, spanish, english and hungarian ones that contains trans fatty acids, There, Is, No. Degrading. In. TASTE!!!! McD use sunflower and Rapeseed oils and it works perfect.
Originally posted by tonton
Got to stop you right there.
A Big Mac in Denmark costs US$4.49, the second highest in the world.
Here in Hong Kong, it costs only US $1.55.
Do the math.
Even if the price parity for fries is not three times (which I have no idea whether it's the case or not), you know costs across the menu subsidize each other.
That has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
I am talking about the price change from before they went trans fatty acid free until now. That chart most likely reflects the difference in wage for workers at McDs across countries.Here it is MINIMUM $16/h here (plus 10% pension), around $10/h after tax for +18 year olds (PDF here. One dollar is about six danisk kr).
Besides I don´t know where they get that price from. Big Macs costs $3.30 here in Copenhagen, gone DOWN from about $4-4.20 before the new legislation. So trans fatty acid free fat must be cheaper than ordinary fat, right?
The best way to see it is by looking at the margarine price from before and after the legislation because it factors out stuff that also affects the price and there has been no price change.PDF here
Get off your fat ass and exercise and there's very few limitations one need impose on their diet.
The "Exercise Or Die, Fatty" line is a crowd pleaser, sure, but it is not a good basis for policy. Such thinking could extend to any dangerous behaviors people want to take part in.
Why not completely deregulate all alcohol, tobacco and drugs? I mean, it's not like anyone forces people to do these things.
Part of the government's job is to regulate industries for the benefit of the people at large. That's the logic behind all regulatory laws, even those no one argues with (slavery, for instance).
We shouldn't just write off Fat America. Saying "just exercise" doesn't do anything except make someone who isn't a giant fatty feel better about themselves.
People shouldn't be so fat. People should exercise. Skinny people have every right to be irritated when fatty hangs over into their seat on an airplane. The point of regulation isn't to forgive fatty for being fat (or make it seem like it's ok to be fat, because it's not), but to hold an industry a little tiny bit responsible for the impact of the product it spends hundreds of millions of dollars to sell to the people.
I really don't understand why people get so angry in favor of these food manufacturers/sellers who purposely increase the health risks inside their food to make very small gains in price.
Take a step back from the fat hate for a second and look at what's going on.
What's worse: Regulating the fast/snack/junk food industries or rising social health care costs because Fatty McNomoney clogged up his arteries and now the taxpayer has to pay for the quintuple bypass?
Let's make the fast food companies clean up their act.
Let's take candy and soda out of schools.
Let's limit how much and what kind of advertising sellers/producers of risky food can direct towards kids.
Let's invest money in experimental food sources like omega3 pigs.
Technology has reduced our workload and increased our calorie-load. Let's start using technology for our benefit.
America is suffocating in its own fat rolls and the best we can come up with is, "hey, don't be so fat you stupid fatty!"?
I believe 100º Celsius/212º Farenheit and below is the safe temp. for cooking with oils.
Speaking of high temps & french fries - French fries, whether Danish or American, are loaded with Acrolein - a carcinogen the WHO is concerned about....and clearly states DOES cause cancer in Lab animals.
gregmightdothat, try doing a google search on Coconut/Palm oil. It is, in fact, NOT an oil people are widely allergic to. A plurality of Naturopaths that I know (I work in health care) from Northwest College of Natural Medicine would find your statement..not quite verifiable.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
=
Finally, McDonalds french fries don't contain "ridulous"amounts of trans fat.
1 medium serving contains 4g trans fat, 3g saturated fat, and 11g unsaturated fat. (11g trans fat is only in the supersize, I'm assuming...) That's still a healthier proportion of unsaturated to trans/saturated fats than butter.
I'm sorry, gregmightdothat, to disagree with you...but, ahhh, there is NO such thing as "safe" amount of TFA's.
Here, let me give you a link, I hope you can trust the very conservative source:
http://www.health.gov/dietaryguideli...mendations.htm
Here is the key point to consider from that link:
? Consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids and less than 300 mg/day of cholesterol, and keep trans fatty acid consumption as low as possible.
And, another piece of info, again from a rather conservative source "in April 2004, the FDA Food Advisory Committee voted in favor of recommending that trans fatty acid intake level be reduced to "less than 1% of energy (2g per day of a 2000 kcal diet)"
Now, less conservative sources (Naturopaths, or essentially anyone who is NOT connected to the political/lobbyist money-tit) say that Zero TFA is the safest way to go.
ps: We know the FDA is --only-- recommending that TFA's be <1% of daily intake (instead of Zero) because they are so owned by monstrously huge/rich corporations that churn out tons of that crap...and churn out tons of political dollars for their political whores. Food is only safe, in the U.S., as the amount of Money backing the FDA study...Dig?
Originally posted by user23
I'm sorry, gregmightdothat, to disagree with you...but, ahhh, there is NO such thing as "safe" amount of TFA's.
Here, let me give you a link, I hope you can trust the very conservative source:
http://www.health.gov/dietaryguideli...mendations.htm
Um, that's a *guideline*.
Originally posted by groverat
The "Exercise Or Die, Fatty" line is a crowd pleaser, sure, but it is not a good basis for policy. Such thinking could extend to any dangerous behaviors people want to take part in.
Why not completely deregulate all alcohol, tobacco and drugs? I mean, it's not like anyone forces people to do these things.
Part of the government's job is to regulate industries for the benefit of the people at large. That's the logic behind all regulatory laws, even those no one argues with (slavery, for instance).
We shouldn't just write off Fat America. Saying "just exercise" doesn't do anything except make someone who isn't a giant fatty feel better about themselves.
People shouldn't be so fat. People should exercise. Skinny people have every right to be irritated when fatty hangs over into their seat on an airplane. The point of regulation isn't to forgive fatty for being fat (or make it seem like it's ok to be fat, because it's not), but to hold an industry a little tiny bit responsible for the impact of the product it spends hundreds of millions of dollars to sell to the people.
I really don't understand why people get so angry in favor of these food manufacturers/sellers who purposely increase the health risks inside their food to make very small gains in price.
Take a step back from the fat hate for a second and look at what's going on.
What's worse: Regulating the fast/snack/junk food industries or rising social health care costs because Fatty McNomoney clogged up his arteries and now the taxpayer has to pay for the quintuple bypass?
Let's make the fast food companies clean up their act.
Let's take candy and soda out of schools.
Let's limit how much and what kind of advertising sellers/producers of risky food can direct towards kids.
Let's invest money in experimental food sources like omega3 pigs.
Technology has reduced our workload and increased our calorie-load. Let's start using technology for our benefit.
America is suffocating in its own fat rolls and the best we can come up with is, "hey, don't be so fat you stupid fatty!"?
I don't want to argue against regulating TFAs per say but it is a bit naive to think that it is the solution to the problem. It will help, but personal responsibility for one's weight and heath is far more important. It's a 'crowd pleaser' for conservatives to blame the fatty but also a 'crowd pleaser' for liberals to blame big business. IMO regulating TFAa alone will have a minor impact on health and obesity. It won't hurt, but the major cause of obesity in the USA is sedentary lifestyles.
Originally posted by Anders
No you actually have it wrong.
The two issues we are talking about here has nothing to do with the calorie balance (what in the case of trans fatty acid is clear from the study cited by BRussel). That would be like saying second hand smoking would be cured by a daily workout
Actually, that study pointed to an increase in heart disease, which is a result of high cholesterol. Assuming that one gets their cholesterol checked up every few years, and it's reasonable, than trans fats are fine for them.
If your cholesterol levels ARE high, then obviously you need to avoid trans fats, saturated fats, etc, until you get them under control.
By the way, that's a terrible analogy.
Originally posted by Anders
McD use sunflower and Rapeseed oils and it works perfect.
Really? I would've assumed they'd use more saturated fats.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Um, that's a *guideline*.
Just because it is merely a guideline doesn't negate the dangers of TFA's.
If TFA's weren't bad for the health, then the FDA would't be recommending that they *only* make up <1% of daily energy intake.
btw: it's a guideline because in the United States, we have a so-called Democracy with a free people who can't be ordered/commanded to eat well. Were we a Fascist Dictatorship, then I'm sure it would be a Mandate.
Originally posted by backtomac
I don't want to argue against regulating TFAs per say but it is a bit naive to think that it is the solution to the problem. It will help, but personal responsibility for one's weight and heath is far more important. It's a 'crowd pleaser' for conservatives to blame the fatty but also a 'crowd pleaser' for liberals to blame big business. IMO regulating TFAa alone will have a minor impact on health and obesity. It won't hurt, but the major cause of obesity in the USA is sedentary lifestyles.
Exactly. Even if you're eating properly (because someone outlawed any food that might possibly be slightly unhealthy, or taste good
Also, different people have different dietary needs (thus the USDA turning the food pyramid on it's side. (Although what's the point of a recommended guideline if they're no longer recommending anything?
For instance, one of my friends is a 21 female and ridulously skinny. Lipitor for life.
I, on the other hand, grew up fairly chubby, and didn't take off the weight until a few years ago. For some reason, though, I can eat all the fat I want; it doesn't affect me. I butter everything up and my cholesterol's fine. But pasta is death to me. (Also, to be honest, I hardly eat any trans fat at all
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Actually, that study pointed to an increase in heart disease, which is a result of high cholesterol. Assuming that one gets their cholesterol checked up every few years, and it's reasonable, than trans fats are fine for them.
If your cholesterol levels ARE high, then obviously you need to avoid trans fats, saturated fats, etc, until you get them under control.
By the way, that's a terrible analogy.
That was the point! Rageous was talking about regular obesity which isn´t the same as the problem with saturated fat, TFAs and cholesterol. You can be thin because of an energy balanced diet but have cloghed veins. Obesity is a energy balance problem. Heart problems are (mostly) a result of the types of fat you eat.
Originally posted by Anders
That was the point! Rageous was talking about regular obesity which isn´t the same as the problem with saturated fat, TFAs and cholesterol. You can be thin because of an energy balanced diet but have cloghed veins. Obesity is a energy balance problem. Heart problems are (mostly) a result of the types of fat you eat.
Right, but it's slightly deeper than that. Unsaturated fats actually lower your cholesterol. Additionally, your response to trans fats and saturated fats is largely genetic.
People with high cholesterol need to avoid trans fats. Most people don't have to worry.