Trans-fatty acids
August 16, 2002 7:12 AM Subscribe
Trans-fatty acids are described as being "a secret killer", and "about as bad as bad gets". The US FDA does not currently require trans fats to be listed on product labels, but that may soon be changing.
This won't do a thing to solve the massive obesity problem in this country.
Hm...
Vitriol aside, I'm still in favor of better labelling. For example: in my pantry is a box of 'reduced fat' crackers, rated as 3 grams of fat per serving. That's not too bad, but further reading of the label seems to suggest that all of it comes from hydrogenated oils, i.e. trans fatty acids. I'd like to be able to see these things at a glance, with less sleuthing required.
posted by atavistech at 7:52 AM on August 16, 2002
Hm...
Vitriol aside, I'm still in favor of better labelling. For example: in my pantry is a box of 'reduced fat' crackers, rated as 3 grams of fat per serving. That's not too bad, but further reading of the label seems to suggest that all of it comes from hydrogenated oils, i.e. trans fatty acids. I'd like to be able to see these things at a glance, with less sleuthing required.
posted by atavistech at 7:52 AM on August 16, 2002
I agree with atavistech. I have been trying for at least five years to avoid buying things with trans fatty acids. Obesity aside, I don't want to be consuming artifical chemical cocktails in place of food or giving them to my family. It's gotten to where I make almost everything from scratch that we eat. Labeling might encourage some food manufactures to look to healthier alternatives.o
posted by janespeed at 8:10 AM on August 16, 2002
posted by janespeed at 8:10 AM on August 16, 2002
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that the problem with trans-fatty acids is not that they're more fattening, but that they put people more at risk for various forms of disease. So, no, it wouldn't affect the massive obesity problem.
posted by callmejay at 8:16 AM on August 16, 2002
posted by callmejay at 8:16 AM on August 16, 2002
You completely miss the point, insomnyuk. Fattening isn't the issue here, really, heart disease is.
Anyways, I've been trying to eliminate trans fat from my diet for about a year now, and amazed at how hard it is if you eat any fast food or heavily processed food. It sort of pushes you into buying health food products. Which is sort of a disturbing realization: that most of the food most Americans eat is dangerous...
posted by AlexSteffen at 8:21 AM on August 16, 2002
Anyways, I've been trying to eliminate trans fat from my diet for about a year now, and amazed at how hard it is if you eat any fast food or heavily processed food. It sort of pushes you into buying health food products. Which is sort of a disturbing realization: that most of the food most Americans eat is dangerous...
posted by AlexSteffen at 8:21 AM on August 16, 2002
On the other hand... Julia Child, 90 years old, lover of butter, steak, and gin. A true hero. Her advice? "Eat some of everything, but not too much, and no seconds." (took the quote from last night's Nightline). Not that trans-fats are bad, they undoubtedly are, but maybe not as big a problem in the US as, say, overeating and reliance on only a few food groups rather than a balanced intake?
posted by The Michael The at 8:24 AM on August 16, 2002
posted by The Michael The at 8:24 AM on August 16, 2002
Well, there are different levels of health, even among people who are overweight, and there is a huge difference in the various kinds of dietary fats. Trans fat can do some pretty nasty stuff to your body, above and beyond just contributing fat to the diet. Also, there are fats that are extremely good for you, such as Omega-3 fatty acids. OTOH, it does appear that there is NO amount of trans fat that isn't harmful. So, Insomnyuk, despite your dismissive attitude, there really is some benefit in educating people about this sort of thin
posted by Fenriss at 8:28 AM on August 16, 2002
posted by Fenriss at 8:28 AM on August 16, 2002
this sort of thing.
This is at least the second time the last letter of my post has been eaten. What gives?
posted by Fenriss at 8:30 AM on August 16, 2002
This is at least the second time the last letter of my post has been eaten. What gives?
posted by Fenriss at 8:30 AM on August 16, 2002
Thanks for the links, atavistech. I've been meaning to check into this trans-fatty acids thin. (You will note that I am channeling both Ricky Ricardo and Fenriss). Again, it looks like processed foods are the main culprit, the reason I thank goddess for Trader Joe's.
posted by troybob at 8:42 AM on August 16, 2002
posted by troybob at 8:42 AM on August 16, 2002
That last letter had no trans-fatty acids, and was found to be delicious by the MetaFilter server.
posted by websavvy at 9:22 AM on August 16, 2002
posted by websavvy at 9:22 AM on August 16, 2002
troybob: watch it, bub, that's my wife you're 'channelling'... ;)
posted by atavistech at 9:27 AM on August 16, 2002
posted by atavistech at 9:27 AM on August 16, 2002
Websavvy: Hee. Thanks for the giggle. It's been a HELL of a week.
Full disclosure- I am indeed atavistech's wife. So of course I'm gonna support his first-ever FPP (way to go, honey!) But that doesn't mean I don't stand behind what I've said.
posted by Fenriss at 9:44 AM on August 16, 2002
Full disclosure- I am indeed atavistech's wife. So of course I'm gonna support his first-ever FPP (way to go, honey!) But that doesn't mean I don't stand behind what I've said.
posted by Fenriss at 9:44 AM on August 16, 2002
eat any fast food or heavily processed food
That's your problem right there. People rely on fast food and highly processed food, an additionial tag on the label will really only benefit the health-conscious, that's fine.
Fattening isn't the issue here, really, heart disease is.
Isn't obesity a direct contributor to heart disease?
posted by insomnyuk at 10:04 AM on August 16, 2002
That's your problem right there. People rely on fast food and highly processed food, an additionial tag on the label will really only benefit the health-conscious, that's fine.
Fattening isn't the issue here, really, heart disease is.
Isn't obesity a direct contributor to heart disease?
posted by insomnyuk at 10:04 AM on August 16, 2002
My wife and I read up on the Trans-Fatty acid thing, then went through the cupboards and fridge, filling 4 grocery bags with foods packed with the offensive crap. Two months later, we started Atkins. Eating fresh, whole, real food is the ticket. I feel a lot healthier, and between the two of us, in only 4 weeks on Atkins, we've dropped about 30lbs.
posted by gnz2001 at 10:07 AM on August 16, 2002
posted by gnz2001 at 10:07 AM on August 16, 2002
I've found it's best to avoid processed foods pretty much altogether. My fridge is stuffed with fresh meat, poultry, fish, vegetables and fruit. 95% of my family's food intake is prepared in the home from fresh ingredients, from scratch. We try to limit simple starches as much as possible, but other than that we don't concern ourselves with weighing our foods, or cutting down on red meat, or any other dietary shennanigans.
In the last four months (since I started tracking) I've lost 30 pounds and my cholesterol hasn't looked this good since I was a teenager. I know I've probably lost more as we committed ourselves to eating this way about 7 months ago, but I wasn't checking.
I feel better, and that motivates me to be more active as well.
Of course, in today's America, eating like this is expensive and inconvenient. Weekly shopping takes me to two stores-- one of which is a considerable distance from home-- because my nearby stores don't have the variety (or quality) of produce or meats we need.
posted by Cerebus at 10:16 AM on August 16, 2002
In the last four months (since I started tracking) I've lost 30 pounds and my cholesterol hasn't looked this good since I was a teenager. I know I've probably lost more as we committed ourselves to eating this way about 7 months ago, but I wasn't checking.
I feel better, and that motivates me to be more active as well.
Of course, in today's America, eating like this is expensive and inconvenient. Weekly shopping takes me to two stores-- one of which is a considerable distance from home-- because my nearby stores don't have the variety (or quality) of produce or meats we need.
posted by Cerebus at 10:16 AM on August 16, 2002
Two months later, we started Atkins. Eating fresh, whole, real food is the ticket. I feel a lot healthier, and between the two of us, in only 4 weeks on Atkins, we've dropped about 30lbs.
that might be good in the short term, but it's dangerous to cut carbohydrates completely from your diet. yahoo's reuters feed has an article on just this: "Diets that are heavy on protein-rich foods and skimp on carbohydrates can increase the risk of kidney stones and reduce the body's ability to absorb calcium after just 6 weeks, researchers report."
keep in mind, however, that the study sample size was 10 people, and that the study took place over 8 weeks in total.
what's worked for me has been simply to eat less and cut unnecessary food out of my diet. i drink less soda, fewer snacks: that sort of thing. another good boost is by altering your eating schedule: if you eat a large lunch but a small dinner, your body will burn more of your food's calories.
posted by moz at 10:33 AM on August 16, 2002
that might be good in the short term, but it's dangerous to cut carbohydrates completely from your diet. yahoo's reuters feed has an article on just this: "Diets that are heavy on protein-rich foods and skimp on carbohydrates can increase the risk of kidney stones and reduce the body's ability to absorb calcium after just 6 weeks, researchers report."
keep in mind, however, that the study sample size was 10 people, and that the study took place over 8 weeks in total.
what's worked for me has been simply to eat less and cut unnecessary food out of my diet. i drink less soda, fewer snacks: that sort of thing. another good boost is by altering your eating schedule: if you eat a large lunch but a small dinner, your body will burn more of your food's calories.
posted by moz at 10:33 AM on August 16, 2002
Yabbut... in a few years they're going to come out and say that the trans fatty acids are just fine; it's the poly unsaturated fats we really need to worry about. The medical establishment keeps declaring things evil and then contradicting themselves a few years later. I've pretty well tuned them out at this point since there are only so many times I will duck when someone cries wolf.
Oh, and greetings from a first timer!
posted by Addlepated at 10:34 AM on August 16, 2002
Oh, and greetings from a first timer!
posted by Addlepated at 10:34 AM on August 16, 2002
(the reason being your metabolism works fastest early in the day and slowest later in the day.)
posted by moz at 10:34 AM on August 16, 2002
posted by moz at 10:34 AM on August 16, 2002
I've never liked the trans-fatty acids, just because they don't look like fat...
Partially Hydrogenated Soybean ***OIL***. Oil, we say! Not fat! Oil! It's safe! Vegetable oil, you hear! No animal fats! Just fine! Looks like lard, and hell if we know what it does in you, but we think it's just like regular oil. Trust us! We wouldn't kill you, or anything.....
If it calls for lard, lard it is. At least then I know what I'm dealing with.
posted by dwivian at 11:09 AM on August 16, 2002
Partially Hydrogenated Soybean ***OIL***. Oil, we say! Not fat! Oil! It's safe! Vegetable oil, you hear! No animal fats! Just fine! Looks like lard, and hell if we know what it does in you, but we think it's just like regular oil. Trust us! We wouldn't kill you, or anything.....
If it calls for lard, lard it is. At least then I know what I'm dealing with.
posted by dwivian at 11:09 AM on August 16, 2002
The rules for nutritional labeling are heavily influenced by the food industries, and as such are corrupt.
As it stands now, the rules state that if a food product has less than 1 gram of fat per serving, it can be described as "fat free".
On its face, you could argue that to count minute, even trace amounts of fat in foods that are essentally fat free would be onorous and at counter purpose to the rule which is to point out significant sources of fat.
The problem is, portion size, aka "1 serving" is entirely arbitrary. So, I recently found a package of margarine that was labeled as fat free. How could this be?
Upon closer examination, it turns out that its no different than ordinary margerine, and that by reducing the serving size to 1/2 teaspoon, (an unrealistically small portion) the amount of fat in that 1/2 teaspoon was just a little less than 1 gram of fat, thus becoming elligable for fat free status. Neat trick, huh?
What's this got to do with trans-fatty acids labeling? The new rules for measuring TFAs are structured the same way.
"...Would be permitted only when there is less than 0.5 grams of trans fat and less than 0.5 grams of saturated fat per reference amount and per labeled serving."
File under: (Still more) corporate hijinks at the expense of the everyday consumer.
posted by Fupped Duck at 11:22 AM on August 16, 2002
As it stands now, the rules state that if a food product has less than 1 gram of fat per serving, it can be described as "fat free".
On its face, you could argue that to count minute, even trace amounts of fat in foods that are essentally fat free would be onorous and at counter purpose to the rule which is to point out significant sources of fat.
The problem is, portion size, aka "1 serving" is entirely arbitrary. So, I recently found a package of margarine that was labeled as fat free. How could this be?
Upon closer examination, it turns out that its no different than ordinary margerine, and that by reducing the serving size to 1/2 teaspoon, (an unrealistically small portion) the amount of fat in that 1/2 teaspoon was just a little less than 1 gram of fat, thus becoming elligable for fat free status. Neat trick, huh?
What's this got to do with trans-fatty acids labeling? The new rules for measuring TFAs are structured the same way.
"...Would be permitted only when there is less than 0.5 grams of trans fat and less than 0.5 grams of saturated fat per reference amount and per labeled serving."
File under: (Still more) corporate hijinks at the expense of the everyday consumer.
posted by Fupped Duck at 11:22 AM on August 16, 2002
Right, moz, eating that big meal midday is a good idea for weightloss and digestion. Problem is, I'd fall asleep at my desk.
And, re the study showing kidney and calcium problems with Atkins, he shreds that one in his latest book, besides, he recommends nutritional supplements for these issues anyway.
Oh, and dwivian, mmmm, lard.
posted by gnz2001 at 11:55 AM on August 16, 2002
And, re the study showing kidney and calcium problems with Atkins, he shreds that one in his latest book, besides, he recommends nutritional supplements for these issues anyway.
Oh, and dwivian, mmmm, lard.
posted by gnz2001 at 11:55 AM on August 16, 2002
Rainwater and Grain Alcohol
Ice cream, Mandrake? Childrens ice cream??
posted by atavistech at 12:23 PM on August 16, 2002
Ice cream, Mandrake? Childrens ice cream??
posted by atavistech at 12:23 PM on August 16, 2002
Rainwater, grain alcohol, huge lunches and lard...
Well, we've solved this one: wrap it up and send it home.
posted by AlexSteffen at 12:24 PM on August 16, 2002
Well, we've solved this one: wrap it up and send it home.
posted by AlexSteffen at 12:24 PM on August 16, 2002
And, re the study showing kidney and calcium problems with Atkins, he shreds that one in his latest book, besides, he recommends nutritional supplements for these issues anyway.
what does atkins say when he discounts the study? i'm curious because i'm trying to cut back on some carbohydrates (but not beyond a reasonable point -- i hope). honestly, i've lost most of the weight i'd planned to: i'd like to lose just a bit more, but those are the hardest to lose.
nutritional supplements shouldn't be a requisite for a diet, i'm thinking. the reduced absorption of calcium is a problem: i don't want osteoperosis. the effectiveness of supplements would be diminished in any case, since the problem is the reduced absorption as opposed to reduced intake.
maybe if one were to say that there are "good" carbohydrates and "bad" carbohydrates, one would be on the right path. the trick is to curb the bad ones to an acceptable amount while still retaining the good carbohydrate intake. so i guess i should eat more apples and less ice cream. but then, i like apples. (i guess it's fair to say i think atkins is near the right track: watch your carb intake. i tend to avoid extremism when i can, and so i put less stock in things that ask you not to eat anything of a certain kind.)
posted by moz at 12:36 PM on August 16, 2002
what does atkins say when he discounts the study? i'm curious because i'm trying to cut back on some carbohydrates (but not beyond a reasonable point -- i hope). honestly, i've lost most of the weight i'd planned to: i'd like to lose just a bit more, but those are the hardest to lose.
nutritional supplements shouldn't be a requisite for a diet, i'm thinking. the reduced absorption of calcium is a problem: i don't want osteoperosis. the effectiveness of supplements would be diminished in any case, since the problem is the reduced absorption as opposed to reduced intake.
maybe if one were to say that there are "good" carbohydrates and "bad" carbohydrates, one would be on the right path. the trick is to curb the bad ones to an acceptable amount while still retaining the good carbohydrate intake. so i guess i should eat more apples and less ice cream. but then, i like apples. (i guess it's fair to say i think atkins is near the right track: watch your carb intake. i tend to avoid extremism when i can, and so i put less stock in things that ask you not to eat anything of a certain kind.)
posted by moz at 12:36 PM on August 16, 2002
Bravo, Cerebus. That's the most sensible thing I've read about food in a while.
Re: Carbs. Dr. Weil has been talking about glycemic index for a while now to differentiate "good" from "bad" carbs, and the recent NYT magazine cover story seemed to bear him out. The trick is to eat carbs that don't raise your blood sugar too quickly. Here's a list of foods with their glycemic index numbers.
posted by muckster at 12:51 PM on August 16, 2002
Re: Carbs. Dr. Weil has been talking about glycemic index for a while now to differentiate "good" from "bad" carbs, and the recent NYT magazine cover story seemed to bear him out. The trick is to eat carbs that don't raise your blood sugar too quickly. Here's a list of foods with their glycemic index numbers.
posted by muckster at 12:51 PM on August 16, 2002
The problem is, portion size, aka "1 serving" is entirely arbitrary.
Well, no, it's not. Portion sizes are standardized and regulated for each type of food and have been for years, specifically so that consumers can compare the nutritional content of similar products. The scenario you describe, Fupped Duck, can't happen.
posted by kindall at 1:51 PM on August 16, 2002
Well, no, it's not. Portion sizes are standardized and regulated for each type of food and have been for years, specifically so that consumers can compare the nutritional content of similar products. The scenario you describe, Fupped Duck, can't happen.
posted by kindall at 1:51 PM on August 16, 2002
Odd, then, kindall, that my butter at home (two different vendors, since one is no-salt) have different serving sizes...
Is it so regulated that unsalted butter is used at different levels that the salted kind? If so, it's time to put the world into the asylum.
posted by dwivian at 2:13 PM on August 16, 2002
Is it so regulated that unsalted butter is used at different levels that the salted kind? If so, it's time to put the world into the asylum.
posted by dwivian at 2:13 PM on August 16, 2002
Portion sizes are indeed standardized and regulated, though they do sometimes make less sense than one might like them to. I don't ever see cans of soda listed as two six-ounce servings anymore... yet the burrito in my fridge somehow claims to be two conjoined half-burrito servings. [shrug]
posted by youhas at 4:04 PM on August 16, 2002
posted by youhas at 4:04 PM on August 16, 2002
trans fatty acids rigidify the membranes of cells and result in the upregulation of "bad" cholesterol. Its not about the calories that they manifest.
Animal fats are to be preferred over partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.
posted by paleocon at 5:59 PM on August 16, 2002
Animal fats are to be preferred over partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.
posted by paleocon at 5:59 PM on August 16, 2002
It *IS* a Kroger brand....that could fit the Bizarro requirement....
posted by dwivian at 8:47 PM on August 16, 2002
posted by dwivian at 8:47 PM on August 16, 2002
« Older Odd and silly | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
People don't eat fatty food because they don't know they're fattening, they eat because they like tasty food, even if its bad for their health. Just don't come crying to me when Medicare can't cover your health costs.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:28 AM on August 16, 2002