Watch the corn farmers have an apoplectic fit

[VeeEnn]

Indeed…but I don’t think “trans fats” are the fats that were allegedly banned with recommendations to follow a low fat diet.

Edit…and it deserves a mention that, as harmful as trans fats can be demonstrated to be, they aren’t…and haven’t been…generally considered as individual components of an otherwise healthy diet and haven’t been studied as such as far as I can recall. Rather they’ve been commonly found in the sort of baked goods that anyone with .25 of a clue about healthy eating habits recognises as junk to be avoided or consumed in minimal amounts.

[VeeEnn]

See, what happened at the time that dietary recommendations included reducing fat (especially saturated fat) in the diet, is that a good many folk (not all) actually ate more. In fact, I can recall advertising campaigns suggesting that Snackwell cookies, for instance, could be eaten ad.lib. because of their alleged low fatness. I wouldn’t be surprised if an actual solid lit search were undertaken with validated data to support (or refute) showed very little fat reduction in the ordinary diet.in absolute terms, but rather a relative reduction as a proportion of a dramatically increased calorie intake.

Of course, the Google Bamboozle is a wonderful tool for historical revisionism/False Memory Syndrome for folk who didn’t actually give much thought to what they were eating at a time when they were getting fat.

[pauleckler]

Trans fats are from a decade ago. Now they are reported on the nutrition label and almost always zero. Better technology has resolved the issue. Rather than partially hydrogenate they fully hydrogenate and blend with unhydrogenated oil to get similar properties without trans fats.

[pauleckler]

The concern about fats came from the Framingham study that began abt 1947 and continues today but began reporting data abt 1960. Cholesterol was implicated and that extended to fats. But people realized there are only three food groups. Fats, carbs, and proteins. Proteins are often expensive. So low fat implies high carb diet. Now fats are more acceptable. And trans fats may have been a major factor in the study. Unsaturated fats like olive oil are usually preferred. But now we worry abt seed oils per RFK Jr.

[VeeEnn]

I guess that’s good to know but it kind of misses the point if alongside the transfats are ingredients that wouldn’t commonly be listed as “commestibles to be included in a healthy diet”

See, for all the blather about individual items that cause this, that, or the other, it’s easy to miss the reality that craptaculous eating habits are rarely craptaculous because of one individual component of a diet. One of the things that Ancel Keys frequently pointed out in his writing…especially in response to accusations (by, say, writers/researchers such as John Yudkin) that he was ignoring the impact of sugar.

[steve203]

@pauleckler

Trans fats are from a decade ago. Now they are reported on the nutrition label and almost always zero.

iirc, the regs let the “JCs” average the amount of trans fat down, so a “food” can be 0.5g transfat/serving, and be advertised as 0 trans fat. Of course, the “JCs” can cite an unrealistically small “serving” to manipulate the transfat content below 0.5g.

If a serving contains less than 0.5 gram of trans fat, when would “0 g” of trans fat not have to be declared?

For conventional food products (those food products other than dietary supplements), declaration of “0 g” of trans fat is not required for such products that contain less than 0.5 g of total fat in a serving if no claims are made about fat, fatty acid or cholesterol content. In the absence of these claims, the statement “Not a significant source of trans fat” may be placed at the bottom of the table of nutrient values in lieu of declaring “0 g” of trans fat.

Guidance on Trans Fatty Acids in Labeling and Claims

We can thank the #43 regime for this officially legal bit of false advertising.

Steve

[pauleckler]

And note that all the sugars listed above are carbs. They are also natural. Some would say sucrose table sugar is highly processed to make it pure and white. Molasses is the dirty by-product.

[pauleckler]

Unsaturated oils can either be cis or trans. Cis fats are healthier but Mother Nature prefers the trans configuration. You are not surprised if trans fats form in trace amounts during processing. I would not be surprised to find increased trans fat in spent deep fried oil.

This is natural. Has always been so. Perhaps it implies some think saturated fats are healthier.

[steve203]

@pauleckler

This is natural. Has always been so. Perhaps it implies some think saturated fats are healthier.

My point is, 0.5g in three potato chips, is not zero.

Steve

[pauleckler]

I hear you. But they are not using hydrogenated oils. That is natural content as it always has been. Maybe those concerned about it should avoid potato chips.

[VeeEnn]

Another point is that, as much as they’re a nice snack and easy nibble, potato chips are not something that would generally be listed as forming part of a healthy diet (well, that’s what my mum would reckon)

Yummy as they may be, should potato chips be routinely consumed in enough quantities for a person to be concerned about trans fat content, I’d say they’re not understanding the agenda as high consumption of potato chips doesn’t leave enough room in a diet that doesn’t promote/maintain excess bodyfat to allow for adequate intake of necessary nutrients.

[rainphakir]

@pauleckler

but Mother Nature prefers the trans configuration.

Uhmm… Let me pick a nit.
Mother Nature, to me, means biological processes. (I’m defining Mother Nature as “biology, n biochemical reactions”).

And bio chemical processes/reactions are controlled by enzymes.
Enzymes, at standard temperature n pressure, inside living cells, FORCE the cis-fat configuration.

An Enzyme is like a jig, or a mold, that forces exactly the same shape, every iteration of the process. **

Pure Physics, [ie no control mechanism, no biological enzymes], favors random probability to produce
50/50 cis n trans.
Statistical probability, bell curve.

Chemical processes in a nonliving environment, under high temperature n/or pressure, ie a “lab test tube or industrial vat”, follow random probability to produce ~50% cis and ~50% trans configurations.

This is what separates “biology” from “physics, chemistry”.

Biology (Mother Nature) produces specific NONRANDOM results.

Physics/chemistry produces “bell curve” statistical probability results.

FWIW
ralph

** Every once in a while the enzyme doesn’t succeed… Usually the malformed molecule is phagocytized n the parts recycled.
Occasionally the malformed part gets used in a cellular structure causing that structure to “malfunction” … We call this “disease”, get enough cell malfunction and that causes “tissue failure”, n “organ failure”.

[pauleckler]

@rainphakir

Mother Nature, to me, means biological processes.

Data shows that trans double bonds are lower energy than cis double bonds. We think due to steric interactions. That means when cis switches to trans it releases energy. And hence is favored by nature. Mother nature maybe over simplifies that but none the less that is a fact.

And that is why trans fats form when you hydrogenate. The catalyst allows cis to trans conversion even when that one is not hydrogenated. It is favored by thermodynamics.

[btresist]

@pauleckler

Mother nature maybe over simplifies that but none the less that is a fact.

The vast majority of trans fat found in the human food supply is artificial in origin coming from the production of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs). Naturally occurring trans fat is typically only found in low concentrations.

In other words, Mother Nature is not particularly fond of trans fats.

[pauleckler]

@btresist

The vast majority of trans fat found in the human food supply is artificial in origin coming from the production of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs).

Historically that is true. Once you ate transfat, how long does it stay in your system.

Labels indicate vary little partially hydrogenated oils are still in use. New technology fully hydrogenating the oils and blending with unhydrogenated oil gives similar properties in the same equipment. Most suppliers have changed. The reason you now see 0% transfats on most labels.

[MarkR]

@VeeEnn

When was fat banned from the ordinary diet

It wasn’t banned per se, but starting in the late 1960s and 1970s it was very strongly frowned upon and everyone from age 5 in kindergarten and on up was taught that fat was extremely dangerous to your health. Here’s the 70s food pyramid that was ingrained in everyone’s psyche for decades. And sure enough, the obesity “epidemic” began right around then.

[VeeEnn]

@MarkR

@VeeEnn

When was fat banned from the ordinary diet

It wasn’t banned per se…

Here’s the 70s food pyramid that was ingrained in everyone’s psyche for decades. And sure enough, the obesity “epidemic” began right around then.

Well, right there, you’ve reiterated the point I made upstream…that regardless of dietary advice at any given time, and regardless of how aware folk are of said advice, you’ll find plenty of those very same folk whose dietary habits bear no similarity.

Additionally, a limited search using the Google Bamboozle won’t remind you (or alert you if you didn’t know in the first place) that, concurrent with publication of the food pyramid folk appear to remember so clearly from the 1970s, Dr Atkins was enjoying the success of his low carb diet book here in the US…as was Prof John Yudkin with publication of “Pure, White, and Deadly” on the evils of sugar in the UK (strongly recommended reading for us dental students at the time) I recall a few of us wondering if, given its best seller status, our skills were likely to become redundant as folk turned their backs on eating sweets and sugar as emphasized by Prof Yudkin…and, surprisingly enough, that very food pyramid cartoon you reproduced there (look closely at the “use sparingly” at the tippy top) Silly us, right…as if folk actually follow the advice they might’ve heard

[captainccs]

@MarkR

Here’s the 70s food pyramid that was ingrained in everyone’s psyche for decades. And sure enough, the obesity “epidemic” began right around then.

It made a lot of sense, if fat clogs drain pipes, imagine what it does to arteries. Except it was all pure crap. The multiplying factor was AgroIndustrial Food Complex. To follow the guidelines they removed or reduced fats from their products but that created a problem, the low fat substitutes didn’t taste good so they had to find alternatives which turned out to be salt and sugar. How many people can live without buying packaged foods that were now salt and sugar laden? It was not a conspiracy but the logical outcome of meeting government guidelines while pursuing lawful corporate interests, profit. There were no studies that warned about obesity and T2D. Fat shaming was frowned upon. My favorite relevant saying of the time was, Mas de mi para querer. More of me to Love!

Now that reality has set in I cook with lard, cheaper than olive oil, and there is less of me to love. I suppose added lifespan makes up for it. More years to love me? it doesn’t have the same ring to it.

The Captain

[VeeEnn]

@captainccs

@MarkR

Here’s the 70s food pyramid that was ingrained in everyone’s psyche for decades. And sure enough, the obesity “epidemic” began right around then.

It made a lot of sense, if fat clogs drain pipes, imagine what it does to arteries. Except it was all pure crap

Well, that much is correct, but not for the reason you imply…that the pathophysiology of ASCVD is fundamentally a lining of the arteries with solidified fat. Like you’d find with a blocked drain. It is not…not even analogous, such as one might find with a Google Bamboozle.

Rather, these are the sort of early lesions that those who know what they’re talking about actually talk about…and certainly did back in the 1970s (these photos are from the 1999 edition of Herbert Stary’s Atlas of Athersclerosis…Progression and Regression pulled from the shelves in dh’s study)

[rainphakir]

@captainccs

I suppose added lifespan makes up for it. More years to love me? it doesn’t have the same ring to it.

How about ‘Me amas por mucho tiempo’ ?

Asking for a friend.

ralph