Trans-fats Are Bad - No wait - They're Good :headscratch:

Feel free to discuss any topic of general interest, so long as nothing you post here is likely to be interpreted as insulting, and/or inflammatory, nor clearly designed to provoke any individual or group. Please be considerate of others feelings, and they will be considerate of yours.

Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh

Post Reply
User avatar
tex
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 35349
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Trans-fats Are Bad - No wait - They're Good :headscratch:

Post by tex »

Hi All,

From the Mayo Clinic:
When it comes to fat, trans fat is considered by some doctors to be the worst of them all because of its double-barreled impact on your cholesterol levels. Unlike other fats, trans fat — also called trans-fatty acids — both raises your "bad" (LDL) cholesterol and lowers your "good" (HDL) cholesterol.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/trans-fat/CL00032

From Wikipedia:
No trans fats are essential fatty acids; indeed, the consumption of trans fats increases the risk of coronary heart disease[1][2] by raising levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol and lowering levels of "good" HDL cholesterol.[3] Health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat

(The red emphasis is mine, of course.) Unfortunately, it's not that simple, and that's what makes most health-oriented research conclusions virtually worthless - they're too simplistic, because in order to prove any hypothesis by scientific standards, too many assumptions have to be made in order to "simplify" the analysis so that it will meet scientific standards, and many of those assumptions confound the process, thereby making the conclusions worthless. IOW, the rigors of "required" scientific standards, confound the process of pursuing scientific proof, thereby destroying the accuracy of virtually any attempt to prove just about anything worth proving. :headscratch:

But look at this:
MONDAY, Dec. 20 (HealthDay News) -- New research suggests that whole-fat dairy products -- generally shunned by health experts -- contain a fatty acid that may lower the risk of type 2 diabetes.

The fatty acid is called trans-palmitoleic acid, according to the study in the Dec. 21 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, and people with the highest blood levels of this fatty acid reduce their odds of diabetes by 62 percent compared to those with the lowest blood levels of it.

In addition, "people who had higher levels of this fatty acid had better cholesterol and triglyceride levels, lower insulin resistance and lower levels of inflammatory markers," said study author Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, co-director of the program in cardiovascular epidemiology at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health.
Dr. Sue Kirkman, senior vice president of medical affairs and community information for the American Diabetes Association, agreed that it's too soon to change dietary guidelines, but said the findings do suggest "that things may be more complicated than we might simplistically think. It looks like we can't say all trans-fats are bad, as this one was associated with decreases in diabetes, insulin resistance and C-reactive protein levels."
http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=647637

Clearly, all trans-fats are not created equal, and yet the majority of the world's so-called "health experts", continue to spread misinformation, because of their simplistic approach to the subject. So what else is new? Of course, maybe this study is flawed, also. :shrug:

The primary problem for most of these "health experts", of course, is their preconceived notion of what is healthy, and what is not, and their unwarranted bias against fats in general. Scientists should not be biased, so what's their excuse?

Tex
:cowboy:

It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
User avatar
MaggieRedwings
King Penguin
King Penguin
Posts: 3865
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:16 am
Location: SE Pennsylvania

Post by MaggieRedwings »

Morning Tex,

Verrrrry interesting. Just goes to show that most studies and the "professionals" doing them are just narrow minded. For myself I will continue to do what I am doing - avoid gluten and my intolerances and so far as fat, sugar, etc., I will eat in moderation and not overdo and consider myself doing fine.

Happy Holidays & Love, Maggie
Maggie Scarpone
___________________
Resident Birder - I live to bird and enjoy life!
User avatar
Zizzle
King Penguin
King Penguin
Posts: 3492
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:47 am

Post by Zizzle »

I'm confused. Since when is whole fat dairy considered a trans-fat? I thought trans fats were the man-made hydrogeneated fats like shortening and margarine?? I serve plenty of full-fat dairy to my kids. Studies also show that non-fat dairy is not good for you. You need some fat to process the nutrients in milk.
User avatar
tex
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 35349
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Post by tex »

Zizzle wrote:I thought trans fats were the man-made hydrogeneated fats like shortening and margarine??
Those are the bad ones. There are also some good trans-fats, though, which exist naturally, such as the trans-palmitoleic acid in milk that was shown to be so beneficial in the study noted in my post.

Good for you - I agree with you about the fat in milk. If anyone is going to drink milk, they should drink whole milk, if they expect to derive any benefit from it. When I was a kid, growing up on a farm, we had our own milk cows, made our own butter, etc. Skim milk, (what's left after you remove all the butterfat), was what we fed to the pigs. We wouldn't have dreamed of drinking it. Today, the "experts" try to tell us that it's somehow healthy? :roll:

Tex
:cowboy:

It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
User avatar
Zizzle
King Penguin
King Penguin
Posts: 3492
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:47 am

Post by Zizzle »

More news pointing to carbs as the root of our health problems, not fat:

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-car ... 4425.story
Consumption of carbohydrates has increased over the years with the help of a 30-year-old, government-mandated message to cut fat.

And the nation's levels of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease have risen. "The country's big low-fat message backfired," says Dr. Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. "The overemphasis on reducing fat caused the consumption of carbohydrates and sugar in our diets to soar. That shift may be linked to the biggest health problems in America today."
[/quote]
User avatar
tex
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 35349
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Post by tex »

:grin:

http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12870

Since we seem to be on exactly the same wavelength regarding articles of this type, how about in the future, I just count on you to post about them, and I'll use the time that I would have otherwise devoted to reading that newsletter, for something else. :thumbsup:

Tex
:cowboy:

It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Post Reply

Return to “Main Message Board”