I was flipping through one of the “Eat This, Not That!” books at the bookstore, and every page made such a big hysterical screaming deal out of every carb and every point of trans fats that I felt like eating a big margarine sandwich (with extra bread) just to spite them.
Is it just following Yet Another Diet Fad <tm>, or is this a case of the hype obscuring a real concern?
Well, one difference is that you pretty much need some carbs, but you will be perfectly fine with no trans fats at all. Since trans fats can be replaced with other types of fats that are not quite as bad, they stand a chance of becoming a thing of the past.
Trans fat is most certainly not a good thing. There’s no redeeming qualities of them whatsoever.
I recently interviewed the head of a new preventive cardiology program at Temple University Hospital – she’s against 'em. They raise cholesterol (clogging your arteries and leading to heart disease) and are pretty damn dangerous. You need a certain amount of fat in your diet (cell health, skin elasticity, certain nutrients), but should get it from fats that are liquid at room temperature. Fats that are naturally solid – butter, fat from meat, etc. – will raise your bad cholesterol. Trans fats – which are artificially made to be solid for the convenience of food manufacturers – will not only raise your bad cholesterol but lower your good cholesterol.
Bad stuff, avoid it. There’s no way in hell they’re going to turn around later and say “oops, they’re really not that bad for you.”
There’s not really a point to avoiding carbs unless you’re specifically attempting to minimize your carb intake far below normal as part of a low carb diet. Otherwise they’re going to be the primary macronutrient of your diet. It’s valuable to cut them in the same way that it’s valuable for most people just to eat less or cut calories generally. It’s good to avoid empty carbs in general but that’s very difficult - pretty much all our food now has corn syrup as one of the top 5 ingredients it seems - instead of making quality food they just sweeten everything excessively.
Trans fats are some nasty stuff. We’re going to end up taking many years off a lot of people’s lives to save a buck in food manufacturing.
Looks like trans fats are (hopefully on their way out). There’s been a lot of attention called to them recently, and some Big Food is starting to replace it now that everyone’s screaming about it. Good riddance.
I predict the next trans fats will be high fructose corn syrup. Everyone and their brother is down on the stuff, and it’s in nearly everything.
Regarding carbs, anyone who has diabetes should avoid carbs as much as possible. I had a terrible problem trying to control my blood sugar numbers, plus I had high blood pressure, and being on the “balanced” low-fat, low-calorie diet, plus medication for both conditions, did nothing to help. In desperation, I switched to an ultra low-carb diet and immediately my blood sugar and blood pressure numbers normalized. Within a few weeks my doctor took me off the blood pressure medicine that I’d been taking for years (and was told I’d be on for the rest of my life). Soon after that he halved my diabetes medicine. My regular doctor and endoctrinologist are both very happy and approve.
I’ve been eating this way for two years and my blood sugar and blood pressure are both completely normal, and have been the entire time.
It’s a damned boring way to eat, and you have to like meat, but the way I look at it, I had all those years of being able to eat whatever I wanted, and being restricted now is worth it, much better being bored than the damage caused by diabetes and high blood pressure.
Every diabetic has to find their own path, and that was mine.
Edit to add, it’s become pretty fashionable to bash low-carb, mostly because it was a fashionable fad diet for a while. It is a good way to lose a lot of weight, but some of us eat that way for our health too.
The thing with trans fats (AKA partially hydrogenated fats) is, they were developed to replace saturated fats, which everyone knew are bad for you. But in general, solid naturally-occurring fats are saturated, and there are some purposes for which you need a solid fat for some recipe or another to come out right. So to replace the unhealthy saturated fats that folks were using in those recipes, they developed trans fats (which are very rare in nature), which are unsaturated but nonetheless have similar physical properties to saturated fats (including being solid at room temperature).
Except that now it turns out that trans fats are even worse than the saturated fats they were intended to replace. This is an easy enough problem to solve: Just revert to the saturated fats that everyone used to use, and there’s no reason any more to put trans fats in anything. They’re still not good for you, so moderation is still necessary, but at least they aren’t as bad as the trans ones.
I think as far as carbs are conserned, it’s good to cut them out the same way it’s good to cut any calorie. I think there was a study that compared the efficacy of low-carb diets to low fat diets and they all worked out the same. The main issue is cutting calories. (Special dietary requirements being the exception.)
Trans-fats are unnatural and have no redeaming value. The thing that upsets me most, is the way companies can get away with saying their product is trans-fat free when it is not. If it contains partially hydrogenated anything in the ingredients, then it has trans-fats.
Good. Not only is it making people fat, it came out a little over a month ago that a high percentage of it contains mercury too.
How much mercury?
Chronos, you’re one of the best-informed and most respected posters on the SDMB, but this is just wrong. While partially hydrogenated fats were marketed as a healthy substitute for saturated fats, they were originally developed as an easy-to-spread alternative to fully hydrogenated fats, themselves a cheaper and more stable replacement for animal fats, tropical oils, and butter. Furthermore, trans fats are incidental to hydrogenation; they weren’t “developed” for any purpose, they’re a natural consequence of the process unless you select catalysts that preferentially produce cis fats. This is what’s being done – fully saturated fats are harder to work with, and it’s actually more profitable to use the more expensive process than to abandon the wide range of well established products and processes that use partially hydrogenated fats.
(Bolding Mine). This statement is not true. While it’s certainly possible for a manufacturer to lie about their trans fats, partially hydrogenated fats can be prepared without trans fats by the simple substitution of a selective catalyst into the process. It’s not actually being done yet, and not 100% trans-free (note: this is a correction to my statement in the previous post), but regulation of temperature and pressure can also minimize trans fat, and blending with fully hydrogenated fats and regular oils can drop the level of trans fat to less than 1%.
Naturally, polyunsaturated vegetable oil is best when it’s otherwise suitable, and naturally, products reformulated to eliminate partially hydrogenated fats are best for avoiding trans fats altogether (Crisco, for instance, is now a blend of hard shortening and vegetable oil). But let’s get our facts straight and avoid hysteria.
For those not hitting the link, there’s been a finding that some HFCS contains detectable levels of mercury; a better writeup is here: specifically,
The US allowable level of mercury in fish, for sake of comparison, is 1.0 μg/g; the limit in drinking water is 0.002 μg/g. Mercury is used to produce “caustic soda” (NaOH), which is used to adjust the pH of corn syrup during production. Modern factories do not use mercury for this purpose, and I expect that now that this research is out, soon no product made with mercury cell technology will be permitted to be sold as “food-grade.”
And even then, there isn’t really a point to it.
Sure there is - weight loss, blood sugar control, and cardiovascular health - do you want to turn this into a debate?
None of those tests attempted to test a minimal carb diet. The lowest had 35% of calories from carbs - way too much to see most of the benefit from a low carb diet. I agree that shifting around your macronutrients to that degree probably doesn’t make a significant difference.
I’d like to see data from a diet at around 0-3% calories from carbs.
Ah, ok.
I’m actually interested in seeing scientific studies of that. Whenever they tend to compare low carb and high carb diets, they shift macronutrients around a decent bit but never to any extreme. Low carb diet proponents generally don’t recommend a diet with anywhere near 30% calories from carbs, so I don’t understand why that seems to be the low end on these tests. All I have is personal/anecdotal evidence to work with - I’d like to see a study that went further and tested something like 65/30/5 as a mix.
I don’t understand why they won’t - as I understand it, the few parts of the body that require glucose to operate can get it from synthesized sources and there’s no known danger to an otherwise healthy person of prolonged carbohydrate deprivation.
But that’s what I meant when I said “there’s not really a point to avoiding carbs unless…” - cutting them from 60% to 40% in your diet probably won’t do any good.