# non fat diets

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [May 3, 2001, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244 "2001-05-03T17:57:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 16\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/41 "2001-05-13T05:42:40Z")

</div>

Just hummous a happy tune, will ya?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/42 "2001-05-14T13:34:33Z")

</div>

I wasn’t going to post to this thread again, but if ah mus, ah mus.

I saw my friend this morning and mentioned to him the discussion of this thread vis a vis what he had said. He replied that there is good solid evidence that trans fats are worse for you than sat fats, and referred to a recent _Science_ magazine review article. He said that it is on the web, but you have to be a paid subscriber to get the website. He said further that this week there should be letters written to the magazine discussing the pros and cons of the article.

It won’t be too long before the popular press picks up on this story, I would guess.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/43 "2001-05-14T15:14:36Z")

</div>

If the _Science_ magazine article used the Nurses’ Health Study as a focal point, then I’d have to say the popular press has **already** picked up the story, because of that anti-french-fries piece I mentioned seeing on KICU channel 36 a few posts back.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/44 "2001-05-14T15:37:45Z")

</div>

Since the articles in the links previously posted were in September 2000, I doubt it. This was in last week’s _Science_. My friend said he will give me the issue number, but hasn’t yet.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/45 "2001-05-14T18:30:07Z")

</div>

Um … _Science_ magazine isn’t exactly one of those prestigious peer-reviewed journals that researchers try to publish their results to first. Chances are, the _Science_ article is a second-hand report about research already published elsewhere. (In a way, _Science_ magazine **is** the popular press.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/46 "2001-05-14T20:57:21Z")

</div>

My friend said it was a review article, which means the author reviewed studies already done. He sent me this info: The article in question is entitled “The Soft Science of Dietary Fat,” with a subheading that reads “Mainstream nutritional science has demonized dietary fat, yet 50 years and hundreds of millions of dollars of research have failed to prove that eating a low-fat diet will help you live longer.”

It appeared in the March 30, 2001 issue of Science, vol. 291, pgs.  
2536-2545.

That title mentions nothing about trans fats vs. sat fats, but perhaps the article itself does, as that was what my friend said.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/47 "2001-05-14T21:52:46Z")

</div>

Um, actually, Science is pretty well regarded among bench researchers (at least the bench researchers that I work with). It’s considered comparable to Nature and Cell as far as scientific validity.

I don’t think any of them would turn down the oportunity to publish there. In fact, a Science publication can make or break a career, at least in my neck of the woods. (Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Physiology & Biophysics).

Perhaps its reputation is different among research studing clinical populations, but I don’t think so…

Al.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/48 "2001-05-14T21:56:19Z")

</div>

among researchERs studYing…

\<ahem\>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/49 "2001-05-14T22:14:24Z")

</div>

Oh, shoot. I’m sorry.

I was thinking of _Science News_ magazine, not _Science_ magazine. My bad. _Science_ ([http://www.sciencemag.org](http://www.sciencemag.org)) does seem to be up there. Is it really on the same level with heavyweights like _Nature_, though, and not merely with middleweights like _Scientific American_?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\
**Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/50 "2001-05-15T01:49:13Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tracer \*  
> \*\*Is it really on the same level with heavyweights like _Nature_, though, and not merely with middleweights like _Scientific American_? \*\*

Most definitely. So is the price.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\
**Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/51 "2001-05-15T18:38:41Z")

</div>

You know what I like about saturated fatty acids? They’re essentially a diesel fuel molecule with one little formic-acid group (O=C-O-H) stuck on the end. How come we never hear about unsaturated diesel fuel?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2001, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/52 "2001-05-16T14:25:49Z")

</div>

Okay.  
so…how about peanut butter?  
😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2001, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/53 "2001-05-16T14:58:27Z")

</div>

Natural-style peanut butter (e.g. Laura Scudder’s, Adams), or the Skippy/Jif/Peter-Pan variety that has dextrose and Crisco added to it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2001, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/54 "2001-05-16T23:05:15Z")

</div>

You should be careful with peanut butter and don’t eat it if it is rancid, as rancid peanuts develop aflatoxin, a carcinogen.

There are soy-based spreads that take the place of butter/margarine. Light cream cheese is another substitute. And how about jelly? If you haven’t tried hummous, give it a go.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2001, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/55 "2001-05-16T23:50:29Z")

</div>

I wouldn’t worry too much about carcinogens in old peanuts. Heck, I wonder how many carcinogens there are in old soy spreads. Many common “natural” foods are rife with carcinogens, according to [http://www.acsh.org/publications/booklets/menu99.html;](http://www.acsh.org/publications/booklets/menu99.html;) but whenever you’re discussing a carcinogen, whether “natural” or artificial, you have to keep in mind the tried and true adage of toxicology: “The dose makes the poison.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2001, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244/56 "2001-05-17T01:06:49Z")

</div>

There’s also Benecol, which is a non-digestible fat substitute. I tried it and don’t like it. But tastes differ. The manufacturer claims it is a cholesterol-lowering dietary supplement, whereas FDA claims it’s a food, a substitute for margarine. It’s ingredients, stanol esters, are derived from plant relatives of cholesterol, mimicking animal cholesterol and thereby preventing the intestines from absborbing animal cholesterol. A recent study demonstrated a 14% reduction in cholesterol. (Science News, November 14, 1998.)

```
In January, 1999, McNeil Consumer Products, the US distributor, arranged with the FDA to declare stanol esters as "Generally Recognized as Safe" [GRAS] food ingredient. That allows Benecol to be marketed as a food without having to do food-additive testing on the esters. Take Charge is Unilever's Lipton margarine using a stanol-like ingredient extracted from soybeans. (Nutrution Action Health Letter, April 1999).
```

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-fat-diets/64244.md?page=2)
