General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Trans fats

Started by montygram · · Last activity · 6 posts · 397 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
4 June 2005
Last activity
21 June 2005
Original author
montygram
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
397
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. If you think you need to avoid "trans fat" and instead eat soybean oil,
    get ready for to pick out a plot soon. Low fat dairy is horrible
    stuff, not only in terms of homogenization, but due to additives such
    as carrageenan. I only eat whole, organic, non-pasteurized dairy
    (without additivies), and pleny of raw milk cheese.

    Epidemiology is useless if underlying assumptions are incorrect, and
    any epidemiologist will tell you this. They are told to measure the
    effects of "saturated fat" or "trans fat," and yet there is no way to
    do this for humans at present (due to the complexity of diets, the need
    for many years of studyd, etc.). There isn't even one standard
    definition of these phrases. Exactly what molecules are classifed as
    "trans fats?" Nobody knows - it's about as antithetical to the
    scientfic method as one could conjure up. In many epidemiological
    studies, beef tallow and lard are classified as "saturated fat" foods,
    yet they are less than 50% saturated. Asians on coconut oil diets (92%
    saturated) have almost no cancer, diabetes, and heart disease (just
    look at the WHO statistics - it's truly amazing) and yet "saturated
    fat" gets blamed. Gary Taubes pointed out several years ago that
    "saturated fat" was only considered bad in the CHD context because it
    "raised cholesterol," yet there are saturated fatty acids that lower
    cholesterol (especially one found in large amounts in beef). I agree
    that common beef cuts, cooked while exposed to air, are at least
    somewhat unhealthy (and clearly is in large amounts on a daily basis)
    yet it is because of the combination of the high iron content, the high
    unsaturated fatty acid content, the high oxidized cholesterol content,
    and large amounts of stearic acid (which helps the iron get absorbed,
    where it enhances dangerous free radical reactions) that it's
    unhealthy, not because of saturated fatty acids. Coconut oil has the
    saturated fatty acid, stearic, yet it's healthy because there's only
    trace amounts of iron and unsaturated fattfy acids, and no cholesterol
    to get oxidized. Dr. Richard Stein of the AHA recently stated directly
    that only oxidized cholesterol is a dangerous.

    Turning to "trans fat:" first, I want to know exactly which molecules
    we are talking about. These are known - they are simple and can be
    written out using basic chemistry nomeclature. Those who want to claim
    that "trans fat" are "unhealthy" are obliged, if their claims are to be
    taken seriously in the context of science, to identify what substance
    is under discussion.

    Secondly, if we are talking about molecules with double-bonds, and a
    food product with little or no antioxidant protection (at least once
    it's inside a person's body), then the obvious damage that can come
    from the likely lipid peroxidation that will occur should be ruled out.
    Otherwise, there is no reason to talk of "trans fat" - one should
    simply say "lipid peroxidation," and if you read the biochemical
    scientific literature, you will see that this is the phrase that is
    usually used, and that this is the process that is so often implicated
    as the root cause of one or another "chronic disease."

    Thirdly, the industrial hydrogenation process needs to be ruled out as
    the cause of the problem, rather than the fatty acids themselves.

    Lastly, long term studies would then need to be done, because the
    "chronic diseases" that "trans fat" supposedly cause will obviously not
    occur within a few months.

    Because these basic steps should have been taken a long time ago, it is
    likely that they will not be done any time soon (as is the case with so
    much else in "nutritional science"😉 and therefore, the reasonable
    person would look at what the evidence as a whole suggests at this
    point in time (and that concerns dangerous free radical reactions -
    substrates, such as unsaturated fatty acids, and enhancers, such as
    iron, are major problems and easy to avoid - if you cook for yourself).

  2. montygram said:

    If you think you need to avoid "trans fat" and instead eat soybean oil,
    get ready for to pick out a plot soon. Low fat dairy is horrible
    stuff, not only in terms of homogenization, but due to additives such
    as carrageenan. I only eat whole, organic, non-pasteurized dairy
    (without additivies), and pleny of raw milk cheese.

    Epidemiology is useless if underlying assumptions are incorrect, and
    any epidemiologist will tell you this. They are told to measure the
    effects of "saturated fat" or "trans fat," and yet there is no way to
    do this for humans at present (due to the complexity of diets, the need
    for many years of studyd, etc.). There isn't even one standard
    definition of these phrases. Exactly what molecules are classifed as
    "trans fats?" Nobody knows

    You may not know, but anyone who understands the terms 'trans' and
    'fat' in chemical terms knows exactly what's being talked about. Like
    I've said before there's no ambiguity.

    Quoted message said:

    Turning to "trans fat:" first, I want to know exactly which molecules
    we are talking about. These are known - they are simple and can be
    written out using basic chemistry nomeclature. Those who want to claim
    that "trans fat" are "unhealthy" are obliged, if their claims are to be
    taken seriously in the context of science, to identify what substance
    is under discussion.

    Any fatty acid with a trans double bond is a trans fat. They are all
    unhealthy as they all have trans instead of cis. Our bodies' enzymes
    are stereospecific and therefore cannot handle trans bonds.

    Quoted message said:

    Secondly, if we are talking about molecules with double-bonds, and a
    food product with little or no antioxidant protection (at least once
    it's inside a person's body), then the obvious damage that can come
    from the likely lipid peroxidation that will occur should be ruled out.
    Otherwise, there is no reason to talk of "trans fat" - one should
    simply say "lipid peroxidation," and if you read the biochemical
    scientific literature, you will see that this is the phrase that is
    usually used, and that this is the process that is so often implicated
    as the root cause of one or another "chronic disease."

    The problem with trans fats is not just lipid peroxidation, it's the
    fact that they're trans. It's a completely different type of problem.

    MattLB

  3. MattLB said:

    Any fatty acid with a trans double bond is a trans fat. They are all
    unhealthy as they all have trans instead of cis. Our bodies' enzymes
    are stereospecific and therefore cannot handle trans bonds.

    Indeed. Keep a long way from CLA, the most common trans fat in milk

    (Or maybe there are exceptions to the rule?? I think so)

  4. On 8 Jun 2005 04:56:16 -0700, MattLB wrote in
    <news:[email hidden]> on
    sci.med.nutrition :

    Quoted message said:
    montygram said:

    If you think you need to avoid "trans fat" and instead eat soybean oil,
    get ready for to pick out a plot soon. Low fat dairy is horrible
    stuff, not only in terms of homogenization, but due to additives such
    as carrageenan. I only eat whole, organic, non-pasteurized dairy
    (without additivies), and pleny of raw milk cheese.

    Epidemiology is useless if underlying assumptions are incorrect, and
    any epidemiologist will tell you this. They are told to measure the
    effects of "saturated fat" or "trans fat," and yet there is no way to
    do this for humans at present (due to the complexity of diets, the need
    for many years of studyd, etc.). There isn't even one standard
    definition of these phrases. Exactly what molecules are classifed as
    "trans fats?" Nobody knows

    You may not know, but anyone who understands the terms 'trans' and
    'fat' in chemical terms knows exactly what's being talked about. Like
    I've said before there's no ambiguity.

    Quoted message said:

    Turning to "trans fat:" first, I want to know exactly which molecules
    we are talking about. These are known - they are simple and can be
    written out using basic chemistry nomeclature. Those who want to claim
    that "trans fat" are "unhealthy" are obliged, if their claims are to be
    taken seriously in the context of science, to identify what substance
    is under discussion.

    Any fatty acid with a trans double bond is a trans fat. They are all
    unhealthy as they all have trans instead of cis. Our bodies' enzymes
    are stereospecific and therefore cannot handle trans bonds.

    Quoted message said:

    Secondly, if we are talking about molecules with double-bonds, and a
    food product with little or no antioxidant protection (at least once
    it's inside a person's body), then the obvious damage that can come
    from the likely lipid peroxidation that will occur should be ruled out.
    Otherwise, there is no reason to talk of "trans fat" - one should
    simply say "lipid peroxidation," and if you read the biochemical
    scientific literature, you will see that this is the phrase that is
    usually used, and that this is the process that is so often implicated
    as the root cause of one or another "chronic disease."

    The problem with trans fats is not just lipid peroxidation, it's the
    fact that they're trans. It's a completely different type of problem.

    MattLB

    What do you make of this?

    http://www.tfx.org.uk/page62.html
    "Campaign against trans fats in food" web site

    =================================0
    [QUOTE]

    Naturally occurring trans fats

    Some trans fats occur naturally in the digestive system of ruminant animals
    such as cows, sheep and goats. Some trans fat is therefore present in meat,
    milk and other dairy produce.

    According to the The US Department of Agriculture, these trans fats make up
    15 to 20 percent of the total trans fat intake in our diet. Others believe
    that these natural trans fats occur at much lower levels. According to Fran
    McCullough, author of The Good Fat Cookbook, these natural trans fats occur
    at "minute" levels, and our total intake of trans fats has increased by 25
    times over the introduction of hydrogenated vegetable oils.

    Most importantly, however, naturally occurring trans fats do not share the
    harmful properties of the synthetic trans fat resulting from hydrogenation.
    For example, Conjugated Linoleic Acids (CLA), are health-promoting with
    specific roles to play in our bodies.

    Thus, COMA reports,

    "Willet et al reported findings from the Nurses Health Study, a
    prospective study involving more than 85,000 women, showing that intake of
    trans fatty acids was significantly and independently associated with
    incidence of CHD. The association was only seen for for trans fatty isomers
    from hydrogenated vegetable oils. The mainly different trans isomers from
    ruminant fats did not show such an association. A case-control study in 239
    people suffering an acute myocardial infarction found that after adjustment
    for age, sex and energy intake, intake of trans fatty acids was directly
    related to risk of myocardial infarction. Those with the highest intake of
    trans fatty acids had twice the risk of myocardial infarction as those with
    the lowest intakes after adjusting for other cardiovascular risk factors.
    As with the Nurses Health Study, the association was only seen for trans
    isomers from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils."

    From: Department of Health (1994) Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular
    Disease, Report of the Cardiovascular Review Group of the Committee of
    Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA). Report No. 46. London: HMSO. See
    longer extracts about trans fats here.

    The Danish Nutrition Council similarly states in The influence of trans
    fatty acids on health - 2003 update, 10/03/2003 (Summary):

    "Available data suggest that ruminant trans fatty acids, especially
    concerning the effect on cardiovascular risk, do not possess the same
    unfavourable effects as industrially produced trans fatty acids. The
    content of trans fatty acids in industrially hydrogenated fats may reach 60
    percent of the fatty acids. The equivalent number for ruminant fat is 2-5
    percent."

    Likewise, according to the International Dairy Federation (submission to
    the World Health Organisation, June 2002):

    There is a need to differentiate the trans fatty acids. We agree on the
    negative impact of hydrogenated oils and fats but natural trans fatty acid
    like CLAs (conjugated linoleic acids) present in meat and dairy products
    play a specific role on plasma lipids and cardiovascular function. [Khosla
    P, Fungwe TV, Conjugated Linoleic Acid: Effects on Plasma Lipids and
    Cardiovascular Function; Curr Opin Lipidol 2001, 12 :1231-4]

    CLAs (conjugated linoleic acid) have anticarcinogenic properties,
    blocking tumour growth and metastasis from the breast (12,13). In the
    Kuopio Breast Cancer Study, breast cancer patients had lower serum CLA,
    myristic and trans vaccenic acid (precursor of CLA) than control [Aro A et
    al, Inverse Association Between Dietary and Serum Conjugated Linoleic Acid
    and Risk of Breast Cancer in Postmonopausal Women; Nutr and Cancer 2000,
    38: 151-7.]

    From: Consultation with Industry Organisations on Diet, Nutrition and
    the Prevention of Chronic Diseases - Comments from the International Dairy
    Federation, 15 June 2002. Download (.doc) here.

    In conclusion, by eating meat and dairy products, you will be eating small
    amounts of naturally-occurring trans fats, but among these are trans fats
    which are positively beneficial to health. The harmful effects attributed
    to synthetic trans fats arising from industrial processing are not
    associated with naturally occuring trans fats.
    However ...

    However these clear and straightforward facts have not prevented the food
    industry and its advocates from conflating these two very different kinds
    of trans fat. By failing to distinguish between the 'good' natural trans
    fats, and the 'bad' synthetic trans fats, they purport to show that:

    * our intake of synthetic trans fats is only adding an additional
    fraction of trans fat to what has been in the natural human diet for
    millenia.
    * even if we stopped eating all the synthetic trans fats, we would
    still be eating trans fat anyway, so what's the point?.

    One example of this conflation comes from the UK's Food Standards
    Agency, which wrote in a letter of 21 September 2004 that

    "The main issue with hydrogenated fats relates to their content
    of trans unsaturated fatty acids (trans fats). These trans fats occur in
    nature in dairy produce and the flesh of ruminants, e.g. beef, lamb."

    The Co-op likewise stated in a letter, referring to a report (which
    we have been unable to track down) by the industry-friendly British
    Nutrition Foundation, that

    Studies have failed to show that trans fatty acids are a
    significant factor contributing to coronary heart disease. The report did
    not find any evidence that the trans fatty acids found in industrially
    hardened oils are different to those produced in nature and found in
    mutton, beef and milk fats, including butter. A Senior Nutrition Scientist
    at the BNF has stated that Trans fatty acids from different sources are
    basically the same but the amounts in similar products may differ.

    It is really intolerable that these respected orgnisations should be
    so ready to mislead and obfuscate in this way.

    [END QUOTE]
    ============================================

  5. Enrico C said:

    On 8 Jun 2005 04:56:16 -0700, MattLB wrote in
    <news:[email hidden]> on
    sci.med.nutrition :

    Quoted message said:

    The problem with trans fats is not just lipid peroxidation, it's the
    fact that they're trans. It's a completely different type of problem.

    MattLB

    Quoted message said:

    What do you make of this?

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.tfx.org.uk/page62.html
    "Campaign against trans fats in food" web site

    <snip>

    In principle it's probably true that different trans fats will have
    different effects and it may be that synthetic are worse because
    they're longer or tend to be made from fatty acids with a different
    profile in the body to natural trans fats. I don't know which ones are
    typically used in the food industry.

    On the other hand to claim that the bacteria-assisted trans fats are
    "positively beneficial to health" is rather shaky.

    Most of the idea of it being healthy comes from the fact that it seems
    to have anti-cancer properties (in animals dosed with chemicals to give
    them cancer). It appears that one way CLA does this is by increasing
    the lipid peroxidation in the cancerous cells, leading to apoptosis.
    The immune-stimulatory effects of CLA also appear to be a result of
    increased oxidative stress (which is a normal trigger for T-cell
    activation).

    There may also be a role in reducing arachidonic acid synthesis, which
    will inhibit growth of the cancer cells.

    CLA works at least in part as an enzyme inhibitor (as you might expect
    a trans version of a normal molecule to do). If that enzyme is
    overactive for some reason then inhibiting it could have health
    benefits. If not, then the CLA won't make you any healthier. In the
    same way, the fact it can raise levels of LDL receptors is great if
    you've got excess LDL, but not if you don't. In other words it's more
    like a therapeutic medicine than a health supplement.

    There's also the fact that CLA is a mixture of fatty acids, not all of
    which are trans, which clouds the issue.

    MattLB

  6. MattLB schreef in sci.med.nutrition:

    Quoted message said:

    Most of the idea of it [CLA] being healthy comes from the fact that it seems
    to have anti-cancer properties (in animals dosed with chemicals to give
    them cancer). It appears that one way CLA does this is by increasing
    the lipid peroxidation in the cancerous cells, leading to apoptosis.
    The immune-stimulatory effects of CLA also appear to be a result of
    increased oxidative stress (which is a normal trigger for T-cell
    activation).

    There may also be a role in reducing arachidonic acid synthesis, which
    will inhibit growth of the cancer cells.

    CLA works at least in part as an enzyme inhibitor (as you might expect
    a trans version of a normal molecule to do). If that enzyme is
    overactive for some reason then inhibiting it could have health
    benefits. If not, then the CLA won't make you any healthier. In the
    same way, the fact it can raise levels of LDL receptors is great if
    you've got excess LDL, but not if you don't. In other words it's more
    like a therapeutic medicine than a health supplement.

    That doesn't sound very good. I'm taking CLA capsules because I'm on a
    diet, and CLA is supposed to help with fat loss. For example on
    http://www.obesity-news.com/otc.htm#cla, it says: "In humans CLA has
    been shown to reduce fat mass and increase lean body mass[...]". Just
    what I want! But this made me doubt a) if it really works, and b) if it
    is even safe... :-(

    Following up a link from that page, I find (on
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/3/352) that the bodyfat-lowering
    effect isn't very big, and that: "Furthermore, mice studies showed that
    the trans-10, cis-12 CLA isomer may have some undesirable side effects,
    such as insulin resistance, increased plasma insulin concentrations, and
    decreased plasma leptin concentrations, and there are indications that
    some of these effects may become apparent in humans."

    So, no more CLA for me!

    Berna

    --
    ( )_( ) Berna M. Bleeker-Slikker
    / . . \ [email hidden]
    \ \@/ / http://www.volksliedjes.nl

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.