Anyone who trusts “science” should read “When Trans Fats Were Healthy.”
…surprisingly, science has only been against trans fats for the past few decades. Through the late 1980s, animal fat substitutes like Crisco and margarine were all the rage, and for a brief moment were even considered a health product. Here’s the story of how America fell in love with, and then quickly slid away from, hydrogenated oils.
It’s not surprising at all. Scientists change their mind back and forth all the time. In my relatively brief lifetime, I have seen ordinary kitchen fare like salt and coffee alternately lambasted and praised until I could no longer keep track. Meat was good for you when I was a kid, then it was bad for you, and now it is good for you again. Grain used to be good, now it’s bad. Fish has gone from healthy to unhealthy. Peanut butter is now causing panic everywhere.
Why can’t science either agree on a narrative and stick with it, or just leave us alone?
I find it all so tedious that I am ready to stop paying any attention to anything they say.
MORE: I like Bill Quick‘s prediction.
If past performance is any indication, ten years from now we’ll find out that trans-fats are potent preventers of cancer and heart disease.
But of course. And meanwhile, the major players in the food arena will discover ways to make the regulations profitable…
Comments
5 responses to “What was once “healthy” is now “dangerous,” and vice versa”
Reminds me of the bit from Sleeper.
“It’s tobacco! It’s the best thing for you!”
The thing that bothers me the most is how they say it all authoritative and stuff.
No caveats, no, “We think this is right”.
They just state that such is so and that’s that.
Then, a few years later, eggs are good for you and babies are supposed to sleep on their backs.
The trans fat ban is most interesting. Will meat be next?
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/trans-fats-in-plain-view
Eighty percent of trans fats come from processed foods; the other 20% occur naturally in meat and dairy products. Although meat and dairy contain small amounts of trans fats, they can also be loaded with the equally unhealthy saturated fats, says nutritionist Elizabeth Ward, MS, RD.
Trans fats in meat and dairy are only a concern to people who eat large quantities of full-fat dairy and high-fat meat, says Ward. Choosing low-fat dairy and lean meats will reduce the harmful trans and saturated fats.
And then there is this:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/high-fat-diet-healthy-safe/
Fat doesn’t make you fat. While you can technically overeat enough fat calories to accumulate adipose tissue, thus getting fat, this is a difficult feat, for two primary reasons:
Fat is very satiating, especially when paired with low-carb eating. Grass-fed pot roast, ribbed with yellow fat, connective tissue, and ample protein is far more filling than some crusty bread spread with butter. You’ll eat a decent slice of the former and be done, but you could easily polish off half a loaf of the latter with half a stick of butter and still be hungry. It’s difficult to overeat on a high-fat, low-carb diet.
Dietary fat in the presence of large amounts of dietary carbohydrates can make it difficult to access fat for energy, while dietary fat in the presence of low levels of dietary carbohydrates makes it easier to access fat for energy. Couple that with the fact that fat and carbs are easier to overeat together, and you have your explanation. In fact, studies have shown that low-carb, high-fat diets not only reduce weight, they also retain or even increase lean mass. That means it’s fat that’s being lost (rather than the nebulous “weight”), which is what we’re ultimately after.
Next week, it will turn out that trans fats are good for you after all…
First off, as soon as I see the title “nutritionist,” I assume I’d dealing with an ignorant hack with an agenda.
Second, about those “equally unhealthy saturated fats.”
Saturated fat raises HDL, the so-called “good cholesterol.” It also raises LDL, the “bad cholesterol, but not nearly to the same extent.
The single best predictor of coronary heart disease, in re: fat and cholesterol, is the HDL-triglyceride ratio:
Prevent a Heart Attack: Know Your Triglyceride/HDL Ratio
It is now believed that the triglycerides/HDL ratio is one of the most potent predictors of heart disease.
A Harvard-lead study author reported:
“High triglycerides alone increased the risk of heart attack nearly three-fold.
And people with the highest ratio of triglycerides to HDL — the “good” cholesterol — had 16 times the risk of heart attack as those with the lowest ratio of triglycerides to HDL in the study of 340 heart attack patients and 340 of their healthy, same age counterparts.
The ratio of triglycerides to HDL was the strongest predictor of a heart attack, even more accurate than the LDL/HDL ratio (Circulation 1997;96:2520-2525).”
My diet provides on the order of 75%-plus of its calories from fat, with as much saturated fat as I can get in there. So, according to the anti-saturated-fat fanatics, I suppose my numbers should be predicting my imminent demise. Au contraire</ Here are the results of my most recent blood lipid tests in July of this year:
Total cholesterol: 212
HDL: 96
LDL: 101
Triglycerides: 74
That makes my triglyceride/HDL ratio .77 or, according to the following, way better than "ideal."
"Therefore, in adults, the triglyceride/HDL-"good" cholesterol ratio should be below 2 (just divide your triglycerides level by your HDL).
Or more precisely, the triglyceride/HDL ratio:
2 or less is considered ideal
4 – high
6 – much too high
And, since HDL (high density lipoprotein) is protective against heart disease, the lower the ratio, the better.
In other words, the lower your triglycerides, or the higher your HDL, the smaller this ratio becomes.
It is now believed that the triglycerides/HDL ratio is one of the most potent predictors of heart disease."
The HDL/Total cholesterol ratio is also predictive, though to a somewhat lesser extent:
Mine is .45. Here's the note on that:
"It is the ratio between the level of HDL-"good" cholesterol and total cholesterol that we need to be concerned about.
Therefore, in adults, the HDL-"good" cholesterol/total cholesterol ratio should be higher than 0.24 (just divide your HDL level by your cholesterol).
Or more precisely, the HDL/total cholesterol ratio:
0.24 or higher is considered ideal
under 0.24 – low
less than 0.10 – very dangerous.
Generally speaking, the higher the ratio, the better (the lower your risk of a heart attack)."
My ratio is twice as large as that which is considered "ideal."
Just a couple of weeks ago I had occasion to see a specialist on another issue, and he was looking over my chart. He said, "Hm. Your cholesterol is 212. That's a little high."
I said, "Yes, and as you know, it is absolutely meaningless as a predictor. Check the ratios."
He looked back at the chart and his eyebrows rose. "That's…extremely good. Extremely good. Never mind…."
Bottom line: gorge on saturated fats, and I’ll match my lipid ratios against this hack nutritionist’s ratios any day of the week.
For further demolition of the “saturated fats cause heart attacks and strokes,” start here:
http://authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-saturated-fats/
It’s not science that won’t leave us alone. It’s journalists who want to turn every new and half-understood scientific study into a sensation, and government nannies who want to turn each new sensation into a law.