Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

After decades of artificial trans fats being advertised as being healthier than fats of animal origin, with restaurant chains being forced to switch to trans fats, I find this to be quite funny. And then people wonder about the French paradox ... well, it's because you've been fed with lies.



are you sure you mean "artificial trans fats" and not "unsaturated fats" which in fact are healthier than saturated fats (which are primarily from animal origin).


Yes, I'm sure.

> which in fact

I love it when people talk about facts. There is no correlation between the use of saturated fats and cardiovascular disease, as those same dieticians which led us to believe otherwise have now changed their own story ...

http://www.newswise.com/articles/academy-of-nutrition-and-di...


Pertinent quote - "In comments recently submitted to USDA and HHS, the Academy supports the DGAC in its decision to drop dietary cholesterol from the nutrients of concern list and recommends it deemphasize saturated fat from nutrients of concern, given the lack of evidence connecting it with cardiovascular disease."


I don't think the correlation is in serious dispute.

I'm no dietitian, but going by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascul... I don't see evidence for the "distinct and growing lack of scientific consensus" claimed in your link. The majority opinion still seems to be to prefer polyunsaturated fats over saturated fats.



You must not have grown up in one of millions of households where margarine was touted as healthier than butter


> it's because you've been fed with lies

Really, really good spoken!

I myself started distrusting many scientific claims. One day, all fats are bad for you, the other day only specific fats are bad and the next day, having to few fats are bad ...

And those fats are not the only "fads" that are around ... Today "xyz" is good for you ... tomorrow, who knows ...

EDIT for the downvoters:

I did not say, that all scientific claims are bullshit, but I want to say, that particularly some "scientific" claims paid by some big corporations might to be taken with a grain of salt! There are just to many people interested in "scientific" justification.


Depends how you look at it. Being old, I grew up with a set of dietary guidelines before they were mostly reversed in the USA in 1970s and 1980s. Since then, most Americans have become obese. I have not.

What you're seeing now is the unraveling of a set of mistakes made in the 1970s and 1980s, and we're getting closer to what my English mother and grandmother thought.

Try reading up on John Yudkin vs Ancel Keys. Keys' 1970s "Seven Countries" study was bullshit. Yudkin was right, and was treated despicably.


That is basically, what I wanted to say: Don't go with every fad and not with every "scientific" study. Some scientists are still trustworthy of course ... but as with politicians, not everybody is a person of integrity.


> with restaurant chains being forced to switch to trans fats

Really? Do you have any details?


I commented on this yesterday.

The Center for Science in The Public Interest engaged in a media campaign to pressure restaurants to switch from animal derived fats (like lard and beef tallow) to vegetable derived fats(like Crisco).

They used their influence to push a policy change that was more harmful to the public health than the status quo. Now, this same group has used their influence to push a policy change that directly reverses the one that they championed 30 years ago.

I understand that our view of things changes as we gain new information but the thing that irritates me about this is that there was no mea culpa involved, no admission that they got it wrong last time. They just went full speed ahead with no acknowledgement of their role in the current state of affairs.


Yes, in the 1980s most fast-food outlets have switched to trans fats over night due to being attacked in the media for using fats of animal origin.


While true, this phrasing may be a bit misleading. The concern at the time was that saturated fats were bad, and unsaturated fats were not as bad. But the unsaturated fats (think regular vegetable oil) is liquid at room temperature instead of a gel, and has different cooking characteristics.

But the process of hydrogenation turns that liquid (at room temp) oil into a form that is closer to the traditional animal fat oils (i.e., lard). It also happens that the hydrogenation produces as a byproduct a small amount of trans fat contamination (this was never the goal, to produce trans fats -- it is a hard to avoid side effect of hydrogenation). And at the time, the trans fats byproducts weren't thought to be as harmful as saturated fats, esp since they make up such a low percentage of the overall product. Of course, now science knows more, and corrections are being made.

Edit: Is my understanding above correct? I.e., is it the goal of hydrogenation to produce a more solid form of oil, and the trans fats are a byproduct? Or is it the trans fats that actually solidifies the oil?


    I.e., is it the goal of hydrogenation to produce
    a more solid form of oil, and the trans fats are
    a byproduct?
Yes.


They switched to vegetable oils, not to trans fats.


Hydrogenated vegetables oils are the primary source of artificial trans fats in food. And McDonald's themselves readily admits they used to use trans fats in their fryers.

> For example, we switched to a cooking oil in our restaurants that reduced artificial trans fat in most of our fried menu items

> The fast-food giant already has demonstrated that it can eliminate trans fats when required. In Denmark, the company switched the oil it uses to make French fries to one that doesn't have any trans fat.

1. http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/your_questions/our_food/are-y... 2. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-12-06/why-mcdonalds...


This is interesting context going back to the 50's - much longer than the whole restaurant chain thing in the 80's (I think?):

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/02/03/146356117/who-k...


There's only one solution: the government should ban lies.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: