Trans Fat?

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 08:34:03 -0800 (PST), Ron Peterson
wrote:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/1/168 says that 1 g of
trans fats have the equivalent harm of 10 g of saturated fat. But
alcohol consumption can reverse the effect of saturated fat intake.

Thank goodness.

Jo Anne

"DZ" wrote in message
.. .
Cubit wrote:
"Tom" wrote
I'm reading the ingredients on a box of kellogg's reduced fat
Cheez-it crackers What's interesting is trans fat 0 grams, then
". . .vegatable oil (canola, cottonseed, palm, sunflower and/or
partially hydrogenated soybean oil with tbhq for greshness) . . ."
How can they use partially hydrogenated oil then state 0 grams
trans fat?

A certain TV personality says we have the best government money can
buy. Thus, it is legal to lie.

A mix of completely hydrogenated with non-hydrogenated oil would have
the intermediate consistency and the melting point, and can also be
called "partially hydrogenated oil". That would have no trans fats.

Ah, but waters are still muddy. Hydrogenation uses catalysts, such as
nickel, a known carcinogen. I have read that trace amounts of the catalyst
remain in the end product.

"Ron Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 1:06 pm, " wrote:

Even non-nutritive sweetners like Splenda and Equal contain 4 calories
per pack...just under 5. At 5, they would have to call it 5 and they
don't want to do that. Nowhere on Splenda's website does it tell you
that and I had to email the Co. several times to get them to admit
there were 4 cal per package. They were very defensive about it
telling me how many fewer calories than sugar there are in their
product and that it is made from sugar. Still, when people bake with
the stuff, they do get significant calories. I'm certain a good
chemist starting with sugar could make any number of deadly poisons
too, so that made from sugar tidbit is just misleading hype. dkw

For equivalent sweetening effects Splenda and Equal have considerably
less calories.

--
Ron


And grey market liquid sucralose has no carbs or calories.

On Mar 8, 7:07*pm, "Cubit" wrote:
"Ron Peterson" wrote in message

...





On Mar 7, 1:06 pm, " wrote:

Even non-nutritive sweetners like Splenda and Equal contain 4 calories
per pack...just under 5. At 5, they would have to call it 5 and they
don't want to do that. Nowhere on Splenda's website does it tell you
that and I had to email the Co. several times to get them to admit
there were 4 cal per package. They were very defensive about it
telling me how many fewer calories than sugar there are in their
product and that it is made from sugar. Still, when people bake with
the stuff, they do get significant calories. I'm certain a good
chemist starting with sugar could make any number of deadly poisons
too, so that made from sugar tidbit is just misleading hype. dkw

For equivalent sweetening effects Splenda and Equal have considerably
less calories.

--
* Ron

And grey market liquid sucralose has no carbs or calories.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is grey market liquid sucralose? dkw

"DZ" wrote in message
.. .
Cubit wrote:

A mix of completely hydrogenated with non-hydrogenated oil would have
the intermediate consistency and the melting point, and can also be
called "partially hydrogenated oil". That would have no trans fats.

Why would it not have trans fat?

"Jeri" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:07 pm, "Cubit" wrote:
snip

And grey market liquid sucralose has no carbs or calories.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is grey market liquid sucralose? dkw

Disclaimer: This is my opinion and you'll probably find many who buy the
stuff who have different opinions.

It's liquid sweetener made from pure sucralose (that's the claim) and
water by this person who makes it and sells it online for quite a lot of
money. So far McNeil refuses to sell liquid Splenda or pure sucralose in
the US so who knows where this person is getting it from, how pure it
really is, or even how sanitary the conditions are where it's being made.

People who buy it call it grey market because they don't want to admit
they're buying black market.
--
Jeri
"Change is inevitable, except from vending machines."




I can't say I know for sure, but my understanding is that sucralose is
available to food manufacturers in a concentrated form without additives.
My guess is that someone has a connection in the food industry.

Also, I have read that sucralose is available in Japan. Presumably, it
could be imported.

I have tried four grey market sources. Three taste like the real stuff.
The fourth was obviously sugar in water. Of the three good ones, one went
out of business. That leaves two, that I know of.

By weight, the powder sold in the supermarkets is almost identical to sugar.
Somebody is exaggerating the claim as to the ratio of the supermarket
product to sugar.

For a diabetic, maltodextrine is a concern.

Since the hypothesis is that the product came from the folks who control the
patent and was then diverted after they were paid, I felt grey market seemed
right.

It is not like the mafia had a lab that made sucralose.

I read somewhere that the patent is not on sucralose itself, but on a
technique for manufacturing it.

Cubit wrote:
"Jeri" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:07 pm, "Cubit" wrote:
snip
And grey market liquid sucralose has no carbs or calories.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
What is grey market liquid sucralose? dkw
Disclaimer: This is my opinion and you'll probably find many who buy the
stuff who have different opinions.

It's liquid sweetener made from pure sucralose (that's the claim) and
water by this person who makes it and sells it online for quite a lot of
money. So far McNeil refuses to sell liquid Splenda or pure sucralose in
the US so who knows where this person is getting it from, how pure it
really is, or even how sanitary the conditions are where it's being made.

People who buy it call it grey market because they don't want to admit
they're buying black market.
--
Jeri
"Change is inevitable, except from vending machines."




I can't say I know for sure, but my understanding is that sucralose is
available to food manufacturers in a concentrated form without additives.
My guess is that someone has a connection in the food industry.

Also, I have read that sucralose is available in Japan. Presumably, it
could be imported.

I have tried four grey market sources. Three taste like the real stuff.
The fourth was obviously sugar in water. Of the three good ones, one went
out of business. That leaves two, that I know of.

By weight, the powder sold in the supermarkets is almost identical to sugar.
Somebody is exaggerating the claim as to the ratio of the supermarket
product to sugar.

For a diabetic, maltodextrine is a concern.

Since the hypothesis is that the product came from the folks who control the
patent and was then diverted after they were paid, I felt grey market seemed
right.

It is not like the mafia had a lab that made sucralose.

I read somewhere that the patent is not on sucralose itself, but on a
technique for manufacturing it.



By volume the stuff in the supermarket is like sugar. By weight it is
much less. A large pouch, claimed to be equivilent to 6.75 pounds of
sugar is actually 13.1 oz (371 gms) and the first ingredient is
maltodextrin. Maltodextrin has 4 cal per gram. So the pouch has about
1500 calories. The equivilent sugar is about 3000 gms or 12000 calories.

As for patents, I bet there are both composition of matter and
manufacturing method patents, unless the compound was previously
discovered long ago or by someone who didn't patent it.

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...
Cubit wrote:
"Jeri" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:07 pm, "Cubit" wrote:
snip
And grey market liquid sucralose has no carbs or calories.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
What is grey market liquid sucralose? dkw
Disclaimer: This is my opinion and you'll probably find many who buy the
stuff who have different opinions.

It's liquid sweetener made from pure sucralose (that's the claim) and
water by this person who makes it and sells it online for quite a lot of
money. So far McNeil refuses to sell liquid Splenda or pure sucralose in
the US so who knows where this person is getting it from, how pure it
really is, or even how sanitary the conditions are where it's being
made.

People who buy it call it grey market because they don't want to admit
they're buying black market.
--
Jeri
"Change is inevitable, except from vending machines."




I can't say I know for sure, but my understanding is that sucralose is
available to food manufacturers in a concentrated form without additives.
My guess is that someone has a connection in the food industry.

Also, I have read that sucralose is available in Japan. Presumably, it
could be imported.

I have tried four grey market sources. Three taste like the real stuff.
The fourth was obviously sugar in water. Of the three good ones, one
went out of business. That leaves two, that I know of.

By weight, the powder sold in the supermarkets is almost identical to
sugar. Somebody is exaggerating the claim as to the ratio of the
supermarket product to sugar.

For a diabetic, maltodextrine is a concern.

Since the hypothesis is that the product came from the folks who control
the patent and was then diverted after they were paid, I felt grey market
seemed right.

It is not like the mafia had a lab that made sucralose.

I read somewhere that the patent is not on sucralose itself, but on a
technique for manufacturing it.



By volume the stuff in the supermarket is like sugar. By weight it is
much less. A large pouch, claimed to be equivilent to 6.75 pounds of
sugar is actually 13.1 oz (371 gms) and the first ingredient is
maltodextrin. Maltodextrin has 4 cal per gram. So the pouch has about
1500 calories. The equivilent sugar is about 3000 gms or 12000 calories.

As for patents, I bet there are both composition of matter and
manufacturing method patents, unless the compound was previously
discovered long ago or by someone who didn't patent it.

Sucralose was discovered in 1976.

"Cubit" wrote in message
. ..

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...
Cubit wrote:
"Jeri" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:07 pm, "Cubit" wrote:
snip
And grey market liquid sucralose has no carbs or calories.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
What is grey market liquid sucralose? dkw
Disclaimer: This is my opinion and you'll probably find many who buy
the stuff who have different opinions.

It's liquid sweetener made from pure sucralose (that's the claim)
and water by this person who makes it and sells it online for quite
a lot of money. So far McNeil refuses to sell liquid Splenda or pure
sucralose in the US so who knows where this person is getting it
from, how pure it really is, or even how sanitary the conditions are
where it's being made.

People who buy it call it grey market because they don't want to
admit they're buying black market.
--
Jeri
"Change is inevitable, except from vending machines."




I can't say I know for sure, but my understanding is that sucralose
is available to food manufacturers in a concentrated form without
additives. My guess is that someone has a connection in the food
industry.

Also, I have read that sucralose is available in Japan. Presumably,
it could be imported.

I have tried four grey market sources. Three taste like the real
stuff. The fourth was obviously sugar in water. Of the three good
ones, one went out of business. That leaves two, that I know of.

By weight, the powder sold in the supermarkets is almost identical to
sugar. Somebody is exaggerating the claim as to the ratio of the
supermarket product to sugar.

For a diabetic, maltodextrine is a concern.

Since the hypothesis is that the product came from the folks who
control the patent and was then diverted after they were paid, I felt
grey market seemed right.

It is not like the mafia had a lab that made sucralose.

I read somewhere that the patent is not on sucralose itself, but on a
technique for manufacturing it.



By volume the stuff in the supermarket is like sugar. By weight it is
much less. A large pouch, claimed to be equivilent to 6.75 pounds of
sugar is actually 13.1 oz (371 gms) and the first ingredient is
maltodextrin. Maltodextrin has 4 cal per gram. So the pouch has
about 1500 calories. The equivilent sugar is about 3000 gms or 12000
calories.

As for patents, I bet there are both composition of matter and
manufacturing method patents, unless the compound was previously
discovered long ago or by someone who didn't patent it.

Sucralose was discovered in 1976.
So the patent would have expired, being good for 17 years.

In this case, 1976 counts as "long ago" in my book.

thanks.

On Mar 6, 7:12 pm, "Tom" wrote:
I'm reading the ingredients on a box of kellogg's reduced fat Cheez-it
crackers
What's interesting is trans fat 0 grams, then ". . .vegatable oil (canola,
cottonseed, palm, sunflower and/or partially hydrogenated soybean oil with
tbhq for greshness) . . ." How can they use partially hydrogenated oil then
state 0 grams trans fat?

You might as well eat crackers made out of sawdust!

Why do you eat such garbage?