A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

interesterification of fats



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 31st, 2008, 09:42 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
Cubit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 653
Default interesterification of fats


"Tunderbar" wrote in message
...
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyour...ification.html


Gadz!

We are all going to die.

(You know what I mean?)

(You probably don't.)

Our society is going to get sicker than it already is.

I guess that is what I meant to say.


  #2  
Old March 31st, 2008, 10:41 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default interesterification of fats

On Mar 31, 1:42*pm, "Cubit" wrote:
"Tunderbar" wrote in message

...

http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyour...ification.html


Gadz!

We are all going to die.

(You know what I mean?)

(You probably don't.)

Our society is going to get sicker than it already is.

I guess that is what I meant to say.


Then you have something like Promise Nonfat which contains only a
"negligible amount of fat," the package says. The main ingredient is
water. They use soy lechitin, rice starch, gelatin, water, and a very
small amount of vegetable fat, but nothing like 10% mentioned in the
article, I don't think. At 5 calories per Tsp., it couldn't have much
fat. This tastes pretty good, but I don't think you would have much
success cooking with it with the high water content. Perhaps people
could use more of something like this instead of conventional fats to
trick them into thinking they are eating oil. I don't really eat
anything fried. The only other fat I get is what is in the natural
product, like the fat in OATS...had to get an oats reference in some
way.

The article seemed pretty professional, but I am always a little
suspect of someone who uses the words activism and healing arts along
with farming. Seems a little like a fringe/holisitic/alarmist/wacko
even though I can't disagree with the article...yet. dkw
  #3  
Old April 1st, 2008, 01:06 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
Tunderbar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default interesterification of fats

On Mar 31, 3:42 pm, "Cubit" wrote:
"Tunderbar" wrote in message

...

http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyour...ification.html


Gadz!

We are all going to die.

(You know what I mean?)

(You probably don't.)

Our society is going to get sicker than it already is.

I guess that is what I meant to say.


Eat real food. You know, the stuff that we ate for thousands ans
thousands of years. Real meat, real fat, real veggies.
  #4  
Old April 4th, 2008, 05:09 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
Becca[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default interesterification of fats

Tunderbar wrote:

Eat real food. You know, the stuff that we ate for thousands ans
thousands of years. Real meat, real fat, real veggies.


This is the advice my doctor gave me. She said to get back to nature,
and eat, as if I lived on a farm. Pork? Fat? Fried pork? She did not
care, as long as the food was not processed. She did not care what
fruit, vegetables, beans, meat or bread I ate, as long as it was natural
and unadulterated.

Interesting article, thanks for posting it.

Becca
  #5  
Old April 4th, 2008, 08:06 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default interesterification of fats

On Apr 4, 9:09*am, Becca wrote:
Tunderbar wrote:
Eat real food. You know, the stuff that we ate for thousands ans
thousands of years. Real meat, real fat, real veggies.


This is the advice my doctor gave me. *She said to get back to nature,
and eat, as if I lived on a farm. *Pork? *Fat? *Fried pork? *She did not
care, as long as the food was not processed. *She did not care what
fruit, vegetables, beans, meat or bread I ate, as long as it was natural
and unadulterated.

Interesting article, thanks for posting it.

Becca


Doctors are often not expert in recommending diets. Doctors also
often follow your lead. If you suggest you WANT to eat those kinds of
foods, they will often tell you it is OK, since they often do not like
to challenge their patients. The consensus is that you probably
shouldn't be eating fatty meats. The meat industry is probably not so
unadulterated either, since there are growth hormones, pesticides,
insecticides, antibiotics and who knows what in meat. The higher you
get up on the food chain, the more contaminents. If I really wanted to
eat natural, I'd eat organic vegetarian foods. Still, you do see
people who eat all kinds of high fat meats and live to a ripe old age.
You also see lots of people who smoke all their lives and don't get
lung cancer or heart trouble as well. I would go with the statistics
though and stats don't support eating a lot of high fat, especially
animal fat. dkw
  #7  
Old April 4th, 2008, 11:43 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default interesterification of fats

On Apr 4, 1:37*pm, "FOB" wrote:
I don't think there are statistics supporting your conclusions on fat.
Consensus is not statistical support, too often it is brainwashing.

wrote:

||
| *Doctors are often not expert in recommending diets. Doctors also
| often follow your lead. If you suggest you WANT to eat those kinds of
| foods, they will often tell you it is OK, since they often do not like
| to challenge their patients. The consensus is that you probably
| shouldn't be eating fatty meats. The meat industry is probably not so
| unadulterated either, since there are growth hormones, pesticides,
| insecticides, antibiotics and who knows what in meat. The higher you
| get up on the food chain, the more contaminents. If I really wanted to
| eat natural, I'd eat organic vegetarian foods. Still, you do see
| people who eat all kinds of high fat meats and live to a ripe old age.
| You also see lots of people who smoke all their lives and don't get
| lung cancer or heart trouble as well. I would go with the statistics
| though and stats don't support eating a lot of high fat, especially
| animal fat. dkw


It seems pretty clear to me from the literature that elevated
cholesterol and triglycerides are implicated in heart problems. This
has been known for a long time now. I don't think it is a myth. Since
there is no need to eat fatty meat in the first place, why not just
substitute it for something that isn't implicated in heart problems. I
contend that people eat it because they like the meat....then try and
justify that diet. In other words, they are only fooling themselves by
listening only to what they want to hear. You could make the same
argument for smoking and not wearing a seat belt, but statistically
those too make it more likely there will be a bad result. Perhaps some
people would not mind eating lots of fat, or even being fat themselves
because it is easier and more fun to do that and they might rather be
happy and perhaps die a year or two earlier. That would be a good
argument, but to deny there is a scientific relationship between a
high-cholesterol, high-triglyceride diet and heart disease would be
the myth. dkw
  #8  
Old April 5th, 2008, 12:55 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
FOB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 583
Default interesterification of fats

Implicated by the drug companies who want to see you cholesterol lowering
drugs. Go read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.

wrote:
| It seems pretty clear to me from the literature that elevated
| cholesterol and triglycerides are implicated in heart problems. This
| has been known for a long time now. I don't think it is a myth. Since
| there is no need to eat fatty meat in the first place, why not just
| substitute it for something that isn't implicated in heart problems. I
| contend that people eat it because they like the meat....then try and
| justify that diet. In other words, they are only fooling themselves by
| listening only to what they want to hear. You could make the same
| argument for smoking and not wearing a seat belt, but statistically
| those too make it more likely there will be a bad result. Perhaps some
| people would not mind eating lots of fat, or even being fat themselves
| because it is easier and more fun to do that and they might rather be
| happy and perhaps die a year or two earlier. That would be a good
| argument, but to deny there is a scientific relationship between a
| high-cholesterol, high-triglyceride diet and heart disease would be
| the myth. dkw


  #9  
Old April 5th, 2008, 02:10 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default interesterification of fats

On Apr 4, 6:43*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 4, 1:37*pm, "FOB" wrote:





I don't think there are statistics supporting your conclusions on fat.
Consensus is not statistical support, too often it is brainwashing.


wrote:


||
| *Doctors are often not expert in recommending diets. Doctors also
| often follow your lead. If you suggest you WANT to eat those kinds of
| foods, they will often tell you it is OK, since they often do not like
| to challenge their patients. The consensus is that you probably
| shouldn't be eating fatty meats. The meat industry is probably not so
| unadulterated either, since there are growth hormones, pesticides,
| insecticides, antibiotics and who knows what in meat. The higher you
| get up on the food chain, the more contaminents. If I really wanted to
| eat natural, I'd eat organic vegetarian foods. Still, you do see
| people who eat all kinds of high fat meats and live to a ripe old age.
| You also see lots of people who smoke all their lives and don't get
| lung cancer or heart trouble as well. I would go with the statistics
| though and stats don't support eating a lot of high fat, especially
| animal fat. dkw


It seems pretty clear to me from the literature that elevated
cholesterol and triglycerides are implicated in heart problems. This
has been known for a long time now. I don't think it is a myth. Since
there is no need to eat fatty meat in the first place, why not just
substitute it for something that isn't implicated in heart problems.


Isn't that what we did for the last 20 years? The shelves are full
of low fat products. So, people bought products that are loaded with
sugar and carbs and avoided fat. They ate pasta instead of steak,
cereal instead of eggs, and all kinds of highly processed products,
like fake cheese. Margarine was promoted as a great way to avoid
that bad animal fat. The margarine was made from trans fat. And
where did all this get us? Americans are fatter than ever, have more
heart disease, and now teens are developing Type 2 diabetes for the
first time.

Perhaps most remarkable, is that you have totally bought into the
premise that elevated cholesterol and triglycerides are linked to CHD,
so therefore, avoiding animal fat is going to reduce cholesterol/
triglycerides and in turn reduce heart disease. Dietary fat has
very little association with serum cholesterol levels. If anything,
eating LC, while consuming lots of animal fat, usually leaves total
chol about the same or slightly lowers it, but it does raise HDL.
And LC, even with plenty of fat, almost always dramatically reduces
serum triglyclerides.

Now, will that lead to less CHD? I don't know. But it does mean
that the notion that animal fat=high chol, high trig=CHD is bogus.





I
contend that people eat it because they like the meat....then try and
justify that diet. In other words, they are only fooling themselves by
listening only to what they want to hear. You could make the same
argument for smoking and not wearing a seat belt, but statistically
those too make it more likely there will be a bad result. Perhaps some
people would not mind eating lots of fat, or even being fat themselves
because it is easier and more fun to do that and they might rather be
happy and perhaps die a year or two earlier. That would be a good
argument, but to deny there is a scientific relationship between a
high-cholesterol, high-triglyceride diet and heart disease would be
the myth. dkw- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Maybe you can explain how it is Eskimos, who eat a diet extremely high
in fat, have low rates of CHD and diabetes? Inconvenient data points
like that don't fit well with the current theories, so they are
conveniently ignored.
  #10  
Old April 5th, 2008, 02:49 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default interesterification of fats

On Apr 4, 4:55*pm, "FOB" wrote:
Implicated by the drug companies who want to see you cholesterol lowering
drugs. *Go read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.

wrote:

| It seems pretty clear to me from the literature that elevated
| cholesterol and triglycerides are implicated in heart problems. This
| has been known for a long time now. I don't think it is a myth. Since
| there is no need to eat fatty meat in the first place, why not just
| substitute it for something that isn't implicated in heart problems. I
| contend that people eat it because they like the meat....then try and
| justify that diet. In other words, they are only fooling themselves by
| listening only to what they want to hear. You could make the same
| argument for smoking and not wearing a seat belt, but statistically
| those too make it more likely there will be a bad result. Perhaps some
| people would not mind eating lots of fat, or even being fat themselves
| because it is easier and more fun to do that and they might rather be
| happy and perhaps die a year or two earlier. That would be a good
| argument, but to deny there is a scientific relationship between a
| high-cholesterol, high-triglyceride diet and heart disease would be
| the myth. dkw


But if a person were to just not eat meat, egg yolks or milk products
except nonfat milk products, (just to be safe in case what they say
about cholesterol is true), then it is unlikely you'd ever even need
to take any of those pills. For me it is very easy to avoid all those
food, and of course my cholesterol is low, and my weight is also low.
I admit that if I really liked meat, I would eat it though, but I
really don't like it and never have. Nobody that I have heard of has
ever said that oats, broccoli, whole wheat, brown rice, lentils,
tomatoes, or fresh fruits, vegetables or whole grains are bad for you
though, and while they are not tasty to lots of folks, they are
generally thought to be healthy. In the final analysis though, we are
all going to die, so it is an individual choice with no guarantees
that one kind of diet or another will make you live longer or
healthier. People just have to read the information and decide for
themselves.

I've never believed conspiracy theories though. There are lots of
people who believe doctors can prevent or cure cancer but choose not
to to make lots of money with chemo drugs, surgery and radiation, and
I don't think doctors prescribe Lipitor just to make money either.
Now, Pfizer manufactures the drug just to make money, but that's
different. If there wasn't a market and perceived need for it, they
wouldn't have developed it. Could they be completely wrong about
cholesterol? I doubt it, although there are probably lots of people
who take Lipitor, who might not need it and some who it even harms
from side effects. There are lots of people who take any ideas science
has to offer...like evolution, and try to discredit it as well.
Luckily, we can all choose for ourselves. I tend to trust the big
govt. studies and university studies and stay away from the
sensationalized fringe folks even if they might have gone to medical
school. I've known a couple of out-in-left-field doctors. The source
of the information is important to me. dkw
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good fats bad fats em General Discussion 4 October 3rd, 2007 05:45 PM
Of all the fats I've known... Andy General Discussion 17 March 2nd, 2006 03:45 PM
fats mattbma Low Carbohydrate Diets 1 July 19th, 2005 04:56 PM
Good fats, bad fats Mike Turco General Discussion 20 February 24th, 2005 05:06 AM
Atkins - Comparing good fats and better fats Doug Freyburger Low Carbohydrate Diets 26 April 15th, 2004 08:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.