> Do people not understand that these so called healthy polyunsaturated
> vegetable oils DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE in the form and amounts we
> consume them now and did not exist in the human diet at all until very
> recently.
It's true that walnuts have never existed, and that the half the
mediterranea has only used walnut oil (along with olive oil and mutton fat
and butter) for a mere few millenia. Anyway, it's not like these people eat
a large quantity of walnuts, they barely ever approach the things. It's also
true that India has only used home-pressed colza oil (thankfully, American
companies have explained to their government how unhealthy this was, they
are now using industrial-grade canola instead) for the past few millenia.
All that is so very recent...
> To claim they are good for us is INSANE. From less than 1
> pound per person per year in 1900 to over 30 pounds per person per
> year today.
That's speaking for the USA. The rest of the world has been at much more
stable numbers for a long while. It's also mostly in the USA that oils mean
highly processed ones. Just compare the daily trans fat intake in the USA to
the rest of the western world... You're making generalizations based on your
own hyper-industrialized food industry. You can't compare hydrogenated
canola and cold-extracted walnut oil that is kept in the fridge and eaten
within a couple of months.
> Consider also that heart disease, diabetes and most other
> modern degenerative conditions were RARE 100 years ago.
Living longer tends to cause this kind of disease. Being the most obese
nation in the world doesn't help either. Eating tons of highly processed
food and corn syrup is probably not helping much too. No need to blame that
on oils.
> Consider also that the so
> called dangerous "artery clogging" saturated animal fats and tropical
> oils(regarding their use in cooking) have gone from over 20 pounds per
> person per year to almost 0 and butter has gone from 18 pounds to 4
> pounds per person per year, replaced by hydrogenated vegetable
> shortenings and margarine.
Trans fats are still saturated fats, they're certainly not polyunsaturated
ones... The consumption of saturated fat has not gone to 0 in the USA, it
has *increased* because everything is loaded with trans fats.
Natural animal fat is not that saturated, just check the values for farm
ducks or traditionnal pork that is fed with acorns (like old style Spanish
black pork) or even the industrial porks that are fed with flax (usually
they have a balanced 1/3 from SF,MUF and PUF along with high omega-3
content). The animal fat you have nowadays has nothing to do with the one we
had a couple of centuries ago or that traditionnal cultures still have.
Maybe it was healthy back then, but I doubt getting 100% of your fat from
modern animal fat is healthy.
Margarine replacing butter is also a very American phenomenon. Same for
using shortenings instead of plain old peanut oil to fry things.
It's not a problem with the fats, it's a problem with how you use them.
Butter is for spreading/cooking, olive oil or eventually peanut is for
cooking/seasonning/frying and walnut/colza is for seasonning (or slow
cooking in the case of colza). That's how these fats have been used for
millenia.
MattLB - 26 Aug 2004 13:55 GMT
> > Consider also that the so
> > called dangerous "artery clogging" saturated animal fats and tropical
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Trans fats are still saturated fats,
No they're not. If they're trans they have a double bond. If they have a
double bond they're unsaturated.
> they're certainly not polyunsaturated
> ones...
They probably are. If not they're monounsaturated.
MattLB
Lictor - 26 Aug 2004 15:19 GMT
> No they're not. If they're trans they have a double bond. If they have a
> double bond they're unsaturated.
Most studies put the health effects of trans fats under "saturated fats",
even if they are not chemically the same. Most nutritionnal labels also fill
them under the saturated fats category.
Saying that people moved from saturated fats to trans fat and claiming that
this is a proof that pufa are evil is completely distorted.
> They probably are. If not they're monounsaturated.
They certainly do not behave like these as far as your health is concerned.
Or are you suggesting that eating olive oil or walnut oil is exactly the
same as eating hydrogenated colza oil? Do you think they have the same
action on your cholesterol levels?
MattLB - 02 Sep 2004 14:48 GMT
> > No they're not. If they're trans they have a double bond. If they have a
> > double bond they're unsaturated.
>
> Most studies put the health effects of trans fats under "saturated fats",
> even if they are not chemically the same.
I find that hard to believe, since manufactured trans fats have no
positive health effects.
> Most nutritionnal labels also fill
> them under the saturated fats category.
Maybe so, but nutritional labelling is often used to deceive.
> Saying that people moved from saturated fats to trans fat and claiming that
> this is a proof that pufa are evil is completely distorted.
Any evil effects of PUFA are shared by the trans versions of them. The
evil presumably being the free radical chain reactions they propagate.
> > They probably are. If not they're monounsaturated.
>
> They certainly do not behave like these as far as your health is concerned.
> Or are you suggesting that eating olive oil or walnut oil is exactly the
> same as eating hydrogenated colza oil? Do you think they have the same
> action on your cholesterol levels?
I'm not suggesting any of the above. You're overreacting to a simple
correction.
MattLB