Okay, I'll try to make this simple.  The studies showing that "trans
fat" is "bad" don't control properly, and are also built upon
assumptions that appear to be faulty.  If you look at foods that have
large amounts of trans fatty acids, there are major problems with most
of them.  These problems include a high unsaturated fatty acid content
and a lack of natural antioxidant protection.  When the statistics are
compiled, leading to the conclusion that "trans fats are bad," these
other factors were not taken into account, and certainly a series of
experiments have never been done which attempt to establish thresholds
for "danger."

After doing extensive research, I've come to favor an oxidative stress/
arachidonic acid overload hypothesis of the connection between diet
and "chronic disease" (and also a lowering of thresholds for
"infectious disease").  Thus, if a food item has 10 grams of fat per
serving, 3 of which are trans and 5 of which are saturated, I don't
mind eating it (assuming it does not have a rancid taste), because I
know it won't do damage in my body (it will not contribute to
dangerous levels of lipid peroxidation).  I'll also mention that I
only eat these kinds of food items ("junk food") if they have low, or
very small amounts of cholesterol (which can also get oxidized).

Now I'm more than willing to put up my own money to demonstrate that
this is accurate.  Three groups of adult, non-pregnant animals would
be used (such as rats).  They would be fed identical diets, with 30%
fatty acids (similar to typical American diet).  However, one group
would get 25% TFAs and 70% PUFAs (the rest would be based upon what is
easiest to use to make up this profile); a second group would get 25%
TFAs and 70% SFAs; the third would get a combination of the usual
refined PUFA-rich oils, such as corn and safflower, with no TFAs
(except possibly for unavoidable trace amounts).  If my hypothesis is
accurate, the ones with the 70% SFAs should live longest, while if the
"establishment" position is accurate, this group should live much
shorter lives while the ones with no TFAs should live the longest.
The only "marker" we would use would be overall mortality.  Anybody
want to take me up on my offer, which is that if the 70% SFAs group
lives at least as long as either of the other groups, you pay for all
expenses, while if they live shorter lives, I'll pay (I get to choose
the fat source for the 70% SFAs group)?  Let's negotiate - how much
could it cost?

Doesn't it surprise you that such obvious experiments have not been
conducted yet?  Instead, you are being frightened by "studies" that
are often utter nonsense.  Why do I say this?  Because if these
"experts" were correct about "saturated fat" being "bad," then the raw
demographic data about chronic disease among peoples who consume lots
of SFAs (mostly from coconut) would be scientifically impossible.
High trans fatty acid diets are dangerous in the American dietary
context because these items are often devoid of natural antioxidants
yet rich in highly peroxidizable PUFAs.  When you cook with them, it
can get worse, and when you eat this sort of thing (like the old kinds
of margarines that were rich in PUFAs) with cooked meat, the
biochemical assault on your body can get extreme.

You can read more about this and related issues on my free site:

http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-

Very nice link!

A few observations:

1. Ungrammatical: "Butter was known to be filled with cholesterol and
saturated fat that were bad for blood cholesterol and increased the risk
of heart disease." (They should replace "fat that" with "fat, which".)

2. Nice: "Effect on Cholesterol Levels Compared with Carbohydrates" (The
comparison is welcome.)

3. Bad: "You can lower your blood cholesterol [by] increasing dietary
fiber...." (If you're already eating a peck of oats and two bales of hay
a week, increasing dietary fiber will surely make you sick, even if you
happen to be a horse!)

4. Good: "[E]liminate trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils...."
(Not the naturally occurring trans fats.)

5. Perplexing: "fatty (dark meat) fish, such as salmon, herring,
mackerel, anchovies, or sardines..." (Pink salmon is lighter and cheaper
than red salmon, but contains more fat.  Similarly, the lighter the
tuna, the fattier.)

6. Good to know: "[Z]ero trans fat can [mean] up to a half gram...."

7. Reassuring: All references are to reputable publications.

It depends on what's available.  I'm sure it won't be too long before
bakers and manufacturers get the news.  As far as I know, those trans
fats are all from partially hydrogenated oils or butter, not the grains
-- and the trans fat in butter isn't so bad.  So reading the labels
should keep you out of trouble.

My supermarket's bakery is still in the dark ages, but I haven't given
up hope for the future.

On the other hand, I've been eating oat bran pita bread recently, which
is rich in soluble fiber and doesn't contain any fat at all.