Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And you can make that choice. You and no other.

Nobody is stopping you from eating it or limiting your freedom to stuff whatever you want in your face.

They are just limiting the sales of it.

But if you are stopped with a dime bag of trans-fats in your pocket you will still be able to suck them up later without facing charges.

Can you still manufacture trans-fats on a commercial level? Or is it just attempting to limit it in food production?

 Ninjacommando wrote:
But back to the topic of trans fats
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
A lot of hostess products have transfats and yet this man lost weight on his weird diet,

That's because he was consuming less total calories with the amount he was actually eating.

The FDA has said that eating 25 g of soy protein a day lowers the risk of coronary heart disease, yet they don't talk about the Hormonal changes that soy can have on men and women.

That would be due to the lack of any actual evidence of that happening...

So do we take what the FDA says and believe everything?

Whether or not you believe them has litle to do with what they may choose to regulate.

But as with anything else, you're certainly under no obligation to just blindly believe everything they tell you. Researching for yourself is always a good idea, so long as you have the patience to sort through all the guff that is out there.

Or do we know that Trans fat cause problems in the human body as do many other foods, and like all things you should take it in moderation (or not at all) but that choice is up to you and no other.

Again, the choice of whether or not to eat it is entirely up to you.

It's the choice of the commercial manufacturer to use it in their product that is on the chopping block.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Can you still manufacture trans-fats on a commercial level? Or is it just attempting to limit it in food production?

It would be limiting it in food usage only. There is a category of stuff that is "Generally Recognized As Safe" that this would no longer fall into.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

A lot of hostess products have transfats and yet this man lost weight on his weird diet.

According to the article, Haub's premise was...

That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.

...which is correct. If you consume fewer calories than you need to maintain your weight, then you will not maintain your weight; something which should shock no one. Unfortunately losing weight does not necessarily make a person healthy, nor can all people be expected to possess the knowledge of a professor of nutrition.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

The FDA has said that eating 25 g of soy protein a day lowers the risk of coronary heart disease, yet they don't talk about the Hormonal changes that soy can have on men and women.

No, the FDA has said that consuming 25 grams of soy protein per day correlates with a lower rate of coronary heart disease, not that it actually lowers the rate of coronary heart disease.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
People should be free to do what ever they want aslong as it posses no Direct harm to the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Of said person. (and by pursuit of happiness i'm not taking about emotions)

So your response is to just repeat the claim that there is an absolute right to choice that trumps all other factors... again. Incredible. It's almost a religious conviction with you guys.

But back to the topic of trans fats
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
A lot of hostess products have transfats and yet this man lost weight on his weird diet,

As has already been explained in this thread, total weight alone isn't enough of a guide to health. Exercise and moderate cholesterol intake can keep you skinny, but if the food you eat is full of stuff like transfats you will still be lowering your life expectancy. This is because there's a lot more to healthy human life than weight - in the case of transfats it does a really thing at the chemical level to the different compounds that carry cholesterol around the body.

 Ouze wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Can you still manufacture trans-fats on a commercial level? Or is it just attempting to limit it in food production?

It would be limiting it in food usage only. There is a category of stuff that is "Generally Recognized As Safe" that this would no longer fall into.

Yup, made this post a few pages back. My company works in the Envrionmental Health and Safety Field, and we were just notified a week or so ago that with the changes the FDA is making to trans-fats all of our regulatory data related to trans-fats have to change to no longer automatically assign them as GRAS.

 sebster wrote:
I'd actually like to have a discussion, not just on transfats but expand that out in to all areas of regulation. Because it is a complex an interesting issue - where is the line on government intervention?

But that conversation doesn't happen, because people like you just like shouting freedom huzzah over and over again, pretending that's a workable world view.

It is a workable world view. It's a very easily workable world view, in fact. I know it's a world you wouldn't particularly like, but you know what? I'm okay with that.

Does it pose a direct, immediate, compelling threat to consumers? If so, ban it. Trans fats don't meet that criteria. If you want to ban everything that'll kill you in twenty years instead of twenty-five, we've got a long list.

Let's start with sedentary lifestyles, which will kill you as or even more early than trans fats, and offer no benefit. The "show yourself" thread tells me that a lot of the folks arguing for trans fats to go away because they're unhealthy are doing so from a hypocritical place.

I'm arguing for trans-fats to go away, and the image I provided in the "Show Yourself" thread doesn't portray me as being unhealthy. Indeed, I am ~190 lbs in that image and, as I have repeatedly noted in this forum, my lifestyle is not sedentary.

 dogma wrote:
I'm arguing for trans-fats to go away, and the image I provided in the "Show Yourself" thread doesn't portray me as being unhealthy. Indeed, I am ~190 lbs in that image.

That's fantastic. Did you misunderstand the difference between "a lot" and "all" again?

 Seaward wrote:

That's fantastic. Did you misunderstand the difference between "a lot" and "all" again?

No, I understood that you were trying to insult a group of people because you could not present a coherent argument.

 dogma wrote:
No, I understood that you were trying to insult a group of people because you could not present a coherent argument.

Pointing out that unhealthy people are unhealthy is an insult now? Now wonder stuff like this flies with your side.

The argument's endlessly coherent. This ban A) won't help anyone, as people who were eating trans fat in abundance aren't suddenly going to switch to healthy lifestyles, B) is unnecessary, because trans fats don't present an immediate, grave risk, and C) hypocritical as gak unless you want to ban everything else that's unhealthy for you.

Not to mention the whole aspect of it being nanny state bs.

Now, go troll elsewhere, please.

Talks about personal freedoms.

Tells people to go away.

 sebster wrote:


As has already been explained in this thread, total weight alone isn't enough of a guide to health. Exercise and moderate cholesterol intake can keep you skinny, but if the food you eat is full of stuff like transfats you will still be lowering your life expectancy. This is because there's a lot more to healthy human life than weight - in the case of transfats it does a really thing at the chemical level to the different compounds that carry cholesterol around the body.

And you don't have the ability to read the article, Hostess products use trans fats,

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

He ate 1,800 calories a day of Junk food and yet all of his data says that he is heathlier than when he started, thats why he is bothered with his own data, he doesn't want to say that he is Healthier, but the data says he is.

By your logic he should of been nearly dead at the end of his experiment and yes his data said other wise.

 insaniak wrote:

That would be due to the lack of any actual evidence of that happening...

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence, there are reasons why in 2005 the Israeli health Ministry is tolds its people to limit the ammount of soy they eat and also told parents to stop using infant formula that contains soy.

 Seaward wrote:

Pointing out that unhealthy people are unhealthy is an insult now? Now wonder stuff like this flies with your side.

Your argument was that people arguing for a ban on trans-fats, who posted pictures of themselves in the "Show Yourself" thread, were doing so hypocritically. This implies that people who posted pictures of themselves in the "Show Yourself" thread that also argued for a ban on trans-fats were demonstrating themselves to be unhealthy by way of an image.

In essence, you were arguing that because a person appears fat, that person's argument is invalid.

 dogma wrote:
In essence, you were arguing that because a person appears fat, that person's argument is invalid.

I'm arguing it's hypocritical.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

He ate 1,800 calories a day of Junk food and yet all of his data says that he is heathlier than when he started, thats why he is bothered with his own data, he doesn't want to say that he is Healthier, but the data says he is.

Well, no, he didn't. Roughly 66% of his stated calorie consumption was "junk food"; defined (by Madison Park) as snack cakes manufactured by Hostess and Little Debbie, plus Doirtos, Oreos, and "sugary cereals". He also, apparently consumed a protein shake and an assortment of vegetables, which I would assume provided the remaining 600 calories. Seeing as some of those vegetables were stalks of celery, I assume that was a very calorie intensive protein shake.

 dogma wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:

He ate 1,800 calories a day of Junk food and yet all of his data says that he is heathlier than when he started, thats why he is bothered with his own data, he doesn't want to say that he is Healthier, but the data says he is.

Well, no, he didn't. Roughly 66% of his stated calorie consumption was "junk food"; defined (by Madison Park) as snack cakes manufactured by Hostess and Little Debbie, plus Doirtos, Oreos, and "sugary cereals". He also, apparently consumed a protein shake and an assortment of vegetables, which I would assume provided the remaining 600 calories. Seeing as some of those vegetables were stalks of celery, I assume that was a very calorie intensive protein shake.

So he ate more trans-fat loaded garbage than "healthy" food and the data still found that we was healthier afterwards? Interesting.

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:

He ate 1,800 calories a day of Junk food and yet all of his data says that he is heathlier than when he started, thats why he is bothered with his own data, he doesn't want to say that he is Healthier, but the data says he is.

Well, no, he didn't. Roughly 66% of his stated calorie consumption was "junk food"; defined (by Madison Park) as snack cakes manufactured by Hostess and Little Debbie, plus Doirtos, Oreos, and "sugary cereals". He also, apparently consumed a protein shake and an assortment of vegetables, which I would assume provided the remaining 600 calories. Seeing as some of those vegetables were stalks of celery, I assume that was a very calorie intensive protein shake.

So he ate more trans-fat loaded garbage than "healthy" food.

Nope...







So what we have is a guy who ate junk food labeled trans-fat free and without the harmful ingredient he lowered his cholesterol.

Interesting.

 sebster wrote:


I'd actually like to have a discussion, not just on transfats but expand that out in to all areas of regulation. Because it is a complex an interesting issue - where is the line on government intervention?

But that conversation doesn't happen, because people like you just like shouting freedom huzzah over and over again, pretending that's a workable world view.

Frankly, I don't think the government should have bereaucrats creating things like the Food Pyramid, and the "My Plate" or whatever it is we're supposed to follow shows. To that end, I don't think the government should be able to outright ban a food substance on the chance that it may cause health problems in those who are for whatever reason, unable to regulate themselves.

I mean, when it comes to these non-animal fats that are being used now, it seems a little hypocritical to me, that the same "people" who introduced the stuff and basically forced it onto the market now wants to remove it. The reason why things like transfats and hydrogenated oils are such a cheap alternative to other forms of fattening, is because when they were created in the 1920s, the government couldnt GIVE the stuff away, no one wanted to touch it.... Now, it seems like some weird pox on our society that many people want to be rid of, but they dont want to pay higher food prices so they "deal with it"

@ D-USA

You do know that .5grams or less of trans fats are listed as 0 on the back of nutrition facts right? They are allowed to do this.

Your last picture is of little debbie snack cakes has

"partially hydrogenated ---- Oil"

no matter how you spell it those are trans fats.

partially hydrogenated Vegtable oil is a transfat

Cupcakes have "shortening" listed in them, shortening is also a trans fat

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:


I'd actually like to have a discussion, not just on transfats but expand that out in to all areas of regulation. Because it is a complex an interesting issue - where is the line on government intervention?

But that conversation doesn't happen, because people like you just like shouting freedom huzzah over and over again, pretending that's a workable world view.

Frankly, I don't think the government should have bereaucrats creating things like the Food Pyramid, and the "My Plate" or whatever it is we're supposed to follow shows. To that end, I don't think the government should be able to outright ban a food substance on the chance that it may cause health problems in those who are for whatever reason, unable to regulate themselves.

I mean, when it comes to these non-animal fats that are being used now, it seems a little hypocritical to me, that the same "people" who introduced the stuff and basically forced it onto the market now wants to remove it. The reason why things like transfats and hydrogenated oils are such a cheap alternative to other forms of fattening, is because when they were created in the 1920s, the government couldnt GIVE the stuff away, no one wanted to touch it.... Now, it seems like some weird pox on our society that many people want to be rid of, but they dont want to pay higher food prices so they "deal with it"

Let's get back to basics. What are th things the Government can ban? Why those things?

 Ninjacommando wrote:
@ D-USA

You do know that .5grams or less of trans fats are listed as 0 on the back of nutrition facts right? They are allowed to do this.

Your last picture is of little debbie snack cakes has

"partially hydrogenated ---- Oil"

no matter how you spell it those are trans fats.

partially hydrogenated Vegtable oil is a transfat

Cupcakes have "shortening" listed in them, shortening is also a trans fat

And they have a minimal amount. Much less than they used to have. And now we are just getting rid of the last little bit.

The American Heart Association recommends that you limit your trans fat intake to no more than 2 grams a day. If we average out the calories per serving in those labels and assume that every single serving of every food present is maxed out at 0.5 grams of trans-fats per serving, then this guy ended up eating 3.5 grams of trans fats a day.

It's more than the recommended limit, but it's a far cry from the "OMG, this guy ate nothing but trans-fats and he is perfectly healthy" that people make it out to be.

 cincydooley wrote:

So he ate more trans-fat loaded garbage than "healthy" food and the data still found that we was healthier afterwards? Interesting.

Frito Lay eliminated trans-fats from Doritos in 2002, so those don't count. Nabisco eliminated them from Oreos in 2006, so they don't count either.

This leaves us with whatever he ate that was manufactured by Hostess Brands or McKee Foods, and what could be called a "sugary cereal". Based on the relevant picture he, minimally, consumed 1 serving of Nutty Bars, Swiss Rolls, or Little Debbie Muffins every 3 hours. However, the article does not indicate which products he consumed, or when consumed them; meaning that it is deliberately vague.

 Easy E wrote:

Let's get back to basics. What are th things the Government can ban? Why those things?

Honestly, they shouldn't be able to ban anything... smoking and drinking are both legal (and we all know how the last time the Feds decided making drinking illegal went)

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Cupcakes have "shortening" listed in them, shortening is also a trans fat

Not entirely true. Lard or palm oil can also used for shortening. And many hydrogenated shortnings (Chrisco amongst them) have been reformulated in recent years to contain very small amounts or no trans fats.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Cupcakes have "shortening" listed in them, shortening is also a trans fat

Not entirely true. Lard or palm oil can also used for shortening. And many hydrogenated shortnings (Chrisco amongst them) have been reformulated in recent years to contain very small amounts or no trans fats.

Perhaps in Australia, but you appear to be unaware that in America, our entire transfat-based economy would utterly collapse if we were to eliminate this... much in the way that seatbelt laws devastated the auto industry, just as they warned.

 Ouze wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Cupcakes have "shortening" listed in them, shortening is also a trans fat

Not entirely true. Lard or palm oil can also used for shortening. And many hydrogenated shortnings (Chrisco amongst them) have been reformulated in recent years to contain very small amounts or no trans fats.

Perhaps in Australia, but you appear to be unaware that in America, our entire transfat-based economy would utterly collapse if we were to eliminate this... much in the way that seatbelt laws devastated the auto industry, just as they warned.

Seatbelts, the restrained killer!

Fwiw, I thnk the seatbelt law for an adult is a bunch of horsegak too, especially when I can ride my motorcycle without a helmet or seatbelt as often as I'd like.

But it is what it is.

 Seaward wrote:
It is a workable world view.

Take a look at the real world. You see how many libertarian countries there are? None. Not one.

Communism is fething stupid, and people were still willing to give that crack in a whole bunch of places. Meanwhile, libertarianism hasn't even come close to being attempted, it's high watermark is the odd time a libertarian party has ridden a protest vote to achieve a minor political posting.

And there is a really basic reason for this - despite all the rhetoric, no-one actually wants a libertarian society. The idea that each man is an independant island that interacts with society only where his rational self-interested decision making makes him desire such interaction is total nonsense. And because it's such nonsense, libertarianism is stuck as a very shallow, incompletely political philosophy, it makes great noise about minor inconveniences and purely ideological outrages, but that's all it ever achieves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
And you don't have the ability to read the article, Hostess products use trans fats,

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

He ate 1,800 calories a day of Junk food and yet all of his data says that he is heathlier than when he started, thats why he is bothered with his own data, he doesn't want to say that he is Healthier, but the data says he is.

You're confusing science with 'a guy did a thing'.

By your logic he should of been nearly dead at the end of his experiment and yes his data said other wise.

Yeah, because my logic states that health impacts will be absolutely universal and immediate to all people. Try and be a little bit sensible, please.