Idiots blowing out their asses

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by BoboBonobo, Jan 12, 2006.

  1. BoboBonobo

    BoboBonobo Guest

    Look what I found on a website:

    "To hydrogenate an oil, hydrogen is bubbled through the oil with a
    nickel catalyst at more than 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. These high
    temperatures twist the molecules' configuration. Trans-fatty acid is
    the short form for transformed fatty acid. The body does not recognize
    that these twisted fatty acid molecules are harmful, and innocently
    utilizes them. They fit into cell membranes like broken keys, stopping
    the cell's proper function. An essential fatty acid molecule is
    curved, whereas a trans-fatty acid is straight. In the diagram on the
    following page, the essential fatty acid has two hydrogen atoms on the
    same side. These hydrogen atoms repel each other and bend the molecule.
    Molecules in this shape do not stick together and remain fluid-like in
    the blood. In the trans-fatty acid, the hydrogen atom has been forced
    to the other side of the molecule. The trans-fatty acid molecule
    straightens. Now they easily lock together, causing them to stick to
    cholesterol and saturated fats. This stickiness increases fatty
    deposits in the arteries, liver and other organs. Platelet aggregation
    is increased, which in turn increases the chance of blood clotting,
    strokes and heart attacks. A trans-fatty acid cannot correctly perform
    the function of an essential fatty acid, thereby causing short circuits
    in the electrical flow responsible for heartbeat, nerve functions, cell
    division and mental balance. They create free radicals that have been
    linked to cancer. Trans-fatty acids act like saturated fats because
    they increase blood cholesterol."
    --source: and Oils.htm

    I'm as anti trans-fat as anyone, but there is so much inaccurate in the
    piece. What an idiot. This clown has apparently vanity pressed a book
    that he's trying to sell, and looking further into the site you see
    they're also promoting kooky religious and conspiracy crap, which seems
    so often to go hand in hand with junk science.


  2. kevnbro

    kevnbro Guest

    Somewhat related-

    "Why Fat Tastes So Good"

    No matter how cleverly prepared, fat-free foods never seem satisfying.
    Now we know why. Nutritionist Philippe Besnard of the University of
    Burgundy in France has found that the 10,000 taste buds on the tongue
    seem to include a type that specifically responds to the flavor of fat.
    If confirmed, it would be only the sixth known type, joining those that
    sense sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and savory (also known as umami).
    Besnard uncovered the fat sensor in the tongues of genetically
    engineered mice that lacked the ability to make a protein called CD36.
    Mice normally have a yen for fatty foods, but the altered animals
    showed no preference for the stuff. Furthermore, regular mice release
    fat-digesting secretions in their bowel and ramp up intestinal fat
    absorption as soon as they taste fat; the modified mice displayed no
    such response. Apparently, CD36 is the key protein that allows certain
    mouse taste buds to respond to fat. Humans, whose sense of taste works
    almost exactly like that of mice, almost certainly have the same taste
    From an evolutionary perspetive, having a fat bud is a big advantage.
    It causes animals to crav and consume high-calorie fatty foods and then
    prompts their bodies to quickly and efficiently digest the fats,
    storing away an energy reserve for times of starvation. If scinetists
    can find a way to develop non-fattening foods that latch onto the fat
    receptors, they may be able at long last to develop fat-free snacks
    that can actually trick the tongue.

    Discover magazine/ Feb. 2006 issue
  3. montygram

    montygram Guest

    I prefer to be precise when I criticize, so here it goes:

    "They fit into cell membranes like broken keys, stopping
    the cell's proper function."

    This is as total a fiction as is possible. Cite an experiment that
    even remotely suggests this. But they won't because it is based upon a
    textbook model that was always just an assumption. Gilbert Ling has
    refuted this a long time ago - by doing actual experiments, as well as
    examining previous, real experiments.

    When they talk about "stickiness," they obviously are totally ignorant
    of the biochemical mechanism involved, which has to do with lipid
    peroxidation. Individual trans fatty acids are resistant to it, but
    when you eat TFAs you are eating a lot of other stuff with them that
    are dangerous, so there is a lack of scientific controls in these
    experiments. I will take TFAs any day of the week, if you gave them to
    me for free, but food is not made like that, and there is no easy way
    to produce it without other substances with it that are unhealthy. And
    of course eating fatty acids in a non-triglyceride form has a detergent
    action on the body and so you can't produce just TFAs as individual
    molecules and call the substance "food."

    But you are correct in that there is an incredible amount of
    misinformation out there, and my investigation leads me to think that a
    big part of it has to do with the way "nutritional science" was
    originally designed. They should have studied actual diets that people
    eat, but instead they had to make up useless and often misleading
    categories. You've heard these people say "heart healthy
    monounsaturates," right? Well, that's because PUFAs are so dangerous
    and the way they classified "saturated fat" is totally ridiculous (it
    includes lard and coconut oil, which have totally different effects on
    the body). But erucic acid is very dangerous whereas oleic acid is a
    MUFA the body will make on its own and is necessary in small amounts.