3 ms·

Could you please cite your sources for your claims? They are rather bold and contrary to what I've learned.

tengbretson 5y ago
> I remember when... > I'm afraid... > I'm happy to... It seems a little absurd to me to ask the OP to cite the source(s) of their thoughts, emotions and memories.
DoreenMichele 5y ago
A quick search readily brings up multiple articles about margarine and heart disease. Women who eat four or more teaspoons of margarine a day have a 50 percent greater risk of developing heart disease than women who eat margarine only once a month http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/05/us/study-links-heart-disease-to-margarine.html http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/05/us/study-links-heart-disea... Margarine intake and subsequent coronary heart disease in ... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9229205 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9229205 Butter vs. Margarine - Harvard Health https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/butter-vs-margarine https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/butter-vs-mar...
- tuukkah 5y ago
  From the Harvard Health link: > From the standpoint of heart disease, butter remains on the list of foods to use sparingly mostly because it is high in saturated fat. [--] Some of the newer margarines that are low in saturated fat, high in unsaturated fat, and free of trans fats are fine as long as you don't use too much (they are still rich in calories).
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    I would say the jury is still out on newer margarines. Give it a few years before drawing conclusions. Our understanding of food chemistry is still in its infancy and we routinely overturn things that have been "common knowledge" in this area. Plus it doesn't have any bearing on the detail that such articles can be readily found with a quick search, so there's no need to ask the OP to cite their sources.
- satya71 5y ago
  Ah makes sense. Trans-fats were definitely bad. But you can get trans-fat free and even lower staturated fat content margarine today.
smegcicle 5y ago
could you cite what you've learned? everything oppositelock asserted sounds like common knowledge to me

> I remember when... > I'm afraid... > I'm happy to... It seems a little absurd to me to ask the OP to cite the source(s) of their thoughts, emotions and memories.

DoreenMichele 5y ago

A quick search readily brings up multiple articles about margarine and heart disease. Women who eat four or more teaspoons of margarine a day have a 50 percent greater risk of developing heart disease than women who eat margarine only once a month http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/05/us/study-links-heart-disease-to-margarine.html http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/05/us/study-links-heart-disea... Margarine intake and subsequent coronary heart disease in ... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9229205 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9229205 Butter vs. Margarine - Harvard Health https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/butter-vs-margarine https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/butter-vs-mar...

tuukkah 5y ago
From the Harvard Health link: > From the standpoint of heart disease, butter remains on the list of foods to use sparingly mostly because it is high in saturated fat. [--] Some of the newer margarines that are low in saturated fat, high in unsaturated fat, and free of trans fats are fine as long as you don't use too much (they are still rich in calories).
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  I would say the jury is still out on newer margarines. Give it a few years before drawing conclusions. Our understanding of food chemistry is still in its infancy and we routinely overturn things that have been "common knowledge" in this area. Plus it doesn't have any bearing on the detail that such articles can be readily found with a quick search, so there's no need to ask the OP to cite their sources.
satya71 5y ago
Ah makes sense. Trans-fats were definitely bad. But you can get trans-fat free and even lower staturated fat content margarine today.

smegcicle 5y ago

could you cite what you've learned? everything oppositelock asserted sounds like common knowledge to me