4 ms·

Nonstick pans require less fat to cook food. Is the health benefit of avoiding shedding greater than the benefit of being healthier in terms of fat percentage o

Nonstick pans require less fat to cook food. Is the health benefit of avoiding shedding greater than the benefit of being healthier in terms of fat percentage or weight? I am not so sure. Also as I recall PTFE coatings (Teflon is an example brand name) are no longer made with PFOA in the US or Europe. Yes, PTFE itself is a PFAS as well, but as far as I know it does not delaminate or shed as long as the pan is used at lower temperatures (less than 450F).

blindriver 3y ago
You do realize that the campaign of low fat diets has completely been extinguished in the last 10 years? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/low-fat-diets-failed-experiment/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/low-fat-d...
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  I think you’re misinterpreting the reevaluation of fats in recent years. I’m not demonizing fats and saying they need to be avoided entirely. But I am saying people (especially in America) need to moderate their intake of calories in general and fats specifically as well (as they’re a vehicle for calories). There are also different varieties of fats with different health effects. Using nonstick cookware is an easy way to reduce the intake of fats (and therefore calories) even if you are not banning them from your diet entirely. Let’s take a simple example: have you tried to make a fried egg in a cast iron pan and compared it to a nonstick pan? In a cast iron, you’ll need to use a pat of butter to get the egg to slide easily (around 100 calories). In nonstick you can get away with zero butter. It adds up.
  - happyopossum 3y ago
    A) A pat of butter is around 35 calories, and B) if you're putting a ton of butter in there it isn't exactly getting absorbed into the egg, most of it is left in the pan.
    - blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
      I did several searches, and the sources I saw said a pat is 1 tablespoon and is 100 calories. Example: https://www.nutritionix.com/food/butter/pat https://www.nutritionix.com/food/butter/pat But your latter point is fair. I haven’t measured it. I just know that my experience of cooking in my cast iron requires a lot more fat than my other pans.
      - WrongAssumption 3y ago
        A tablespoon of butter is significantly more than what is considered a pat of butter.
  - nostrebored 3y ago
    People in America should be upping their fats and completely eliminating any low fat packaged foods from their diets. The results are unambiguous.
electrograv 3y ago
Low fat diets are not healthier. The notion that fat is evil has been thoroughly debunked for quite some time now.
- notJim 3y ago
  Fat is calorically dense. If you're trying to lose weight, you need to be careful about eating calorically dense foods. And if you want to eat more protein to maintain muscle while losing weight, there is a zero-sum trade-off between fat and protein.
  - dham 3y ago
    Interesting archaic theory, as me and my wife just lost 40lbs each by eating a ton of fat and protein, haha. If you want to lose weight, stay away from sugar, for example carbs
    - blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
      High fat high protein (with low carbs) can definitely be successful, as long as you’re mindful of your approach and manage net calorie intake. But for lots of people it is easier to just eat what they do, but make minor tweaks to reduce the amount of fat as a way of reducing calories while still being satisfied by what they’re eating. Different ways for different people.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - notJim 3y ago
      The ad hominem isn't necessary, counting calories is working great for me. Glad you found something that works for you.
    - devit 3y ago
      Weight gain/loss depends on calories, so you can eat anything to either gain or lose weight as long as it's the proper quantity (although if you want to gain muscle then you also need enough proteins).
Spivak 3y ago
I mean I guess but are people out there really optimizing their diets at the level of a drizzle/spray of oil or butter? The health difference can't possibly be worth it and barely moves the needle it's so little. I know it's my French heritage talking but life without butter isn't.
- notJim 3y ago
  Absolutely yes people are. I'm active in weight loss communities to support my own weight loss, and yes we are careful about our fat consumption. The health difference is large for someone trying to lose weight. A tablespoon of butter isn't that filling, but contains about 150 calories. That's equivalent to a whole pot of non-fat yogurt or two eggs, both of which are more filling and give you more protein. When making eggs, I try to use about a teaspoon of butter, which still gives some butter flavor, but lets me save more calories for eggs.
  - brewdad 3y ago
    Soft boil your eggs and you can add zero calories and still get the flavor.
    - notJim 3y ago
      I actually forgot about soft boiled eggs, good idea! I used to love them.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  > are people out there really optimizing their diets at the level of a drizzle/spray of oil or butter Lots of people do this, and it’s not because they’re somehow ignorant and against all fats. It’s more that people trying to be healthy make small tweaks they can live with that add up. It’s not about being an extremist but just moderating things where you are willing to. Everyone’s metabolism, dietary preferences, and lifestyle is different. If you live an active lifestyle with enough exercise or just have a higher metabolism, then it might make no difference to optimize at that level. But for lots of people it can make a big difference without making them feel like they can’t eat what they want. Three meals a day prepared without added fat means savings of around 3-500 calories a day depending on how much fat you’re using and your portion sizes. Keep in mind as well that not all calories are equal and calories from protein sources tend to be more filling (compare eating 3 tablespoons of butter versus a chicken breast).
swatcoder 3y ago
Steaming, grilling, baking, air frying (convection baking), roasting, boiling, stewing, frying in seasoned cast iron, etc all "require less fat to cook food" If avoiding extra fat is one's highest priority, it's not like you're out of luck without nonstick pans.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  You’re proposing eating different foods with different recipes and flavors when you suggest that steaming, grilling, etc are alternatives. If I want to prepare similar food to what I can make in a stainless steel or cast iron pan, but with less fat, a nonstick pan is the best tool. Also since you listed frying in a seasoned cast iron pan in your list of alternatives - that requires use of additional fat. Yes, even if it is fully properly seasoned.
  - swatcoder 3y ago
    Either the fat retained in the dish was negligble in the first place, in which case nonstick doesn't matter, or a nutritionally or aesthetically appreciable amount was retained, in which case you've already changed the recipe and dish.
    - blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
      It’s a minor change to me. Something fried in a nonstick pan may not have the same sear as a steel or iron pan, but it’s a lot closer than steaming, which is a totally different thing.

blindriver 3y ago

You do realize that the campaign of low fat diets has completely been extinguished in the last 10 years? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/low-fat-diets-failed-experiment/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/low-fat-d...

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
I think you’re misinterpreting the reevaluation of fats in recent years. I’m not demonizing fats and saying they need to be avoided entirely. But I am saying people (especially in America) need to moderate their intake of calories in general and fats specifically as well (as they’re a vehicle for calories). There are also different varieties of fats with different health effects. Using nonstick cookware is an easy way to reduce the intake of fats (and therefore calories) even if you are not banning them from your diet entirely. Let’s take a simple example: have you tried to make a fried egg in a cast iron pan and compared it to a nonstick pan? In a cast iron, you’ll need to use a pat of butter to get the egg to slide easily (around 100 calories). In nonstick you can get away with zero butter. It adds up.
- happyopossum 3y ago
  A) A pat of butter is around 35 calories, and B) if you're putting a ton of butter in there it isn't exactly getting absorbed into the egg, most of it is left in the pan.
  - blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
    I did several searches, and the sources I saw said a pat is 1 tablespoon and is 100 calories. Example: https://www.nutritionix.com/food/butter/pat https://www.nutritionix.com/food/butter/pat But your latter point is fair. I haven’t measured it. I just know that my experience of cooking in my cast iron requires a lot more fat than my other pans.
    - WrongAssumption 3y ago
      A tablespoon of butter is significantly more than what is considered a pat of butter.
- nostrebored 3y ago
  People in America should be upping their fats and completely eliminating any low fat packaged foods from their diets. The results are unambiguous.

electrograv 3y ago

Low fat diets are not healthier. The notion that fat is evil has been thoroughly debunked for quite some time now.

notJim 3y ago
Fat is calorically dense. If you're trying to lose weight, you need to be careful about eating calorically dense foods. And if you want to eat more protein to maintain muscle while losing weight, there is a zero-sum trade-off between fat and protein.
- dham 3y ago
  Interesting archaic theory, as me and my wife just lost 40lbs each by eating a ton of fat and protein, haha. If you want to lose weight, stay away from sugar, for example carbs
  - blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
    High fat high protein (with low carbs) can definitely be successful, as long as you’re mindful of your approach and manage net calorie intake. But for lots of people it is easier to just eat what they do, but make minor tweaks to reduce the amount of fat as a way of reducing calories while still being satisfied by what they’re eating. Different ways for different people.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - notJim 3y ago
    The ad hominem isn't necessary, counting calories is working great for me. Glad you found something that works for you.
  - devit 3y ago
    Weight gain/loss depends on calories, so you can eat anything to either gain or lose weight as long as it's the proper quantity (although if you want to gain muscle then you also need enough proteins).

Spivak 3y ago

I mean I guess but are people out there really optimizing their diets at the level of a drizzle/spray of oil or butter? The health difference can't possibly be worth it and barely moves the needle it's so little. I know it's my French heritage talking but life without butter isn't.

notJim 3y ago
Absolutely yes people are. I'm active in weight loss communities to support my own weight loss, and yes we are careful about our fat consumption. The health difference is large for someone trying to lose weight. A tablespoon of butter isn't that filling, but contains about 150 calories. That's equivalent to a whole pot of non-fat yogurt or two eggs, both of which are more filling and give you more protein. When making eggs, I try to use about a teaspoon of butter, which still gives some butter flavor, but lets me save more calories for eggs.
- brewdad 3y ago
  Soft boil your eggs and you can add zero calories and still get the flavor.
  - notJim 3y ago
    I actually forgot about soft boiled eggs, good idea! I used to love them.
blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
> are people out there really optimizing their diets at the level of a drizzle/spray of oil or butter Lots of people do this, and it’s not because they’re somehow ignorant and against all fats. It’s more that people trying to be healthy make small tweaks they can live with that add up. It’s not about being an extremist but just moderating things where you are willing to. Everyone’s metabolism, dietary preferences, and lifestyle is different. If you live an active lifestyle with enough exercise or just have a higher metabolism, then it might make no difference to optimize at that level. But for lots of people it can make a big difference without making them feel like they can’t eat what they want. Three meals a day prepared without added fat means savings of around 3-500 calories a day depending on how much fat you’re using and your portion sizes. Keep in mind as well that not all calories are equal and calories from protein sources tend to be more filling (compare eating 3 tablespoons of butter versus a chicken breast).

swatcoder 3y ago

Steaming, grilling, baking, air frying (convection baking), roasting, boiling, stewing, frying in seasoned cast iron, etc all "require less fat to cook food" If avoiding extra fat is one's highest priority, it's not like you're out of luck without nonstick pans.

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
You’re proposing eating different foods with different recipes and flavors when you suggest that steaming, grilling, etc are alternatives. If I want to prepare similar food to what I can make in a stainless steel or cast iron pan, but with less fat, a nonstick pan is the best tool. Also since you listed frying in a seasoned cast iron pan in your list of alternatives - that requires use of additional fat. Yes, even if it is fully properly seasoned.
- swatcoder 3y ago
  Either the fat retained in the dish was negligble in the first place, in which case nonstick doesn't matter, or a nutritionally or aesthetically appreciable amount was retained, in which case you've already changed the recipe and dish.
  - blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
    It’s a minor change to me. Something fried in a nonstick pan may not have the same sear as a steel or iron pan, but it’s a lot closer than steaming, which is a totally different thing.