4 ms·

Very few things in food are categorically bad for you. Even stuff like fat & sodium, which people generally think of as "not good for you" are required for you

by mason55 11y ago

Very few things in food are categorically bad for you. Even stuff like fat & sodium, which people generally think of as "not good for you" are required for your body. If you tried to make a list of foods that actively harm you or that cannot be made a part of a healthy diet then your list would be very small. Transfats are one of the few things that the above does not apply to. They are actively bad for you and there are no known redeeming qualities.

saint_fiasco 11y ago
Depends on what the substitute foods are. If people start eating 100 percent less trans fat but 300% more sugar to compensate, then even though sugar has redeeming qualities, it will be a bad thing, right?
- meursault334 11y ago
  The argument that we could end artificial trans fat with tons of sugar is a straw man. The most sensible replacement which in most cases only affects the cost and shelf-life of food is either healthy or less-damaging fats. Banning trans fat may be bad for orangutans but it's good for consumers' health.
  - VLM 11y ago
    What possible corporation out there would intentionally increase direct and indirect financial costs, lowering profits, merely to not increase sugar/hfcs use to lure people into buying their product? Highly processed foods are now going to be much less greasy/oily and much more sugary to attract consumers. You need to do "something" get people to eat junk food, and if its not going to be the oily/greasy axis of evil it will be the HFCS/sugar axis of evil. Maybe 1% of the market, the green/organic or at least greenwashing segment, will increase prices and switch to saturated fats and dramatically lower shelf life, but on a population wide scale that is a rounding error. Higher carbs means more fat people and more diabetes and fat related illness including heart issues. So we're trading large number of heart disease related deaths for rather optimistically a slightly smaller number of obesity related deaths. Its probably a net win, but this is not the technological singularity where we'll all live forever...
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Highly processed foods already switched over to using better packaging that keeps oxygen and moisture out (trans fats don't particularly taste better than other oils, they have better shelf life, improved packaging makes up for much of the difference). Proof that I am not rambling incoherently: http://www.pffc-online.com/technical-reports/5213-paper-product-protection http://www.pffc-online.com/technical-reports/5213-paper-prod... So no worries there.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Margarine was developed as a replacement for butter. Just bring butter back (or any other saturated fat. coconut oil is also awesome)
cactusface 11y ago
Well, if it was categorically bad for you, it probably wouldn't be considered food.
mhurron 11y ago
Way to focus on that and not the much more real problem with people's diets, eating way too much. Yes, you need sodium in your diet to live, you do not need 3400 mg of it a day (twice recommended level). Can you show that Trans-Fats would be killing people if they stuck to properly portioned meals? Removing Trans-Fats is just going to be replaced with other fats, and probably some sugar for 'taste' that people will continue to eat far too much of. I expect the effect of removing Trans-Fats to be negligible to none because of that.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Trans fats taste terrible. Butter, ghee and lard have all flavor.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  > Can you show that Trans-Fats would be killing people if they stuck to properly portioned meals? People, no, I can't. If you wanted mice, monkeys, pigs, or any other mammal, I'm sure there's a study for you, but people not. What do you think about the prohibition of adding arsenic to the food? If people eat it in moderated quantities, it won't kill them either.
Someone1234 11y ago
It is quite disturbing how big the anti-fat (in food) sentiment got in the 1980s and 1990s. And even though it has been heavily debunked, people still look at fat quantity in food to decide what is "healthy." Ignoring the fact that fat (not transfats, regular dietary fat) is extremely good for you, and won't cause you to gain weight. There are even still "low fat" foods on the shelf which intentionally remove dietary fat and replace it with complex carbohydrates (mostly sugars), which are bad for you. Remember the whole "red meat will kill you!" thing? Yeah, utter nonsense. There's a small amount of cancer risk from the cooking process (and glazing/smoking) but broadly speaking raw meats are one of the healthiest non-vegetables you can eat. Much healthier than processed foods. The more fat the better. When you order a burger, the bun is by far the most unhealthy part. Then the sugared sauce (e.g. ketchup, mayo, etc), then the american "cheese," and last of all the meat. But most modern burgers are just "sugar delivery devices" in the sense that the % of meat is tiny and % of sugar (from bun, cheese, and sauce) is getting higher and higher.
- mcintyre1994 11y ago
  Sorry to comment without adding anything beyond my upvote, but I think this may be a typo :) > broadly speaking raw meats are one of the healthiest non-vegetables you can eat.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    I'm not sure I follow? I am trying to say (maybe unclearly) that vegetables are healthiest and then [unprocessed] meats. So meats are the healthiest non-vegetable. Vegetables, raw meats, everything else. Fruits are a tough category as some are extremely healthy (e.g. Blueberries) while others are barely better than candy (e.g. Figs, Grapes, etc).
    - Balgair 11y ago
      To clarify here: You mean eating, for instance, bacon that is less processed (not injected with tenderizers, salt, msg, etc) is 'healthier' for you than bacon that is processed (all that stuff injected). You do NOT mean that eating less heated and cooked meat is 'healthier' than eating cooked meats. That the cooking process is independent (mostly) from the 'healthiness' of the meat. Am I correct here?
tomjen3 11y ago
>Transfats are one of the few things that the above does not apply to. They are actively bad for you and there are no known redeeming qualities. Yeah eggs, salt, fat in general - all of these used to be considered dangerous too. Why should I believe that trans-fats are dangerous?

by mason55 11y ago

saint_fiasco 11y ago

Depends on what the substitute foods are. If people start eating 100 percent less trans fat but 300% more sugar to compensate, then even though sugar has redeeming qualities, it will be a bad thing, right?

meursault334 11y ago
The argument that we could end artificial trans fat with tons of sugar is a straw man. The most sensible replacement which in most cases only affects the cost and shelf-life of food is either healthy or less-damaging fats. Banning trans fat may be bad for orangutans but it's good for consumers' health.
- VLM 11y ago
  What possible corporation out there would intentionally increase direct and indirect financial costs, lowering profits, merely to not increase sugar/hfcs use to lure people into buying their product? Highly processed foods are now going to be much less greasy/oily and much more sugary to attract consumers. You need to do "something" get people to eat junk food, and if its not going to be the oily/greasy axis of evil it will be the HFCS/sugar axis of evil. Maybe 1% of the market, the green/organic or at least greenwashing segment, will increase prices and switch to saturated fats and dramatically lower shelf life, but on a population wide scale that is a rounding error. Higher carbs means more fat people and more diabetes and fat related illness including heart issues. So we're trading large number of heart disease related deaths for rather optimistically a slightly smaller number of obesity related deaths. Its probably a net win, but this is not the technological singularity where we'll all live forever...
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Highly processed foods already switched over to using better packaging that keeps oxygen and moisture out (trans fats don't particularly taste better than other oils, they have better shelf life, improved packaging makes up for much of the difference). Proof that I am not rambling incoherently: http://www.pffc-online.com/technical-reports/5213-paper-product-protection http://www.pffc-online.com/technical-reports/5213-paper-prod... So no worries there.
venomsnake 11y ago
Margarine was developed as a replacement for butter. Just bring butter back (or any other saturated fat. coconut oil is also awesome)

cactusface 11y ago

Well, if it was categorically bad for you, it probably wouldn't be considered food.

mhurron 11y ago

Way to focus on that and not the much more real problem with people's diets, eating way too much. Yes, you need sodium in your diet to live, you do not need 3400 mg of it a day (twice recommended level). Can you show that Trans-Fats would be killing people if they stuck to properly portioned meals? Removing Trans-Fats is just going to be replaced with other fats, and probably some sugar for 'taste' that people will continue to eat far too much of. I expect the effect of removing Trans-Fats to be negligible to none because of that.

venomsnake 11y ago
Trans fats taste terrible. Butter, ghee and lard have all flavor.
marcosdumay 11y ago
> Can you show that Trans-Fats would be killing people if they stuck to properly portioned meals? People, no, I can't. If you wanted mice, monkeys, pigs, or any other mammal, I'm sure there's a study for you, but people not. What do you think about the prohibition of adding arsenic to the food? If people eat it in moderated quantities, it won't kill them either.

Someone1234 11y ago

It is quite disturbing how big the anti-fat (in food) sentiment got in the 1980s and 1990s. And even though it has been heavily debunked, people still look at fat quantity in food to decide what is "healthy." Ignoring the fact that fat (not transfats, regular dietary fat) is extremely good for you, and won't cause you to gain weight. There are even still "low fat" foods on the shelf which intentionally remove dietary fat and replace it with complex carbohydrates (mostly sugars), which are bad for you. Remember the whole "red meat will kill you!" thing? Yeah, utter nonsense. There's a small amount of cancer risk from the cooking process (and glazing/smoking) but broadly speaking raw meats are one of the healthiest non-vegetables you can eat. Much healthier than processed foods. The more fat the better. When you order a burger, the bun is by far the most unhealthy part. Then the sugared sauce (e.g. ketchup, mayo, etc), then the american "cheese," and last of all the meat. But most modern burgers are just "sugar delivery devices" in the sense that the % of meat is tiny and % of sugar (from bun, cheese, and sauce) is getting higher and higher.

mcintyre1994 11y ago
Sorry to comment without adding anything beyond my upvote, but I think this may be a typo :) > broadly speaking raw meats are one of the healthiest non-vegetables you can eat.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  I'm not sure I follow? I am trying to say (maybe unclearly) that vegetables are healthiest and then [unprocessed] meats. So meats are the healthiest non-vegetable. Vegetables, raw meats, everything else. Fruits are a tough category as some are extremely healthy (e.g. Blueberries) while others are barely better than candy (e.g. Figs, Grapes, etc).
  - Balgair 11y ago
    To clarify here: You mean eating, for instance, bacon that is less processed (not injected with tenderizers, salt, msg, etc) is 'healthier' for you than bacon that is processed (all that stuff injected). You do NOT mean that eating less heated and cooked meat is 'healthier' than eating cooked meats. That the cooking process is independent (mostly) from the 'healthiness' of the meat. Am I correct here?

tomjen3 11y ago

>Transfats are one of the few things that the above does not apply to. They are actively bad for you and there are no known redeeming qualities. Yeah eggs, salt, fat in general - all of these used to be considered dangerous too. Why should I believe that trans-fats are dangerous?