11 ms·
The 100-year-old scientist who pushed the FDA to ban artificial trans fat
- huherto 11y agoWhat about the trans fat already in our arteries ? Is it going to stay in our arteries for ever?
- davesque 11y agoYeah, couldn't they have also banned intravenous trans fat? :)
- ars 11y agoThe body will eventually burn it for energy.
- gohrt 11y agofrom plaque on the wall of arteries?
- ars 11y agoYes? Did you have some special reason to italicize the word arteries? First of all I am talking about the trans fats themself, and plaque is not made from the trans fats themself. Those fats will be burned for energy over time and vanish. If you want to talk about the results of the trans fats, those too will reverse over time if the health of the person improves.
- refurb 11y agoDo you have a source? There have been many clinical trials looking at cholesterol reducing drugs and their effect on plaque size. Even with pharmacological intervention, reducing plaque size is really tough. The plaques are not just made of fat, but fibrosis tissue, immune cells, etc.
- ars 11y agoThe trials are looking for a drug that does that without lifestyle changes. There are tons of studies that show that better lifestyle helps, it's just most people can't do it. Not eating trans fats is one small change that will help, that is also easily done.
- refurb 11y agoThere are tons of studies that show that better lifestyle helps Help reduce plaque size? I'd be interested to see those studies!
- ars 11y agoHelp reduce heart attacks, which is what really matters. Some studies for plaque reduction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3872716/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3872716/ http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/19/8/1956.short http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/19/8/1956.short http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/15/7/827.short http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/15/7/827.short There were also studies that show better diet stabilizes the plaque, preventing it from causing problems. If you want to find more studies: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=plaque+regression https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=plaque+regression
- refurb 11y agoNew insights into the possibility of plaque regression have been elicited by the ASTEROID, REVERSAL, and SATURN studies that utilized intensive statin therapy and demonstrated plaque regression in majority of study patients. However, these trials showed less than 10% regression in overall plaque volume only, which may not explain CV event reduction. You've changed your claim. First you said a healthy diet will reduce plaque volume, now you say it just helps reduce heart attack rates. Even the studies you cited only show minimal plaque volume reduction (so small it's questionable if it helps at all) and only with intensive pharmacological therapy.
- uulbiy 11y agoIt's partly mentioned in the article: > Later, he conducted a study showing that rats developed atherosclerosis after being fed artificial trans fats. When he removed the substance from their diets, the atherosclerosis disappeared from their arteries.
- jokoon 11y agoSome white blood cells will calcify and stick to arteries. The process can be reversed, but it is very slow.
- spiritplumber 11y agoWell if he's 100 year old and still active enough to do lobbying, he probably is doing something right diet-wise... (Did you know that the guy who invented LSD died at 102?)
- sown 11y agoMaybe just luck, along with good diet and exercise. He looks better than my grandpa did at 70.
- kyberias 11y agoLongevity is very hereditary.
- nothrabannosir 11y agoYou're probably kidding, but just in case people take this seriously: this is a prime example of survivor's bias. A literal one, even.
- cynwoody 11y agoKidding? LOL! 102†. Albert Hofmann survived. Will you? †https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hofmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hofmann
- romaniv 11y agoSurvivor bias is ignoring the invisible failures in your correlation analysis. What we have in regards to health research is the opposite. Every single study I heard about is about (preventing) causes of death. What you're saying is, essentially, that this guy's age should be ignored because his longevity is due to luck. But I haven't seen anything that rules out other possibilities.
- nothrabannosir 11y agoYou're right, but: > What you're saying is, essentially, that this guy's age should be ignored because his longevity is due to luck. That is absolutely not what I was trying to say. Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to the "look, he's old! let's see what he did to get there," comment: it's a form of survivor bias. It's not about this man, or his life choices. Rather, it's about us, looking to survivors for lessons on survival. Wikipedia has a good page on it: Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. The survivors may be actual people, as in a medical study, or could be companies or research subjects or applicants for a job, or anything that must make it past some selection process to be considered further. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
- jrapdx3 11y agoInspiring to read about anyone taking on the FDA to improve our food supply and the nation's health. Especially impressive considering that we're talking about a person 100 years old. Goes to show age is not necessarily a barrier to productivity and creativity. Maybe it's fair to describe Dr. Kummerow as a kind of "geek" in his field. It follows that by all means we should honor old geeks, it doesn't serve our interests very well to discard them at 50 which I'm told is a current trend. Article is a nice juxtaposition too, since just a few hours ago there was mention here of an article about diet and obesity. No doubt consuming substantial quantities of artificial trans-fats contributes to the health consequences of obesity if not obesity itself.
- marincounty 11y ago50 appears to be the number? When I was 30, I thought 50 was ancient. My doctor tells me 50 is when health problems start to climb the graph. I can tell you this 50 came too quick for myself. I'm not sure if being reminded 50 is old on a daily basis is good for the soul, or mental health? I'm thinking about disconnecting from all media, and advertising. They really bash the 50 and over crowd? I was very scared of death in my 20-40's. I'm now 50 and I don't fear death like did when I was younger. I just don't want to die in agony like my father did. My father died of liver cancer, and it was beyond hell. I would not wish that pain he went through on my worst enemy. And yes--a Hospice nurse said it was 'just the natural process of death--'. The doctor came to the house once--I think? I don't have a point other than the fear of death lessens as you get older. If you are reasonably healthy man in your 20-40's don't ruin your life ruminating about death. I did! Oh yea, my generation is not my father's. There's no need to call me "Sir". I was born in the 60's. We are not my father's generation: We don't take ourself's seriously. We don't need to be doated on. We still look at the world as if we were children; meaning we don't trust the grown up's(the one's usually in charge), and dislike authority figures--abuse of authority. My generation was raised by beatings of orange Hot Wheel tracks, by Hippie/conservatives (father--conservative know it all. Mother--a hippie who was in need of therapy). We grew up and learned from our parents mistakes. Please don't lump my generation with all the others. We are just as lost and confused as most of you--just chronologically older. Sorry, about my neurotic rambling. I'm 50 alone, scared, and close to being homeless.
- reinhardt1053 11y agoHis book worth a read: "Cholesterol is Not the Culprit: A Guide to Preventing Heart Disease" http://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-Not-Culprit-Preventing-Disease/dp/0983383561 http://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-Not-Culprit-Preventing-Dis...
- floridaguy01 11y agoYou can easily neutralize the bad fats that you eat by ingesting baby seal oil pills daily. I buy them on amazon.
- nekopa 11y agoWhat do you guys think about the fact that the current head of the FDA (edit: I am referring to M. Taylor, deputy commissioner of food and vet.) has spent a lot of his career working with Monsanto? On one hand, we want someone running the FDA who has experience with the food industry. (Just as we would probably prefer having a manager who has spent time in the trenches coding). On the other (tin foil hat) hand, has the food industry placed a 'friend' in charge of the people that should be regulating them?
- adventured 11y agoInsiders dominate pretty much every major government agency of consequence that deals intimately with the private sector. Treasury, SEC, FDA, FCC, etc. They're all stocked full of cross-overs, that go from private to public and back or vice versa. I don't think there's anything tin foil about it at all. It's de facto how the system works. I don't think it guarantees how a person will regulate, but it does probably trend toward heavy bias.
- venomsnake 11y agoThe FCC guy surprised us all though.
- count 11y agoThe alternative is what we have in infosec: the folks in charge of 'cyber' in the govt don't have a clue, because they have no background or connections to the 'industry' or technology at all. And it's a total disaster.
- chrischen 11y agoYou could argue that the best people to fight the bad guys are recruited from the bad guys, or former bad guys. After all, Frank Abagnale Jr was recruited by the FBI to catch check forgers.
- noir_lord 11y ago> After all, Frank Abagnale Jr was recruited by the FBI to catch check forgers He wasn't put in charge of the FBI though and I'd assume he had heavy oversight.
- Daishiman 11y agoDude looks like he's 30 years younger.
- zinkem 11y agoI hope there's a laugh out there for some of you ... =|
- bad_user 11y agoAfter decades of artificial trans fats being advertised as being healthier than fats of animal origin, with restaurant chains being forced to switch to trans fats, I find this to be quite funny. And then people wonder about the French paradox ... well, it's because you've been fed with lies.
- Turbots 11y agoim pretty sure we've been fed transfats :'(
- Brakenshire 11y ago> with restaurant chains being forced to switch to trans fats Really? Do you have any details?
- bad_user 11y agoYes, in the 1980s most fast-food outlets have switched to trans fats over night due to being attacked in the media for using fats of animal origin.
- juziozd 11y agoThey switched to vegetable oils, not to trans fats.
- healsdata 11y agoHydrogenated vegetables oils are the primary source of artificial trans fats in food. And McDonald's themselves readily admits they used to use trans fats in their fryers. > For example, we switched to a cooking oil in our restaurants that reduced artificial trans fat in most of our fried menu items > The fast-food giant already has demonstrated that it can eliminate trans fats when required. In Denmark, the company switched the oil it uses to make French fries to one that doesn't have any trans fat. 1. http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/your_questions/our_food/are-your-products-made-with-trans-fat.html http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/your_questions/our_food/are-y... 2. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-12-06/why-mcdonalds-isnt-free-of-trans-fatbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-12-06/why-mcdonalds...
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoI suppose if I want good health it's worth listening to the guy who made it to 100.
- nograde 11y agoFor those interested, there's a documentary underway where Kummerov is one of the interviewees: "On the back of a tiger" http://www.perceivethinkact.com/ http://www.perceivethinkact.com/.
- tim333 11y ago>first published his research warning about the dangers of artery-clogging trans fats in 1957 It amazes me these things take so long when the evidence is pretty clear. I see the UK government still hasn't banned the things although most supermarkets and fast food chains have dropped them. I wonder if in the age of the internet that problems that kill probably tens of thousands of people will get dealt with in less than 55 years?
- e40 11y agoWhat's more amazing to me is how fast junk science gets adopted. Perhaps people hear/believe what they want to hear/believe.
- scholia 11y agoThe FDA's dietary guidelines (aka Food Pyramid) were based mostly on junk science, and their adoption correlates with the rapid growth in obesity in America. Vested interests (politicians, the food industry, even health organisations) make it very hard to overturn them once they're adopted. It would cost the food industry money and everybody else loses face if they have to admit they screwed up. It's a lot simpler just to let tens of millions of Americans become obese and many thousands die of heart disease. In passing, Denmark banned trans fats in 2003 and has seen a "70% fall in cardiovascular disease deaths". http://www.euractiv.com/sections/health-consumers/denmark-sees-70-fall-cardiovascular-disease-deaths-301951 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/health-consumers/denmark-se...
- sjg007 11y agoAlways follow the money.
- __z 11y agoMinor nitpick: The food pyramid wasn't a product of the FDA, it was a product of the USDA. Also the classic food pyramid was "overturned" a couple times, now it is a plate. You are right though, money and outside influence are involved, sometimes exclusively. Honestly, I don't think the USDA should be telling us what to eat in that way because we know that humans can survive and even thrive on a very large variety of diets. Story time. Growing up I used to see the food pyramid posted on the walls everywhere - school, after school programs, etc. I became concerned that I wasn't eating enough bread due to looking at it all the time. One day I went home and tried to eat something like 12 slices of (white) bread. This is of course a really silly thing to do.
- reamworks 11y agoLet me fix the title for you: "The asshole who made sure _none_ of us could enjoy flakey pie crusts, crispy-creamy donuts, and silky cake frosting because fat people can't control how much crap they shove in their pie holes. "
- crazy1van 11y agoTo me this whole issue boils down to the degree of risk relative to the regulation. It is one thing to say the current evidence shows trans fats are worse for you than other fats, and that is why we require foods that use them to be labeled. It is another thing to ban them. This just speaks to my overall philosophy on government -- one that I realize many do not share -- but I generally believe in giving adults the freedom to make bad personal decisions. And let's not kid ourselves about the severity of transfats. This isn't a chemical that you accidently inhale once and are dead an hour later. This is a substance that if you consume it throughout your life, increases your risk of other health issues. That does not seem ban worthy.
- bdamm 11y agoIf all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? This story is an example of the government doing what it ought to, helping the people be defended from the bad behavior of corporations and society in general. There is a larger question of how much harm should a product cause society before the government decides to put a stop to it. I would like the government to have a standard by which any issue is put to the test. The nanny state doesn't bother me as much as its arbitrary selectivity and application.
- splat 11y ago> If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? But in what world is that true? In any grocery store you can get food that is organic or non-organic, GMO or non-GMO, with sugar or sugar-free, with fat or fat-free, kosher or not kosher, vegan or non-vegan. We consumers have more food choices today than we've ever had in the past. To claim that "all food producers" will just "use the same cheapest ingredient" is a straw man.
- eli 11y agoI think the "known to the state of california to cause cancer" warnings are on so many things that they are effectively meaningless. So that's probably an example of a required warning that has little effect.
- Nadya 11y agoSo we're banning trans-fats because they are unhealthy and cause heart issues for the people whom directly consume them? But smoking is A-OK even though it harmfully impacts people around the smoker and not just the smoker? I do not find "because it is unhealthy for you" a compelling enough reason to ban something that tastes good and provides a convenience (storage) if we aren't going to be consistent with the logic of "its banned because its bad for you".
- dudifordMann 11y agomy take: [Optimistically] It's because heart disease is the #1 premature cause of death while lung disease is just #3 (though the percentage gap is much wider than their positions suggest) and therefore a good target for helping society at large through regulation[1] [Pessimistically] the #1 cause of poor health conditions is heart disease, and therefore the medicare/medicade cost is too high for the govt to foot the bill, so they're finally regulating. :P [1]http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/13/4-common-killers-in-the-world-heart-disease-cancer-lung-disease-diabetes/ http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/13/4-common-killers-in...
- Nadya 11y agoSmoking causes more cancers than just lung cancer. Cancer is the #1 cause of premature deaths - although that's including all 200 odd sum of cancers, not all smoking related. For a more fair comparison you would have to sum together the cancers it is linked to, then factor the number of deaths of those cancers that were smoking-related. Which makes the math a bit trickier: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/cigarettesmoking/cigarette-smoking-illness-and-death http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/ciga... Not to mention there are non-death but still health-related issues that add up medical expenses. Which is a bit harder to quantify. Also, as mentioned prior, other people suffer because of smokers from second-hand smoke. I feel strongly about this because I grew up with asthma and almost died at age 6 from an asthma attack that developed because of my father's smoking. Smoking can kill the people around you. Eating transfats won't (unless they're sharing your food).
- arbitrage 11y ago
- api 11y agoThis sort of thing is why so many have decided to preemptively reject GMO foods. After so many failures, anything artificial in food is guilty until proven innocent. Engineered food really has a terrible record. With the exception of a few early successes with nutrition enrichment (e.g. iodized salt) and sterilization/pasteurization, most of what we've done with food has been neutral to negative in outcome. Part of the problem might be the incentives. Food is a brutal margin-crushing business. Food engineering is not being pursued with the goal of making food more nutritious or safer. The primary goal is to find ways to offer cheaper, inferior food at the same price -- to remove value from the product in such a way that the customer does not notice. Making food more addictive (junk food) is also an objective. "Heroin is the ideal product" as the saying goes. With those objectives it's not surprising that "artificial" food has such a horrible reputation. It's effectively a synonym for food engineered to be superficially addictive but devoid of quality. It's worthwhile to note that iodized salt and pasteurization were in fact undertaken with the goal of making food safer or curing a nutritional deficiency.