monty1945
Thu, Sep-28-06, 06:15
I've posted about this before, but I think there is a better
way of thinking about the situation. I was watching NBC's
nightly news, and of course an "expert" was interviewed by
Brian Williams. She said something about the "fats" being
created "artficially" several decades ago, intimating, of
course, that "trans fat" is some kind of "Frankenfood," when
in fact fatty acids are very simple molecules, and trans fatty
acids occur naturally in small amounts, and have for millions
of years (at least).
So how can this be settled using the scientific method?
Because they are claiming that the process is what is to
blame, and not the unsaturated fatty acids (which get some of
their double bonds changed to saturated ones), the following
is a simple experiment that will make things clear: one batch
of the typical oil used for partial hydrogenation, such as
corn oil, will be totally saturated, while the other batch
will be partially hydrogenated in the usual way. Then, one
group of experimental animals commonly used for fat
experiments will be fed the totally hydrogenated corn oil at
20% of calories, while another group of that species will be
fed 20% partially hydrogenated corn oil each day. We then see
which group lives long, and note what diseases are present
before death.
If it is the process, as if being contended, then they should
all die at about the same age, with the same rates of
whatever diseases that afflict them. If it is the lipid
peroxidation that is causing the problem, as I argue, then
the animals fed the partially hyrdogenated corn oil should
die at younger ages. It's as simple as that, and yet this
experiment has either not been done, or the "experts" do not
want to talk about it. I have not found exactly this
experiment in my research, and I've done a great deal of
research on this subject.
When I have posted about this previously, some have criticized
the posts, claiming that once an unsaturated fatty acid is
changed to a saturated one, it can no longer be considered a
"trans fatty acid," but what the "experts" on the mainstream
news programs are now saying is that it is the process that is
causing problems - they say nothing about how saturated the
fatty acid become during hydrogenation. Moreover, if we accept
the argument of my critics, then a simple question remains,
that is, what is causing the ill health associated with "trans
fat?" I assume we all agree that what is generally referred to
as "trans fat" is unhealthy food. If a fat source has been
fully hydrogenated, they say it is not "trans fat" any longer,
and yet the same fat source that has been only partially
hydrogenated (thus leaving many double bonds intact) is
considered very unhealthy by everyone and should be called
"trans fat." This makes no sense whatsoever. My critics have
now been "backed into a corner" and there is no escape,
because they must either admit that they were wrong in their
previous criticisms, or else argue that a totally hydrogenated
fat source such as corn oil would be just as unhealthy as a
partially hydrogenated one After all, they dismiss the notion
that the fatty acids with double bonds pose a health threat in
this context. But if the experiment is done and the partially
hydrogenated oil fed animals live much shorter lives, this
notion is clearly wrong, and the only interpretation that
makes any sense at all is that the double bonds are being
degraded by free radicals and that the lipid peroxidation is
causing the ill health (as a proverbial mountain of
molecular-level evidence now demonstrates).
way of thinking about the situation. I was watching NBC's
nightly news, and of course an "expert" was interviewed by
Brian Williams. She said something about the "fats" being
created "artficially" several decades ago, intimating, of
course, that "trans fat" is some kind of "Frankenfood," when
in fact fatty acids are very simple molecules, and trans fatty
acids occur naturally in small amounts, and have for millions
of years (at least).
So how can this be settled using the scientific method?
Because they are claiming that the process is what is to
blame, and not the unsaturated fatty acids (which get some of
their double bonds changed to saturated ones), the following
is a simple experiment that will make things clear: one batch
of the typical oil used for partial hydrogenation, such as
corn oil, will be totally saturated, while the other batch
will be partially hydrogenated in the usual way. Then, one
group of experimental animals commonly used for fat
experiments will be fed the totally hydrogenated corn oil at
20% of calories, while another group of that species will be
fed 20% partially hydrogenated corn oil each day. We then see
which group lives long, and note what diseases are present
before death.
If it is the process, as if being contended, then they should
all die at about the same age, with the same rates of
whatever diseases that afflict them. If it is the lipid
peroxidation that is causing the problem, as I argue, then
the animals fed the partially hyrdogenated corn oil should
die at younger ages. It's as simple as that, and yet this
experiment has either not been done, or the "experts" do not
want to talk about it. I have not found exactly this
experiment in my research, and I've done a great deal of
research on this subject.
When I have posted about this previously, some have criticized
the posts, claiming that once an unsaturated fatty acid is
changed to a saturated one, it can no longer be considered a
"trans fatty acid," but what the "experts" on the mainstream
news programs are now saying is that it is the process that is
causing problems - they say nothing about how saturated the
fatty acid become during hydrogenation. Moreover, if we accept
the argument of my critics, then a simple question remains,
that is, what is causing the ill health associated with "trans
fat?" I assume we all agree that what is generally referred to
as "trans fat" is unhealthy food. If a fat source has been
fully hydrogenated, they say it is not "trans fat" any longer,
and yet the same fat source that has been only partially
hydrogenated (thus leaving many double bonds intact) is
considered very unhealthy by everyone and should be called
"trans fat." This makes no sense whatsoever. My critics have
now been "backed into a corner" and there is no escape,
because they must either admit that they were wrong in their
previous criticisms, or else argue that a totally hydrogenated
fat source such as corn oil would be just as unhealthy as a
partially hydrogenated one After all, they dismiss the notion
that the fatty acids with double bonds pose a health threat in
this context. But if the experiment is done and the partially
hydrogenated oil fed animals live much shorter lives, this
notion is clearly wrong, and the only interpretation that
makes any sense at all is that the double bonds are being
degraded by free radicals and that the lipid peroxidation is
causing the ill health (as a proverbial mountain of
molecular-level evidence now demonstrates).