[CKD] Trans Fatty Acids

[Iron Bull]

Thanks for the replies on my previous thread BigDog and Nat :thup:

Okay here is my original question.

I have been seeing awesome results from the last month on the CKD. I just wanted to start off by saying thanks to everyone on this board for all the great info and support. :thup:

Anyway,
My question has to do with trans fatty acids. I've been eating some fried buffalo wings(chicken wings) every now and then. Okay, the truth is I've been eating them almost every day. :D
I feel great and my physique is improving week by week.
I was just wondering if the CKD alows the consumption of trans fatty acids or should they be avoided at all costs?? :confused:

You will find alot of interesting info and studies on trans fatty acids if you do a search on yahoo.

[Yanick]

Stay away from them.

Originally posted by Iron Bull
You will find alot of interesting info and studies on trans fatty acids if you do a search on yahoo.

If you know where to get this info, why would you be asking this question? If some dumbass on here tells you it's okay to eat Trans Fats, that doesn't make them magically okay to eat. I think that you already know the facts, but you just want someone to tell you it's okay.

[Iron Bull]

Originally posted by Yanick
Stay away from them.



I think that you already know the facts, but you just want someone to tell you it's okay.


That's not exactly true. For instance there is alot of varying opinions on weither it is safe or healthy to consume saturated fat.
But you're definitely right because it was a stupid question.
All butter and mayo contains hydronated oils which are trans fatty acids. I know that butter and mayo are allowed on keto diets so I basically could have answered my own question.
You say to stay away from trans fatty acids. You don't eat butter and mayo?? :confused:

[Iron Bull]

Before anyone else jumps down my throat, please read these
articles:
Trans Fatty Acids: Good Or Bad (http://www.healthcastle.com/trans.shtml)

[Yanick]

You're a bit mistaken, butter does not have trans fatty acids. Margarine has trans fatty acids, crisco has trans fatty acids not butter. Not sure about the mayo, but i believe that it does not have them either. Either way i get mine home made with no additives so i don't worry about that.

I refuse to believe that trans fatty acids can have ANY benefits.

EDIT: Comparing Saturated Fat to Trans Fat is like comparing a sweet potato to wonder bread.

[Iron Bull]

Originally posted by Yanick
[B]You're a bit mistaken, butter does not have trans fatty acids. Margarine has trans fatty acids, I refuse to believe that trans fatty acids can have ANY benefits.


How do you explain this?:

"A study reported in the December 6, 2000, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that margarine is a more heart-healthy choice than butter. Compared with a butter-based diet, the margarine-based diet lowered LDL ("bad") cholesterol without affecting levels of HDL ("good") cholesterol -- for both adults and children."

[BigDaddy32]

Originally posted by Iron Bull
How do you explain this?:

"A study reported in the December 6, 2000, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that margarine is a more heart-healthy choice than butter. Compared with a butter-based diet, the margarine-based diet lowered LDL ("bad") cholesterol without affecting levels of HDL ("good") cholesterol -- for both adults and children."

what type of diet were the subjects in this study on? I bet it was low-fat? butter is definately the choice for low-carb dieters...

[west_on_46]

Originally posted by Iron Bull
Before anyone else jumps down my throat, please read these
articles:
Trans Fatty Acids: Good Or Bad (http://www.healthcastle.com/trans.shtml)

There are a few better-written articles on why trans fatty acids are not a good idea. I don't have time to dig up the references but will in the posts to follow.

They were a bit off the mark on where the trans fatty acids came from - something about bacteria in the rumen of cows, etc. Nah. My understanding of it is that they're another product of the wonderful food industry, which was looking for a solid fat without the cholesterol, as it was getting a bum rap from everyone by then. Their solution was to hydrogenate liquid oils, but this process is not stereoisomer-specific, so you get 50% cis- and 50% trans-fat as a result.

The kicker is that if the hydrogenation would be carried out to completion, there would not be any double bonds left so the cis/trans jazz would be irrelevant (single-bond chains have no stereisomers). But the food industry found lots of applications for partially-hydrogenated oils, primarily for frying and adding texture to foods. Leave it to history for a few decades and by now the partially-hydrogenated oils, which have the most occurrence of the trans fats) are everywhere.

FYI: I've not read that particular JAMA article, but let it be known that JAMA isn't famous for publishing cutting-edge research. Their studies are more political-oriented and mostly of the "restating the obvious" type (I subscribed when I was a medical student). The MD community at large isn't known for doing scientifically-rigorous studies (no offense to MD's out there but it is true) either. So in other words, interpret this research with caution.

[Yanick]

Originally posted by west_on_46
FYI: I've not read that particular JAMA article, but let it be known that JAMA isn't famous for publishing cutting-edge research. Their studies are more political-oriented and mostly of the "restating the obvious" type (I subscribed when I was a medical student). The MD community at large isn't known for doing scientifically-rigorous studies (no offense to MD's out there but it is true) either. So in other words, interpret this research with caution.

Thank you for saying that before i did, because i fear i would have used other, not so nice, words.

On a seperate note, total cholesterol, or even the ratio of LDL:HDL is not a marker for longevity or overall health.

When i get home, i'll tell you guys all the sh*t that the companies do to the natural oils to make them ready for the market.

[Iron Bull]

Basically one should avoid trans fatty acids. Point taken.

[Iron Bull]

Why doesn't the FDA require food companies to provide the amount of trans fatty acids on their nutritional labels?

[Christian1]

Its funny I was sitting here at the computer with a wonderful plate of leftover chicken wings when I got onto this thread!! They are one of my "addictions".

Anyway, I was thinking that if they are fried in an oil that remains stable at high temperatures, like coconut oil (non-hydrogenated) that the fat should remain only saturated. I know "free radicals" can be created when using the common vegetable fats when they are overheated.

There is an awesome article on coconut oil on Mercola.com. If anyone would like to see it and can't find it on a search of the site--let me know and I'll get it and put on a link.

There are alot of trans fat free foods available Peanut butter, mayonnaise, etc. at places like Whole Foods Market. Plus grass fed meats with high omega 3 fat profiles. I love that place. They sell Shelton's free range turkey and beef jerkey too. I must be hungry.

Marj

[west_on_46]

Originally posted by Iron Bull
Why doesn't the FDA require food companies to provide the amount of trans fatty acids on their nutritional labels?

They are "working on it". I'm sure that this issue is contested by the food industry lobby.

To that effect, here's something possibly interesting on the topic of food and bureaucrats:

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=604

[Beaver]

Heavy Cream is all trans fatty acids right? I stalled when I used that to meet my calorie requirements.

[Iron Bull]

Originally posted by Beaver
Heavy Cream is all trans fatty acids right? I stalled when I used that to meet my calorie requirements.

I believe there are no trans fatty acids in heavy cream.

[Christian1]

Nope--no trans fats in heavy cream. They occur in only very tiny amounts in natural foods.

Earlier the question was raised as to why they don't have to list trans fats on labels. I found this in The Nutrition Desk Reference--This addition is a few years old but I think this still applies.

"The new FDA food label laws do not require that TFA content be listed directly on the label. However, they also do not allow any unsaturated fat that has been converted to a TFA to appear as part of the total fat content. So, you can ferret out the fat by calculating what is not on the label! For example, a label on a bag of chips reads:
Total fat: 15 grams
Polyunsaturated fat 5 grams
Saturated fat:2 grams
Monounsaturated fat: 1 gram

The remaining 7 grams of fat (15 grams - 8 grams = 7) probably are trans fatty acids."

Marj

[west_on_46]

Originally posted by Christian1
"The new FDA food label laws do not require that TFA content be listed directly on the label. However, they also do not allow any unsaturated fat that has been converted to a TFA to appear as part of the total fat content.

Hmmm.... do you have a link or any info I can read on this?

I've heard of a number of people stalling on heavy cream; no TFA's there but I think the problem is the carbs - anything less than 0.5 g can be reported as 0 per serving, and the serving size for cream is tiny so in a decent splash of cream there's actually enough carbs to do damage. At least that's what we've agreed upon on the lowcarb list.

[Christian1]

The quote was from a book that I had to read in nutrition classes in chiropractic school. After I read your question I typed in a search for it on yahoo and got plenty of hits so it is still readily available and quoted from. The name is "The Nutrition Desk Reference". The authors are Robert Garrison, Jr.,M.A.,R.Ph. & Elizabeth Somer, M.A., R.D.

Marj

[west_on_46]

Well I went to the FDA's site and found this:

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/labtrans.html

However, just like everything else FDA-related, it's so wrapped in bureaucratic redtape that I doubt it'll do any good to anyone...

[Iron Bull]

Also,
Don't you guys think that it's kinda misleading when it comes to food labeling on sugar free products?. I mean some sugar free products contain dextrose and maltodextrine. What the f***!?!

[west_on_46]

Eh, figures... if a product has a selling point (e.g., sugar-free, fat-free), the maker will try to exploit it and bend the labeling regulations as much as possible.

[Iron Bull]

Another thing the FDA needs to regulate is the labeling on protein bars. I use to eat these things like a mad man back in the day until I found out the truth. Funny how they can label something as high protein and low carb when most protein bars are a comprised of the shittiest proteins and loaded with carbs. :mad:

read these articles:

[Iron Bull]

protein bar lies (http://www.stoplabelinglies.com/examples/healthbars/healthbars.html)

[Iron Bull]

more on protein bars (http://www.femalemuscle.com/supplement_advisor/alan_shugarman002.htm)

and another one (http://www.femalemuscle.com/supplement_advisor/alan_shugarman003.htm)

[west_on_46]

Does anyone remember when Pure Protein bars first hit the market? They were labeled with ca. 4-6 grams of carbs per bar (depending on flavour) and tasted like crap. Oh, and they cost over $3 back then. Later they messed with the taste a number of times and suddenly they started tasting much better - thanks to glycerol. But even then if you added up the calories from fat, protein, and carbs, you'd be missing about 60 calories per bar - that was in the glycerol. Now they are reported in some shady way - as "non-impact carbs". Whatever that is...

[Yanick]

To answer the question of why aren't TFA's on labels, is because they are so chemically altered from the natural fats that they are 'technically' not considered fats. Just something that i read a while ago and remembered.

[west_on_46]

Originally posted by Yanick
To answer the question of why aren't TFA's on labels, is because they are so chemically altered from the natural fats that they are 'technically' not considered fats. Just something that i read a while ago and remembered.

I just looked it up and indeed, they are not included in the nutrition facts labels. That's clearly thanks to an effort of the industry though. I've also looked up fatty acid oxidation and looks like for the purposes of getting energy out of them, the body can deal with trans-fatty acids just as well as with cis-.

[Christian1]

In the creation of trans fats there are brand new molecular configurations that do not exist in nature. For all you ever wanted to learn (and probably a little more!) concerning these fats check this out:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/june/10/trans_fats.htm[/URL]

It's pretty interesting.

About those fat burners. I know body builders love 'em but I don't think they are a very good idea. They stimulate your adrenal glands in a way that rather than building them up they can cause adrenal exhaustion from over stimulation. This would probably manifest in a condition that could mimic overtraining.

On a personal note, my son who is 22 took them for a couple of years with no problems and then began to notice uncomfortable, funny feelings in his chest when he would take them. He quit and has not experienced any more problems. Anyway, I drink plenty of coffee so I certainly can sympathize with liking stimulants.

Marj

[Doug H]

I'll state the obvious. The best way to eat is whole natural foods like:
Raw and lightly cooked organic vegetables.
Naturally raised and fed meat products
Farm raised fish products
Raw cold pressed oils of various types and/or
the highest grade fish oil with low amounts of metals (if you can find it)
Maybe some organic additive free dairy every now and then.
Pharmaceutical grade supplements from reputable suppliers.
Prepackaged and processed food companies and fast food operations like McDonalds are lying about their ingredients, either through omission or blatantly false statements. There is ample evidence in the media of this fact.
Unfortunately, it's here in the US that we've messed up the food supply so badly with all this junk.
Not to mention the genetically altered, cloned food products that are abundant here, but banned in Europe and elsewhere.

[Christian1]

Couldn't have said it better.

Regarding high quality supplements--I take primal nutrition's Damage Control Master Formula. Their site is:

www.primalnutrition.com

Anybody know of any that compare?

Marj

[west_on_46]

Originally posted by Doug H
Farm raised fish products


I've seen some sound opinions against farm-raised fish. I don't know for sure but from what I gather the water in which the fish are raised is full of fertilizers and pesticides and who knows what.

Regarding ECA: it's not recommended that you take it all the time. 5 days on 2 days off is ok for a few months but after that it won't work as well. A month's break or so will restore the sensitivity.

There are some papers indicating that the beta-2 effects of ephedrine (increased heart rate, blood pressure, and jitterness) are those to which there's most adaptation/tolerance developed. The beta-3 (fat-burning) effects keep going for longer periods of time, although the total study was only 12 weeks long. Damn it, nobody wants to study those things how they're used in the field! This applies to real drugs as well - recently was in the news that the pharm companies usually test with dosages too high for most cases.

[Doug H]

Take a look at Life Extension Foundation's site. They have some cool products, and they publish a terrific magazine. They spend a lot of time and money doing battle with the FDA, protecting the rights of americans to take supplements without government intervention. And they publish a lot of interesting research papers.
Their product that is similar to primal nutrition's is the Life Extension Mix.
www.lef.org

[Christian1]

Yes, I've heard some negative things about farm raised fish also. I believe the omega three levels being low is one thing because of the change in their diet, but at least the mercury threat is absent. I guess pesticides from surrounding farmland etc. would be a factor, as you mentioned.

I realized my question concerning comparing supplements was stupid because since most of you guys are seriously into body building--our goals and supplements would be completely different. Whoops.

Marj

[Big Dog]

Here is a question getting back to the talk about butter.

Why shouldnt I store butter enar fruits and veggies?

I was reading the butter box and checked the ingredients - cream and salt, then right below that it said not to store near fruits or vegetables.


Why?

[Christian1]

No idea dude--what kind of butter do you get?

Marj

[Big Dog]

regular plain ol butter

[west_on_46]

Thanks Doug - definitely will check it out. I'm not new to going against the grain - hell, when I started lowcarbing it was still out there on the fringe.

Originally posted by Christian1
Yes, I've heard some negative things about farm raised fish also. I believe the omega three levels being low is one thing because of the change in their diet, but at least the mercury threat is absent. I guess pesticides from surrounding farmland etc. would be a factor, as you mentioned.

From what I understand, the farmers control the plant growth in these lakes to make the fish get bigger faster. So not only is there runoff from the nearby fields, there's stuff added too.

The mercury issue is interesting to say the least. Most of the warnings seem to be intended for pregnant women. Yet I remember reading on MSNBC that the levels of mercury alone aren't everything - there are some island nations who consume enough fish to make a thermometer during pregnancy, yet their kids are born fine. Also, they said that since canned "tuna" is made out of smaller species, it's not as risky as other fish. But not fresh tuna.

Canada has a more stringent standard for mercury than the US, and the website of their FDA analog is more informative too:

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/foodfacts/mercurye.shtml

Originally posted by Christian1
I realized my question concerning comparing supplements was stupid because since most of you guys are seriously into body building--our goals and supplements would be completely different. Whoops.

Uhm... well no, I was simply pointing out the facts on ECA if that's what you mean. I am a "bodybuilder" only if you really stretch the definition of the term - more interested in the CKD lifestyle with a desirable effect of being athletic and lean. I happen to use very few supplements but try to stay acquainted with many for my own knowledge.

I only speak negatively of supplements if I feel that they are a waste of money and/or are being pushed by someone with commercial interest in them. Some of you may remember a certain thread a while back. Otherwise I'll be glad to discuss their merits as my free time allows...

[Christian1]

I haven't been on here long enough to remember the supplement thread but have been in the health care field long enough to become totally annoyed at the multi-level sales people that frequently stopped by. They always claimed to have the "best, greatest supplements ever made". They were always just mediocre compared to the ones I already had available to me.

--concerning the butter thing, a friend from out of town is visiting and last night we had gone to dinner and had a good bit of wine. I was showing her my computer and pulled up the question. It struck us both as really funny, I think anything would have at that point. But, the only reason I can think of for not storing them together would be that the butter might absorb the flavor of stronger vegetables like onions. Maybe thats why refrigerators have a whole little compartment just for butter!

Marj

[Doug H]

I think you are correct that some farm raised fish, especially salmon, have lower omega 3/6 than the wild ones. It's a tradeoff. My doc is very big on metal toxicity and the bulk of his practice is chelation therapy, which removes heavy metal residues from the body.
He does a hair analysis that shows the levels of metals in your body. The results for me were interesting. Pretty high mercury, high cadmium (which is used in 4-color processing in magazines) and very high uranium. Here in Colorado there are uranium tailings all over the place.
Anyway, that's why I'm paying some attention to heavy metals of late.

[Christian1]

Did you have the type of chelation in which they inject EDTA with vitamins etc. to pull out the metals? Did you feel better? I'm interested in chelation, especially for people with heart disease that would like to avoid the more traditional surgeries, etc.

I like hair testing too but it is hard to know which labs to use. When I was in school my applied Kinisiology teacher did a little expermint using his wife. He sent in hair samples to about 6 different labs. It was disappointing because he got widely varying results. Some even showing an excess of one thing with another being very low in it. There must be a lot of variables to control.

I had trouble with mercury when I had my silver amalgam fillings changed to the white plastic type. I started getting dizzy unexplaninably. I took me a while to make the connection.

I hear the herb cilantro is a good natural chelator.

Marj

[west_on_46]

This got me interested in doing a MedLine search on chelation therapy, since I've always thought it was a bunch of quackery. The only interesting thing I've turned up so far is that in cases of chronic lead poisoning, EDTA can reduce the levels in kidney and brain. However, it fails to reduce levels in bone and liver, and those stores continue to serve up lead to poison the rest of the body anyway. In other words, it doesn't work.

Lead mobilization during calcium disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate chelation therapy in treatment of chronic lead poisoning. Sanchez-Fructuoso AI, Cano M, Arroyo M, Fernandez C, Prats D, Barrientos A. Am J Kidney Dis 2002 Jul;40(1):51-8

But I'm still looking.

[Christian1]

Most of my evidence concerning chelation is anecdotal (which I respect just about as much if not more than alot of the published studies I come across). A multidisciplinary clinic near a city I recently moved from offered chelation and the old people would go there and sit in these big lounge chairs and get their chelation. It was an open room so they all spent their time sharing "testimonies" etc. They were convinced.

But, it isn't an area I have studied in depth, which is why I was asking more about it. I did find some very good information at

www.drcranton.com/chelation/freeradical.htm

I would definitely think long and hard before labeling anything as quackery. I have seen the strangest therapies produce the most incredible results. What is the quote "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio than are drempt (sp)of in your philosophy".

Marj

[west_on_46]

Originally posted by Christian1
www.drcranton.com/chelation/freeradical.htm

I would definitely think long and hard before labeling anything as quackery.

I would too. But here's something interesting. In the website you've posted, Dr. Cranton writes:

Dozens clinical studies have been published to document safety and effectiveness of intravenous EDTA for treatment of occlusive atherosclerotic arterial disease and age-related degenerative diseases.(1-89)

I decided to pick a few of these references and check them out:

84. Guldager B, Jelnes R, Jorgensen SJ, et al. EDTA treatment of intermittent claudication--a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Internal Medicine. 1992;231:261-267.

The abstract of this study reads (my bolding):

A double-blind, randomized multicentre study was undertaken to evaluate the possible effect of chelation treatment with ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid (EDTA) in patients with severe intermittent claudication. A total of 153 patients received 20 intravenous infusions of either 3 g Na2EDTA or placebo during a period of 5-9 weeks. Vitamin, mineral and trace element supplements were administered orally. The changes observed in the pain-free and maximal walking distances, measured on a treadmill, were similar in the two groups. During the 3-month (n = 149) and 6-month (n = 123) follow-up period, no long-term therapeutic effect of EDTA could be demonstrated. The ankle-brachial blood pressure index remained unchanged throughout the study period. This study failed to demonstrate any effect of EDTA chelation treatment in intermittent claudication.

Am I missing something?

I do have an open mind; hell, I was a medical student when I started lowcarbing and it was considered a quackery then. I've changed my career paths since then but still stay on top of research in some areas, exercise and nutrition in particular.

[Christian1]

Did you read his explanation as to why the study was flawed? That is one thing I learned when having to read and perform studies of different types. The results tend very heavily to lean toward the conclusions that the experimenters either expect or desire. Some of those supposedly double blind studies were so flawed that both the subjects and the testers were informed as to who received the placebo and who did not. Other mistakes were made also. It is very difficult to design a study without flaws, and then to stick to your design.

I remember something in physics concerning the observation of electrons. That the very act of observing them changed their configuration (wave to particle or something) It is a little fuzzy as my physics studies were several years ago. But anyway--when you put that entire article with his explanations of each study as a whole rather than separate one or two references I think you may have a more balanced view.

Marj

[west_on_46]

Originally posted by Christian1
Did you read his explanation as to why the study was flawed? That is one thing I learned when having to read and perform studies of different types. The results tend very heavily to lean toward the conclusions that the experimenters either expect or desire. Some of those supposedly double blind studies were so flawed that both the subjects and the testers were informed as to who received the placebo and who did not. Other mistakes were made also. It is very difficult to design a study without flaws, and then to stick to your design.


I read it later. Without having the full text of the articles I am somewhat challenged in arguing, but here's another example - Cranton bashes the New Zealand study:

Absolute walking distance in the EDTA group increased by 25.9 percent; while in the placebo group, it increased by 14.8 percent. The difference was not considered statistically significant. The study, however had only 17 subjects in the placebo group. One of the placebo patients was what the statisticians call an “outlier,” whose results differ strikingly from everyone else in the group. This patient’s walking distance increased by almost 500 meters. All of the statistical gain in the placebo group was due to this one individual’s progress. Without him, the placebo group’s distance actually decreased.

If you read the abstract of the study (Chelation therapy for intermittent claudication. A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. van Rij AM, Solomon C, Packer SG, Hopkins WG. Circulation 1994 Sep;90(3):1194-9), you'll find that there were 15 subjects in the treatment group and 17 in the placebo group. Why that calls for writing "only 17" I have no idea. Further, he is using the absolute walking distance to draw his own conclusion in favour of EDTA, while the authors of the study were using the proportion of subjects with improvement, finding no difference (60% vs. 59%).

I completely agree with your statement about proper study design, controls, and flaws. However, if you find a flaw in somebody else's study that does not mean that you're right. It just means that they may be wrong. Those are two different things. Cranton's article may be better called "Flaws in chelation research", not "Mechanisms of action".

[Doug H]

I haven't done chelation yet. The MD I see has suggested it. I don't have anything wrong with me, other than high insulin and overweight. He's also into hormonal supplementation for men my age (DHEA, topical Testosterone) He recommended Protein Power, something surprising for an MD, I'm sure you'd agree.

I thought that the purpose of chelation is to remove/reduce the levels of heavy metals in the body. Most of the medical/dental profession still don't believe that there are any long-term effects of metals in the body. Yet society is awash in immune system problems, MS, cancer, all types of amazing new problems.

Most MD's don't believe you can detox you body at all, don't believe that colonics are good for you, don't believe in vitamins or supplements, think that a chiropractic adjustment will break your back, and believe that the ADA provides the proper dietary guidelines.

Dont' get me wrong, there are lots of cool things doctors do very well. My 21 year old daughter just had a liver transplant. It was a technological marvel, what they pulled off. But when it comes to preventative concepts, they are very weak.

[west_on_46]

I agree 100% - with few exceptions preventive medicine sucks.

I was simply questioning the validity of research and interpretation thereof. Seemed to me that Dr. Cranton was hell bent on proving that his critics messed up somewhere rather than presenting studies showing that he is right. True, sometimes it's hard to find a study on a fringe treatment such as EDTA, but if, like he says, this stuff has been researched since the 1960's, someone would have accomplished something convincing.

Let me argue your side now...

The choice of treatments in American medicine is largely dictated by pharmaceutical companies. A while ago a study made some waves in mainstream media even, showing that some of the new (and more expensive) drugs are not all that superior to their older analogues, except for the latter are no longer covered by the patents and therefore can't buy the drug maker's CEO a new yacht (I think it was on MSNBC if you want to look it up) because generics will now take over. This is a common argument from the herbal medicine community and they have a point. EDTA has been around for a hundred years or so and probably couldn't buy a drug maker's CEO a dinky Mercedes even (poor lad).

That's all good but the world of medicine doesn't end at the American borders. Europe is a stronghold in alternative medicine, Germany and Russia in particular. What's more is that insurance companies, those agents of satan in healthcare ;) , are actually interesed in lowering the cost of treatment by virtue of their business model. I am not trying to slide up to the old skool medical establishment, just pointing out that if shooting EDTA really made a difference and had a potential to save a buck for the insurers, they would have pushed those studies into journals somewhere, somehow.

Maybe I'm wrong. But money talks. It's been talking for drug companies for a very long time; recent developments in the insurance business (HMO's) put a new twist on the game now.

[Christian1]

If you'll recall I never recommended or suggested that chelation was to me a proven therapy that I would recommend. You heard me enquiring about someone else's experience--so I had nothing to be "right" about. Just gathering information. But I enjoyed the discussion!

Lets go have a fun saturday night now--and forget about "studies" for the evening.

Marj

[MarieB]

I can't even believe how little some people know about the food they put into their mouths!
I might be wrong, I haven't done extensve research, but it is my understanding that TRANS FATTY ACIDS are mostly caused by something they do to the fat before they put it into the product. So NATURAL fats, like olive oil, lard, butter, chicken and other animal fat, cream, milk, cheeze, etc, should have little to no trans fatty acids.
When you buy cooking oil, get olive oil, grape seed oil or some other oil that can be heated to high temerpatures. It should say on the bottle what the oil is meant to be used for. STAY AWAY FROM CANOLA and MAZOLA and that "low in saturated fat" crap.
And make sure you are not heating the oil more than it is meant for...ie: a few tablespoons of flax seed oil is VERY good for you...but it must be kept in the fridge. If you were to fry it up with some vegetables, it would change the chemical composition of the oil, and it would be bad for you...I'm not sure if the fats would become trans fatty, but I know it is supposed to be bad for you if you heat oils that are meant to stay cool....
Some oils can be heated to a low temperature, others can be heated to high temperatures, and some, like flax, cannot be heated at all.
Does anyone WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT have anything to add to this?
Also, does anyone have a good home made mayonaise recipe? I have one of those hand-held blenders and it's supposed to make mayo in a snap, but I have no idea how to get it to the right consitency...help, thanks:) hugs
Marie

[Zuleikaa]

Trans fatty acids are chemically, artificially changed from liquid oils to solids to promote longevity and stableness of the product and to provide mouth feel.

Oils that are not to be use heated and have a low smoke point are chemically altered when overheated and become damaged and thus damage your body.

Trans fatty acids link with sugars and cholesterol and form bonds along the arterial wall and thus lead to arterial plague and narrowed arteries. Use of trans fatty acids also can lean to high cholesterol levels.

Natural solid fats, lard and meat fat, do not lead to high cholesterol unless combined with high levels of carbohydrates.

Natural fats, in their natural states, do not contain trans fatty acids and man has eaten and thrived on them for thousands of years.

Some oils, safflower and soy I think, needs to be extracted from the plant with high heat, thus damaging the oil and our bodies when consumed. That's also why the best olive oil is cold pressed virgin olive oil.