Table of Contents Forums Dictionary Recommended Reading Marketplace Giftshop What I Ate Deals Michael's Blog
Latest Post on Michael's Blog: Fall Television Season 2014 Grid
Off Topic

What's the Most Trans Fat You've Seen?

by Michael Chu
Normal view
Next »
« Prev
Last week, Cliff (the other half of the Fanpop programming duo) was retrieving his microwavable lunch from the freezer when he glanced at a bag of Ore Ida Frozen Tater Tots. He stepped out of the kitchen and asked me, "What the most trans fat you've ever seen?" I responded, "In a serving, I dunno. 1 gram?" He handed me the bag of tater tots -- 3 grams of trans fat per serving.

As of January 1, 2006, all food products manufactured for sale in the United States is required to list trans fat on the Nutrition Facts panel.


A trans fat is a triglyceride with at least one unsaturated fatty acid that contain at least one double bond in trans configuration. This means in at least one of the three long carbon chains that help make up a fat molecule, at least one chain is kinked the wrong way. When a carbon chain contains a double bond instead of a single bond, it causes a bend in the chain. The positions of the hydrogen atoms around the bond determine how the chain bends. In cis formation, both hydrogens are on the same side and an angle is formed, while in the trans configuration, the hydrogens are on opposing sides resulting in a straight chain. In nature, almost all the unsaturated fatty acids are in cis configuration and trans fatty acids are rare. In the foods we buy, a significant portion of the fat can be trans fat because of our extensive use of partially hydrogenated oils (a way to convert liquid fats into solid fats through the forced attachment of more hydrogen atoms). (See the beginning of Kitchen Notes: Saturated Fats, Cholesterol, and Heart Disease for a brief discussion on this topic.)

Trans fats are known to be harmful to us and should be avoided if possible. If you are able to replace your diet with food that does not contain trans fat (replacing margarine and vegetable shortenings with butter and palm oil is an easy way to get started), then you should do so. If you can't, then do your best to reduce your trans fat intake without losing the valuable nutrients and vitamins that are supplied only by foods with fat.

Three grams of trans fat is definitely the most I've ever seen in any food product. So, I wanted to post a "challenge". What is the most amount per serving of trans fat you've ever seen listed on a food's nutrition information? Post your responses as comments to this article.



Next »
« Prev
Written by Michael Chu
Published on October 08, 2006 at 11:15 AM
74 comments on What's the Most Trans Fat You've Seen?:(Post a comment)

On October 09, 2006 at 08:02 AM, sysinfo (guest) said...
Subject: Does fast food count?
At first glance, a <a href=http://app.mcdonalds.com/bagamcmeal?process=item&itemID=6053>large serving</a> of McDonalds french fries tops the list at 8 grams of trans fat.

Or, for a full meal, their <a href=http://app.mcdonalds.com/bagamcmeal?process=item&itemID=1743>Deluxe Breakfast</a> features 11g of trans fat, thanks to the hash browns, biscuit and margarine.

Oh, if only Swanson would divulge the trans fat content of their "<a href=http://www.starling-fitness.com/archives/2005/04/24/hungry-man-sports-grill/>Hungry-Man</a>" lineup, we might have a winner!


On October 09, 2006 at 10:25 AM, Mei (guest) said...
Subject: Serving size
It would do injustice to calculate based on a single serving. What is a single serving? As sysinfo asked - would a large serving of McD count? The definition of a serving varies from one to another.

A better comparison would be by weight, say 100grams or the like.


On October 09, 2006 at 12:48 PM, jimjimjim9 said...
Who would have thought that a good ol' biscuit would weigh in ahead of fries? But here it is, from McDonalds:

Biscuit. 67 grams. 5 g transfat.

Small fries. 74 grams. 3.5 g transfat.

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html#5


God bless Crisco. God bless David Wesson, who invented the hydrogenation process. God bless the FDA, who after years of deliberation/committees/tax dollars/lobbying pressure allowed 0.5 grams to be labeled as zero grams. Result: there are still no crackers at Walmart free of hydrogenated oils, although most of them list "0 grams trans fat".

Our bodies do not recognize trans-isomer fats for efficient breakdown. That is why they pile up on our artery walls.

Trans fats are "shelf stable", meaning they do not go rancid as fast. Thus they are worth billions to the food industry in terms of product turnover, handling/mis-handling, and transportation.

But, hey... I'm "waxing" political.


On October 09, 2006 at 03:21 PM, an anonymous reader said...
Subject: 1.5g
This weekend I was forced to eat fast food for the first time in about a year. It was just a Wendy's chicken sandwich. According to the poster on the wall it had 260 calories and only 1.5g of the fat were trans in nature. Considering it was the only thing I ate that day, I don't think I'm in any danger.


On October 09, 2006 at 03:49 PM, TheMatt said...
The largest I've ever seen is 14 grams in a KFC Chicken Pot Pie. Well, and a family-size popcorn chicken, but one person is more likely to eat a pot pie than that. Here is the KFC calculator.


On October 09, 2006 at 04:33 PM, Michael Chu said...
I hadn't even considered fast food or eating out while writing this "challenge". (Mainly because it wasn't so easy to get nutrition information in the past.) Looks like all the good tasting fast food contains several times more trans fat than most of the stuff in the supermarket (where people have a tendency to shop and compare a bit more). My guess is that since it is less likely that people will be checking on the nutrition information while ordering at a fast food restaurant, they will not be reacting as quickly as the manufacturers of market foods which have to post nutrition information on their packaging. Perhaps if McDonalds and KFC had to post the nutrition information panel on their wrappers and containersthey might think about changing their fats.

Guess this is another reason to eat out less and cook at home more.


On October 09, 2006 at 07:05 PM, an anonymous reader said...
Subject: McDonald's DOES
>>Perhaps if McDonalds and KFC had to post the nutrition information panel on their wrappers and containersthey might think about changing their fats.

I only eat at McD's very seldomly, but the last time I did so, the nutrition information was plainly labelled on my double-quarter-pounder with cheese and on the large fries. There was nothing written on the diet Coke cup, though.

Honestly, I'm not being ironic, but as long as I sometimes *have* to eat at McD's, I make sure it's worth it.


On October 09, 2006 at 08:21 PM, jimjimjim9 said...
Here's an interesting graph that could have some bearing on the reading of grocery and fast food labels.

It shows a correlation between obese people and their educational level. Data is split between males and females.

Note that the correlation is smaller among men. Perhaps that sexist myth is true: Men won't stop for directions at gas stations, or grocery stores either. :)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/3and4/3_fig3.gif


On October 10, 2006 at 12:18 AM, an anonymous reader said...
I think Michael's dead on about the reason for the disparity in trans fat content between fast food and food from grocery stores. I noticed recently that fast food tends to have a lot more sodium too. A typical chicken sandwich will have 900-1500+ mg of sodium. Most doctors recommend eating < 1500 mg sodium for optimum health, or 2500 mg as a more practical upper limit.


On October 10, 2006 at 01:54 AM, an anonymous reader said...
I used to work for McDonald's. I'm even a graduate of Hamburger U (no kidding).

Back in the day, the fries were cooked in beef tallow (lard from cows). Very high in saturated fats, which make for delicious crispyness, and it has tons of beefy flavor which made the fries taste differently from the competition. In the early 90's, they changed to a solid vegetable fat for frying, which reduced saturated fat. In favor of trans fats, which didn't need to be labeled at the time, so it appeared more healthful. Also, I don't believe anyone knew trans fats were as bad as they seem to be. More recently, mid 90's if I remember right, they switched to a semi-liquid fat, presumably containing less trans fat. Interestingly, this oil's lifespan was noticably shorter.

Since switching away from beef tallow, they have included beef flavoring in the fries and some other fried foods to retain the beefy flavor people wanted. While "fried in 100% vegetable oil" is technically true, the beef flavoring is not vegetarian friendly.


On October 10, 2006 at 06:40 AM, an anonymous reader said...
Subject: NY and trans fats
hmm... i just did an article for www.growersandgrocers.net on NY banning trans fats in restaurants. check it out, it should be published online by noon EST on Tuesday.

kayenne


On October 10, 2006 at 06:53 AM, an anonymous reader said...
Great post, and great idea doing a survey on trans fat.

But I have to ask:

Quote:
If you can't, then do your best to reduce your trans fat intake without losing the valuable nutrients and vitamins that are supplied only by foods with fat.


Uh? what vitamins, pray tell, are only supplied by what food with fat?


On October 10, 2006 at 08:38 AM, an anonymous reader said...
Subject: re: Vitamins in food with fat
If I remembered from high school science correctly, certain vitamins are fat soluble and certain ones are water soluble such as vit C. That's also why nutrition ppl say don't overboil your vegetables coz certain vitamins can leak out


On October 10, 2006 at 11:47 AM, an anonymous reader said...
More useful to me would be a survey of what "fatty" foods contain the smallest amount of trans fat.


On October 10, 2006 at 01:39 PM, an anonymous reader said...
It is my understanding that a regular whopper from burger king has 39 grams of trans fat. 8|


On October 10, 2006 at 04:01 PM, kayenne (guest) said...
Subject: trans fats in food
i don't think people should be so concern as to the naturally occuring trans fats in meats and dairy products, as these are usually in very small amounts. people should be more concerned with artificially added trans fats found in wholly or partially hydrogenated vegetable or meat oils.

check the ingredient list, if you see hydrogenated vegetable(any vegetable) oil or even partially hydrogenated oil... that's the warning signal!

hydrogenated oils are often in solid or semi-solid state, like most margarines and shortening. although trans fat-free margarines and shortenings are also available now.

many of restaurants use hydrogenated oils to cook the food they serve you, especially fast food chains. the oils used for french fries, burgers, fried chicken... and the shortening used in pies and cakes, cookies and biscuits, etc. be a smart shopper. check the labels. find out if your favorite fastfood or restaurant use trans fat-free oils.

there's more info at www.bantransfats.com and in this article or this article.


feel free to ask questions.

kayenne

p.s. michael, sorry for the intrusion here. i felt the links may be appropriate due to the concerns aired. let me know if i shouldn't be linking things here. thanks!


On October 10, 2006 at 06:12 PM, Michael Chu said...
Anonymous wrote:
Uh? what vitamins, pray tell, are only supplied by what food with fat?

Vitamins A, D, E, and K are fat soluble while the B vitamins and C are water soluble.


On October 10, 2006 at 06:15 PM, Michael Chu said...
Anonymous wrote:
It is my understanding that a regular whopper from burger king has 39 grams of trans fat. 8|

Actually, a Whopper from Burger King has 39 g of total fat. Of that 1.5 grams is trans.

Worst item on Burger King's menu (in terms of trans fat)? Small hask browns have 5 g for a 75 g serving.


On October 10, 2006 at 08:33 PM, bytemyfoot (guest) said...
Subject: Fat Soluble Vitamins
In health class, I learned a great way to remember the fat soluble vitamins, as well as a little warning: A Dangerous Excess Kills. I'll be honest, I don't recall <i>why</i> a dangerous excess kills, but it's a great way to remember. Also, contrary to what many of my friends believe to be true, vitamin K is not potassium, K is just potassium's elemental symbol. No relation between the two.

</threadjack>


On October 10, 2006 at 11:43 PM, zale (guest) said...
Quote:
A Dangerous Excess Kills. I'll be honest, I don't recall why a dangerous excess kills


An excess of fat soluble vitamins can be harmful or even deadly because they are stored in the body until used while any excess water soluble vitamins will be excreted in your urine (that's why vitamin c etc. change the colour of your pee).


On October 11, 2006 at 01:33 AM, sw (guest) said...
Subject: Biscuits
In a search to fill a craving for canned refrigerator biscuits a few weeks ago, it was difficult to find some that had low or no trans fats (as identified by the ingredient list, not necessarily the nutrition label). All of the major brands had some or a lot. I think the grands biscuits had 3.5g per serving (per biscuit - who only eats one, anyway??) but I'm not sure on that. If so, these would beat out your grocery food leader, the tater tots, at 3g/serving. Anyway, I DID succeed in finding refrigerator biscuits that had no trans fat. They were the generic brand and used, as our Hamburger Professor noted, beef tallow. They were tasty.
-sw


On October 11, 2006 at 02:08 AM, eltonyo said...
Most excellent!

This is most likely the most important thread, and topic, that has been brought up for discussion in a long time.

I am a bit confused about the post that talks about "naturally" occuring trans fats.... these only make up, at most perhaps 2 to 5% of total fats. So when you see a large number of trans fats (that have been proven deadly!)... please don't assume they are just NATURAL and yummy!

The McDonalds info, blew my mind. KFC also.

I went out and confirmed the 11 grams of trans fat in a McDonalds Deluxe breakfast, and this breaks my heart! There breakfast biscuits sandwiches, and fries, are also very bad. There are many senior citizens (my parents included), who take advantage of Mcdonalds dollar menu's and cheap breakfasts from time to time, and I am sure they have no idea about how deadly they are.

Most countries, around the world (why not us?), have known the dangers of trans fats, and the benifits of Omega 3's, for a long time, and have subsequently made changes to fortify their foods otherwise (i.e. reduce trans fats, and/or fortify their foods with omega 3's)

(I had just "assumed" the great "power" of the western world was privy to a few nutrition facts! ... how silly of me!!!!)

Are you all telling me.... that here in the states... we are still mass selling foods high in trans fats?!?!?!

I made my switch to non-trans fat butter or olive oil margarines a long time ago, but I never stopped to actually check the trans fats that are in the fast foods I eat from time to time.... (I just did!).... it's an outrage!

And I agree about the salt content too... where the hell is the FDA?!?!?!

Please keep this thread going.... and include as many facts as you can.

This subject fascinates me... and it is EXTREMELY important!

Keep in mind folks, there is no FDA recommended requirement percentage for trans fats.... they opt to leave that line BLANK on food labels. Even though all of the latest research, from around the world, going back many years, has concluded it is very toxic. In the same regard, there is no standard for Omega 3's, which have been shown to be an almost panacea, for all western diseases.

Most countries around the world (China, Scandinavian countries, England, ect... all fortify their foods, even bread, with Omega 3's!)

It's looking like Wendy's (fast food wise)... is the best alternative, in regards to high trans fats, (for senior citizens who depend on cheap fast food, and do not have means to do a nutrition study!)

Keep the info flowing on this subject....


On October 11, 2006 at 03:05 AM, Spudmunkey (guest) said...
Subject: Hungry Man Breakfast
Well, the worst Hungry Man dinner of all time was the "All Day Breakfast"

here's a link to the nutrition information:
http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0744/yucky.gif

Unfortunately, this one was discontinued quickly, and it was before they had to label Trans Fats...but holy crap!

Serving Size: 1 Package
1,030 Calories
Total Fat 64g...98%
Saturated Fat 21g...104%
Cholesterol 690mg...231%
Sodium 2,090mg 87%
Total Carbs 78g...26%


On October 11, 2006 at 03:30 AM, eltonyo said...
Subject: Re: Hungry Man Breakfast
Spudmunkey wrote:
Well, the worst Hungry Man dinner of all time was the "All Day Breakfast"

here's a link to the nutrition information:
http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0744/yucky.gif

Unfortunately, this one was discontinued quickly, and it was before they had to label Trans Fats...but holy crap!

Serving Size: 1 Package
1,030 Calories
Total Fat 64g...98%
Saturated Fat 21g...104%
Cholesterol 690mg...231%
Sodium 2,090mg 87%
Total Carbs 78g...26%


HOLY HELL!!!!! I would not have believed it, if I didn't see the Food Label for myself!!! LOL!!!

231% cholestrol is about 4 eggs worth. Though truth be told, egg cholestrol is not the big bad wolf we once thought it was... its the trans fats that are real killers. This label was done before that requirement was law.

Always look for Trans Fats... and stay away from them.


On October 11, 2006 at 03:49 AM, jimjimjim9 said...
The following article was very interesting for a survey of the fats issue in the food industry; problems and possible solutions:

http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/681health.html


On October 11, 2006 at 07:54 AM, mmlange said...
Subject: Nutrition Data has it all
Here are the top trans-fats foods from Nutrition Data, sorted by grams/200 calories:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-000071000000000000000.html


On October 11, 2006 at 10:23 PM, an anonymous reader said...
Quote:
If you can't, then do your best to reduce your trans fat intake without losing the valuable nutrients and vitamins that are supplied only by foods with fat.


Just to round this out, the valuable nutrients mentioned are the essential fatty acids. Classically, these were arachidonic acid and linolenic acid. The modern view is that we need exogenous omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids as precursors for larger/more complex fat molecules, but not specifically from arachidonic acid and linolenic acid.

Wikipedia has a nice article on "Essential fatty acid".


On October 12, 2006 at 02:12 AM, eltonyo said...
Subject: Re: Nutrition Data has it all
mmlange wrote:
Here are the top trans-fats foods from Nutrition Data, sorted by grams/200 calories:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-000071000000000000000.html


Actually.. this list is out dated. Fast foods resturants, like McDonalds and KFC, have much higher trans fat products.

I find the McDonalds case fascinating. With a little research, I found that they have recently been sued, because of trans fat promises they made way back in 2002!

McDonalds still has not reduced the trans fats that they proclaimed they once would (they made some small declines in chicken products), and worst yet they basically have been given a break by donated money to the American Heart Association (a very teeny tiny small percentage of their worth), to simply put off their attempt due to "taste" issues. McDonalds also stands behind that fact that it is not illegal to sell products with trans-fats in the USA.... how nice!

Oddly, McDonalds has already switched to lower trans-fat products in foreign countries, wherein people cannot tell the taste difference in their fries cooked here, or there! But in the USA, some 5 years after the promise to convert, McDonalds has simply made "donations" to "the american heart asscociation", to spare the more difficult transition, and offer up some nutitional facts of thier products to those that have the luxery to seek them out.

Wendy's, on the other hand, have made a trans fat reduction transition with no problems.

This is, in my interpretation, at least what I have read in my internet investigation.

Not happy.

I have always been a big McDonalds fan (in regards to fast food... and that simply goes back to when I was a kid, and we all loved the "golden arches!")

I am now switching to Wendys... (for my fast food cravings).

Better yet... I am going to try to stay away from all commercially made products, if I cannot verify the trans-fat additions.

There is simply too much deception going on.

And the FDA... sits back with useless action and power.

Meanwhile.... some of the rest of the world has already decided to ban trans-fat, and/or at least modify their foods with beneficial omega 3's fatty acids.

Makes ya crazy.

p.s. want some fries with that? ... loaded with 8 grams of trans-fats?!?!


On October 13, 2006 at 12:20 AM, Hastur (guest) said...
Subject: Trans-fats
I read the intro to this article (great topic) and felt that some of us may still be asking "but why are trans-fats bad for us?" So, I'll add a bit to the intro. The main reason, as I see it, that the "trans" configuration is worse for us than the "cis" configuration is that the "trans" configuration is a more symmetrical configuration and as a result it is more stable and therefore more resistant to breakdown. So (in general, mind you) when your body is looking for some blood sugar and you can't satisfy it by eating sugar immediately, and you haven't any carbs left, it will look to your fat stores to sate its requirement. The "cis" configuration of fat is much more readily broken down into sugar than is the "trans" configuration, this is due to the way that the "cis" configuration results in a bent molecule. Imagine two carbons with an "equal" sign between them (the double bond), in the "cis" config the double bond is bent over and just asking to be broken (lopsided forces, strong on one side, weak on the other) so our bodies will fall upon them first as it is the path of least resistance. In the "trans" configuration the double bond is not bent, the forces surrounding the double bond are not askew but rather are symmetrically arranged such that there is balance and stability in the molecule, i.e. it is "happy" as it is and won't let any"body" mess with it. So the trans-fat stays and is free to start a whole other chain of events that lead to arterial clogging (someone kindly take over from here).

Anyways, I would like to propose that we follow the original intent of this question/post and put together a list of bad stuff to eat. I think we need to agree on an index of some sort considering that serving sizes are variable. How about grams of trans fats divided by serving grams? Are all serving sizes indicated in grams? I forget but will check next time I shop. Do we need the sg of liquid foods? Mabey next time I'm in Wendy's I'll ask for and MSDS for the Chilli (-:


On October 13, 2006 at 01:21 AM, eltonyo said...
Subject: Re: Trans-fats
Hastur wrote:

Anyways, I would like to propose that we follow the original intent of this question/post and put together a list of bad stuff to eat. I think we need to agree on an index of some sort considering that serving sizes are variable. How about grams of trans fats divided by serving grams? Are all serving sizes indicated in grams? I forget but will check next time I shop. Do we need the sg of liquid foods? Mabey next time I'm in Wendy's I'll ask for and MSDS for the Chilli (-:


Actually, it is all very simple... you just have to look at the food label, and do the math. In one of the posts above, the person says he/she had to look at the ingredients list to get the "true" source of trans-fats in some commercially bought biscuits, because they did not trust the label. This is NOT true.

It is LAW. All trans-fats MUST be presented on a food label by grams, and also the food serving size, must also be included in the food label. So it is easy to ratio the amount of trans-fats per serving size.

And it's not wise to play with "minimal" amounts of a proven, toxic, disease-causing, un-natural drug compounds found in modern foods. If you see trans-fats in the label.... Just say NO.

Hint: That makes your "math", and list of "no-no's"... really simple.

Just say "No"... to any, and all, trans-fats.

Who cares about a "list" about poisons, wherein some poisons are worst than others. Just say NO to this poison all together.... the math is simple.

Fast food bought items are a different story. You must do your research, and much of that has been done in this thread. Just simply look up the fast food chain on the internet, and read the nutrition info.


On October 13, 2006 at 06:15 AM, Todd (guest) said...
Subject: Re: Trans-fats
Hastur wrote:
I read the intro to this article (great topic) and felt that some of us may still be asking "but why are trans-fats bad for us?" So, I'll add a bit to the intro. The main reason, as I see it, that the "trans" configuration is worse for us than the "cis" configuration is that the "trans" configuration is a more symmetrical configuration and as a result it is more stable and therefore more resistant to breakdown. So (in general, mind you) when your body is looking for some blood sugar and you can't satisfy it by eating sugar immediately, and you haven't any carbs left, it will look to your fat stores to sate its requirement. The "cis" configuration of fat is much more readily broken down into sugar than is the "trans" configuration, this is due to the way that the "cis" configuration results in a bent molecule. Imagine two carbons with an "equal" sign between them (the double bond), in the "cis" config the double bond is bent over and just asking to be broken (lopsided forces, strong on one side, weak on the other) so our bodies will fall upon them first as it is the path of least resistance. In the "trans" configuration the double bond is not bent, the forces surrounding the double bond are not askew but rather are symmetrically arranged such that there is balance and stability in the molecule, i.e. it is "happy" as it is and won't let any"body" mess with it. So the trans-fat stays and is free to start a whole other chain of events that lead to arterial clogging (someone kindly take over from here).

That's a noble attempt at explaining it, but a bit too simplistic. There is much to be said about the strong or weak bonds - but to say a trans fatty acid has weaker bonds than a cis fatty acid is naive. A trans fatty acid does result in a straighter chain (like a straight saturated fatty acid) and is solid at lower temperatures than a fat comprised of unsaturated fatty acids but that's not due to the weakness of the bonds. It due to ability of the molecules to pack together in a crystal lattice. Straight(ish) chains make this easier and thus form solids at lower temperatures. The bond strength is roughly the same between cis and trans double bonds.

If unsaturated fats are consumed first, wouldn't you expect trans and saturated fats to have the same harmfulness to the human body? Although the FDA currently lumps them together in the same category (they say avoid both saturated and trans as if they have the same effects), more and more research is emerging where the studies make it a point to differentiate between the two. In these studies, trans fats seem to have a greater impact on heart disease than saturated fats. Clearly, it cannot be as simple as the straightness of the chains.

In addition, the "bendy" nature of the unsaturated fatty acids may not be all that good for you. For years, doctors have been telling us to eat polyunsaturated fats (like soybean oil - which is sold in the U.S. as simply vegetable oil) but recent research has shown that the weakness of the bonds in polyunsaturated fats may lead uninitiated/early breakdown and to the release of excess free radicals. So, now the fat people are telling us to avoid saturated fats and polyunsaturated fats. So all we've got left are monounsaturated - so that mean olive oil and canola oil.

I'm inclined to believe what Michael's been saying the last couple years. As I've been reading more and more about this topic, it sounds like saturated fats might be redeemed in the next decade or so as our doctors and media catch up with the latest research and the few scientists screaming about how backwards our current mass media understanding of fats and cholesterol is. People have accused Michael of believing what he wants to believe (simply because it tastes good or something), but I think he's done as much homework as I have and our conclusions about fat are coming back around to: eat natural, don't worry about the fat so long as it's natural, and when making a choice between fats, choose based on flavor and prefer monounsaturated over saturated over polyunsaturated. Simple...

I'm sure a bunch of people will disagree.


On October 13, 2006 at 02:19 PM, treznor (guest) said...
Subject: 0grams trans fat on label != no trans fat
Eltonyo,

As someone further up in the thread pointed out, the label listing "0 grams trans-fat" doesn't mean that there is no trans fat in the product. The FDA allows anything .5 or less per serving to be represented as 0. This goes for anything (overall fat, carbs, I think for calories the cutoff is at 3 or 5 or so), not just trans fat. If you want to completely eliminate trans-fats, just looking at the label will get you close, but to completely do the job you'll have to look at the ingredient list as well.


On October 14, 2006 at 02:06 AM, eltonyo said...
Subject: Re: 0grams trans fat on label != no trans fat
treznor wrote:
Eltonyo,

As someone further up in the thread pointed out, the label listing "0 grams trans-fat" doesn't mean that there is no trans fat in the product. The FDA allows anything .5 or less per serving to be represented as 0. This goes for anything (overall fat, carbs, I think for calories the cutoff is at 3 or 5 or so), not just trans fat. If you want to completely eliminate trans-fats, just looking at the label will get you close, but to completely do the job you'll have to look at the ingredient list as well.


Actually, I was already aware of this FDA rule. I actually use an olive oil based "margarine" that uses this FDA guideline, which allows it to post no trans fats, but I know it may contain trace elements of trans-fats. Do I lose sleep over this? No.

You are talking to a person who wishes people didn't get so "anal" over things like "chicken hands", and wish more people could drink the water in Mexico .... because their bodies are too sterile to handle the germs that our ancestors could "drink for breakfast!"

When it comes to dietary food fads and dangers, I do take a conservative approach. But i also do a little research myself, and I don't draw any restriction lines at the zero level.

The FDA rule on allowing a 0.5 gram trans-fat buffer is reasonable.

There are much bigger problems, and abusers, who push this boundary, and that is what the brunt of this thread has been about.


On October 15, 2006 at 12:54 PM, jimjimjim9 said...
Has anyone used this new trans-free Crisco product for baking doughs, crusts, biscuits etc?

http://www.crisco.com/about/prod_info.asp?groupID=17&catId=63&FlavorId=344

How were the results, in comparison to the older product? (flakiness, etc)

Please note that the ingredients list includes "fully hydrogenated palm oil"

I am confused about 2 things here:

1) Does "Full hydrogenation" yield a fat that is trans free, as opposed to "partially hydrogenated", which yields trans?

2) What are the differences between: a) palm oil, b) coconut oil, and c) palm kernel oil? Since coconut comes from the coconut palm, what is the difference?


On October 15, 2006 at 01:29 PM, Hastur (guest) said...
That's a noble attempt at explaining it, but a bit too simplistic. There is much to be said about the strong or weak bonds - but to say a trans fatty acid has weaker bonds than a cis fatty acid is naive.

I actually said the opposite...and I'm disappointed that you would bring namecalling into this discussion

A trans fatty acid does result in a straighter chain (like a straight saturated fatty acid) and is solid at lower temperatures than a fat comprised of unsaturated fatty acids but that's not due to the weakness of the bonds. It due to ability of the molecules to pack together in a crystal lattice. Straight(ish) chains make this easier and thus form solids at lower temperatures. The bond strength is roughly the same between cis and trans double bonds.

[b:2d9a298e69]The lasts seems to be a well written non-sequitor. Bent double bonds (cis config) are weaker than their more symmetrical isomers (trans), all else being equal. Bent double bonds are weaker because there is a greater likelyhood for one of the shared electrons to be grabbed up by something else, (a piece of uncooked spaghetti is more likely to break if it is bent than if it is not). Your are correct in saying that trans fats pack together better but this is due to the fact that they are straighter than the cis isomers, and is neither here nor there regarding my original statement.
[/b:2d9a298e69]

If unsaturated fats are consumed first, wouldn't you expect trans and saturated fats to have the same harmfulness to the human body?

[b:2d9a298e69]I think that trans and saturated are both "bad" (however that is measured) but trans are considered worse by people due to their insidiousness, example, margarine is full of trans fats (or was) and we spent all those years gobbling it up thinking that it was much better than butter for our health, nasty surprise eh?.
[/b:2d9a298e69]

Although the FDA currently lumps them together in the same category (they say avoid both saturated and trans as if they have the same effects), more and more research is emerging where the studies make it a point to differentiate between the two. In these studies, trans fats seem
to have a greater impact on heart disease than saturated fats. Clearly, it cannot be as simple as the straightness of the chains.

[b:2d9a298e69]
You could be right, we'll need to see the data. Are these studies being funded by the cattle/dairy industry?[/b:2d9a298e69]


On October 15, 2006 at 05:35 PM, an anonymous reader said...
Subject: trans fats
My favorite nutrition labeling trick is the one on "Sugar Free, Fat Free Cool Whip." No sugar and no fat in one serving, which is listed as 2 tablespoons, a VERY small amount. The ingredients listed on the tub are "Water, corn syrup, hydrogenated vegetable oil." And I've seen hundreds of "diet" dessert recipes calling for the stuff.
I just looked up the maximum amount of trans fat recommended in one day: 2 grams.


On October 16, 2006 at 02:08 AM, an anonymous reader said...
Subject: zero or 0.5 ??
Is there any way of knowing if there is actually no trans-fat in something?
(does 0 mean 0 or <1 ?)

For instance, is it not mentioned at all on the label?


On October 16, 2006 at 03:28 AM, Michael Chu said...
Subject: Re: zero or 0.5 ??
Anonymous wrote:
Is there any way of knowing if there is actually no trans-fat in something?
(does 0 mean 0 or <1 ?)

For instance, is it not mentioned at all on the label?

In the U.S., the food product can legally claim 0 g trans fat if it has less than 0.5 g. To make sure a product has no man made trans fat in it, just look at this ingredients list and look for "partially hydrogenated" oils, vegetable shortening, or margerine. If the shortening or margerine is not made by hydrogenation, it should say that and they should be okay. Also, Fully hydrogenated vegetable oils should be fine since they are supposed to be completely saturated. (This was how we avoided trans fats before the new label requirements.)


On October 17, 2006 at 01:49 AM, eltonyo said...
Subject: Re: trans fats
Anonymous wrote:
My favorite nutrition labeling trick is the one on "Sugar Free, Fat Free Cool Whip." No sugar and no fat in one serving, which is listed as 2 tablespoons, a VERY small amount. The ingredients listed on the tub are "Water, corn syrup, hydrogenated vegetable oil." And I've seen hundreds of "diet" dessert recipes calling for the stuff.
I just looked up the maximum amount of trans fat recommended in one day: 2 grams.


Yes... 2 grams... this is exactly why I did not get hung-over about a 0.5 gram FDA rule on posting a zero trans-fat label posting.

O.5 grams is not the issue.

10 times that amount, or 20 or more, makes a difference!

We all know that certain food compounds, when in excess, can kill us.

This includes bacteria.

We also know, that most all food compounds, contain trace quantities of food compounds that when in excess can cause problems (i.e. sugars, mercury, fats, carcinogens, glutimates, chlorine, MSG, sodium, unrefined carbs, food additives, preservatives, nitrates, ... ADINIFINITUM ADNAUSEAUM!!!!

We all know this. Nothing new under the sun.

The difference is the "relative" quanitities... and historical (statistical) evidence.

Some of the toxins we eat on a daily basis, are simply more important than others.

Take example the current American paranoi over water... most only trust "bottled" water... "(AS IF!)

Mean while... Mexicans can drink their "tap" water with no problems. Only "sterilie" Americans barf out their spleen with a little bacteria in their water.

Whose problem is that?

Indeed... these "nutrition" guidelines are a matter of perspective.

But still important.

Hint: Just trying to get my "relative" perspective through

p.s. Want some "baked", low fat, fries with that? LOL!


On October 18, 2006 at 07:13 PM, foodscigeek said...
jimjimjim9 wrote:

Please note that the ingredients list includes "fully hydrogenated palm oil"

I am confused about 2 things here:

1) Does "Full hydrogenation" yield a fat that is trans free, as opposed to "partially hydrogenated", which yields trans?

2) What are the differences between: a) palm oil, b) coconut oil, and c) palm kernel oil? Since coconut comes from the coconut palm, what is the difference?


1. Fully hydrogenated oil is saturated oil. There are no double bonds left, so there are no trans configurations. Many people are still very concerned about the amount of saturated fats they are eating as well, although recent studies seem to indicate vegetable sources of saturated fats are better than animal sources. Additionally, we do require some saturated fats in our diet.

2. Palm and palm kernel oil come from the fruit of a particular type of palm. Palm oil is pressed from the whole fruit, palm kernel oil is pressed from the seed only. There are small but significant differences in the fatty acid profile (ie. ratio of saturates and unsaturates) that lead to different physical characteristics between the two types. Coconut oil comes from coconuts, and also has a unique fatty acid profile.


On October 19, 2006 at 03:34 AM, eltonyo said...
sigh...

i totally disagree with the idea that you can tell by reading the "ingredients" whether or not the food product has less than 0.5 grams of trans fats when the FDA allows that amount in foods, for a label that says "zero" garms of trans fats.

first of all, we are quibling. 0.5 grams of trans fats are probably your least worries given the fact that you are more likely to die of a staff infection in a hospital, or any other number of toxins found in our western world.

but if you wanna get all "anal".. and all "chicken hands" about it.... the fact is, if a label says 'zero' grams of trans fats on the label, there is no way in hell you can absolutely determine by reading the ingredients if that equates to absolute ZERO grams in reality.

there are many "industrial" oils that are used in baking, that are simply not found on the common market. some may, or may not, contain trace quantities of trans-fats, under the FDA guidelines.

you cannot possibly tell, by looking for words like "hydrogenated", etc...

sometimes the terms "hydrogenated" and "partially hydrogenated" are used interchangeably. an oil may be fully hydrogenated (trans fat free), but not necessarily labeled so.

and like i said before, if you are looking for, or worrying about, trace quantities of trans-fats less than 0.5 grams per serving (in hopes of saving your life).... you are most likely already consuming many other toxic trace elements, like mercury, nitrates, etc... in quantities that are also subjective in scientific studies.

nothing is certain, or absolute folks.

you are better off being leery of the whole damn food supply (albeit with a little knowledge and common sense).... than losing sleep over one molecule of substance found in foods sold in mass.

just my humble opinion.... and i encourage regular consumption of natures bacteria!

p.s. and um.... my opinions are trans-fat free (fully hydrogenated), and fortified with 3 grams of omega-3 fats! (for yoose forever nervous health fanatics with an involuntary twitchy left eye brow. )


On October 20, 2006 at 12:02 AM, an anonymous reader said...
16 grams trans fat in one Marie Callendar's Chicken Pot Pie. Probably nowhere near as bad as most restaurant versions of the dish, though!

I believe Krispy Kreme donuts have between 4g and 7g each, depending on the variety.

Ounce per ounce, vegetable shortening is probably the worst item.


On October 20, 2006 at 02:24 AM, eltonyo said...
Anonymous wrote:
16 grams trans fat in one Marie Callendar's Chicken Pot Pie. Probably nowhere near as bad as most restaurant versions of the dish, though!

I believe Krispy Kreme donuts have between 4g and 7g each, depending on the variety.

Ounce per ounce, vegetable shortening is probably the worst item.


Criminy! Yiminy even!

16 grams, i think, pretty much wins this contest! (It almost does a McDonalds Deluxe Breakfast ...proud!)

And speaking of Krispy Kreme donuts.... try their coffee sometime. The coffee is "trans-fat" free, and better than Starbucks!

p.s. just my humble opinion.... which is trans-fat free, and fortified with 3 grams of omega-3 fatty acids.... and um.... zero carbs... but fortified regardless, with 20 grams of fiber, 70% of which, is insoluble!!!! (just to make you happy) :)


On October 28, 2006 at 03:50 PM, an anonymous reader said...
Subject: Kelloggs Heart Smart? Cereal
Isn't it ironic that a "heart healthy" cereal called:
Kelloggs Heart Smart® Healthy Heart has an ingredient list that contains Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil?

http://www.kelloggs.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/fileBlob.pl?md5=622257c0cabeaf55ed3f712174ee11b7

I simply read the ingredient list saw the "warning sign" then put the box back on the shelf and laughed....yeah right, I"m not eating that!


On October 30, 2006 at 05:07 PM, an anonymous reader said...
KFC Corp. said Monday it will start using zero trans fat soybean oil for its Original Recipe and Extra Crispy fried chicken, Potato Wedges and other menu items.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_he_me/diet_trans_fat_ban_11


On October 31, 2006 at 01:00 AM, jimjimjim9 said...
As the Colonel goes, so goes the nation. Maybe?

Sadly, the KFC Biscuit remains unchanged, at more than 5 gm transfat per 100 gm serving. At this ratio it surely qualifies for a famed status in our Hall of Heavies.

Related: Misinformation continues to rule:

On NBC news tonight in a short piece on transfat spurred by the KFC shift, Brian Williams turned a talking head expert for an explanation of What are transfats?" I did not catch her title name or position (FDA? Resident MD expert?), but in 20 seconds she managed to further confuse the issue:

1) "They are fake fats" (No: they are real, modified by catalyzed hydrogenation to fill bond sites)

2) "They have only been in the food industry for 20 or so years" (No, she may be thinking of McD's shift from beef tallow frying in early 90's, but they've been in the industry for over 100 years)

3) "They have pretty much disappeared from crackers (etc)" (No, though progress has been made. Maybe she too is duped by the FDA's "0.5 gms = 0 gms."

4) "They aren't necessary". While the food industry is finding substitutes, it is very understandable that they have historically seen them as "necessary" from a cost/shelf stabilty standpoint.

Related: Another positive development:

Since "shelf stability" (= profit) is the central issue, it turns out that some soybean breeders at Iowa State have bred (in non GMO fashion) a strain very low in linoleic acid, which is the fatty acid quickest to go rancid.

http://www.notrans.iastate.edu/


On October 31, 2006 at 01:22 AM, eltonyo said...
jimjimjim9 wrote:
As the Colonel goes, so goes the nation. Maybe?

Sadly, the KFC Biscuit remains unchanged, at more than 5 gm transfat per 100 gm serving. At this ratio it surely qualifies for a famed status in our Hall of Heavies.



and so goes mcdonalds.... who has already been sued over this issue.

their biscuits and breakfasts are some of the worse offenders and will remain, despite their promises to switch over years ago.

of course other nations like denmark have simply passed laws to ban such use of toxins. many others are on the ban wagon

but not in america.... (that would violate "big business" ethics)


On December 18, 2006 at 09:15 PM, Ana R Chy (guest) said...
Quote:
of course other nations like denmark have simply passed laws to ban such use of toxins. many others are on the ban wagon

but not in america.... (that would violate "big business" ethics)


why should we have laws against it? if people want to hurt themselves by eating trans fatty foods, then let them. The information is out there and it's everywhere.
vote with your wallet. go into the jiffy mart and buy yourself a water and a granola bar instead of patronizing these big businesses. but don't hand over your rights to the government. why? because the government is highly ineffective and a payoff from McDonalds will do much more to sway the government's minds than a few educated and reasonable demands.


On December 29, 2006 at 06:14 PM, Mark (guest) said...
Subject: Off Topic: What's the Most Trans Fat You've Seen?
Now you know why "hydrogenated oils" have such a long shelf life - not even microorganisms consider them food.

I wonder if donuts and pies will again be made with lard. Oh no ! Its saturated fat ! Yup, but it's more natural than alternatives...

Mmmmm donuts...


On January 03, 2007 at 03:13 AM, STL Cook (guest) said...
Subject: Trans-fat free crackers
Making your own biscuits takes about 1/2 hour, once you've practiced once or twice, and that includes baking time. Less if you used self-rising flour. And I just found a recipe in "How to Cook Everything" for crackers. Four ingrediants, roll out, bake 10 minutes. Funny, it had never occurred to me before that crackers were something you could make for yourself at home. Reminds me of when I was 12, visiting a friend, and discovered that mashed potatoes didn't necessarily come from a can of white powder...
I do believe that if a label says "No Trans Fat" (as opposed to just listing 0 grams on the chart) it really does have to be trans fat free.


On January 16, 2007 at 11:38 PM, Mary (guest) said...
Subject: Crisco with no trans fats
I was intriqued by jimjimjim9 who asked about using trans fat free Crisco. Is it as good as regular Crisco. Well, I'm happy to report, yes. I used it for the first time making pie crust last night and I could see no discernable difference. It was just as light and flaky and the trans fat loaded regular Crisco. I'll be using it from now on.


On January 17, 2007 at 03:56 AM, eltonyo said...
Ana R Chy wrote:
Quote:
of course other nations like denmark have simply passed laws to ban such use of toxins. many others are on the ban wagon

but not in america.... (that would violate "big business" ethics)


why should we have laws against it? if people want to hurt themselves by eating trans fatty foods, then let them. The information is out there and it's everywhere.
vote with your wallet. go into the jiffy mart and buy yourself a water and a granola bar instead of patronizing these big businesses. but don't hand over your rights to the government. why? because the government is highly ineffective and a payoff from McDonalds will do much more to sway the government's minds than a few educated and reasonable demands.


um no... that's the point. the information may be out there, to those of us media/internet whores.... but to your elder mums and pops, and other worldly figures who make up the mass majority of the population who do not hump the web.... .IT AIN'T WELL KNOWN!!!!


On January 17, 2007 at 07:58 PM, a food engineer (guest) said...
Subject: Trans fats
Basically jimjimjim and a few others got it right. Otherwise some of the facts and observations are skewed.
Background: The food industry went from saturated fats with cholesterol (animal fats) and saturated "tropical" fats to hydrogenated vegetable (mostly domestic) due to a whole raft of public outcry about how sat fats and cholesterol were going to be the death of us all (late 80s I believe). Some guy even took out full page ads saying so to frighten us further. At the time conventional wisdom said the trans were healthier, tho there were some that disagreed.
When studies started coming in to the contrary, the food industry said a collective "oh cr@p" because for a bunch of reasons, but mainly because you need to use either saturated or trans fatty acids to get the solid fats you have to have for products that use shortening or butter or lard (that's why biscuits usually are showing high trans levels) or to keep fat from oxidizing, meaning rancid (why "fast food" has high trans, except if you're paying attention it's really just deep-fried--and biscuits). There are some substitutes, but they are more expensive and usually don't work as well in some aspect or another.
Then to make everyone crazy there ARE naturally-occuring trans fatty acids in meat and milk from "ruminant animals" (cows and such) And even better certain of THOSE fatty acids appear to provide health benefits.
And to make all of us still crazier, I just saw a study that said maybe one of the newer replacements may not be all that great healthwise either.
As for what goes on re: digestion and such, I will leave that for those who study biochemical processes in nutrition.
Practically, I have to go with the person who suggested moderation. :)


On January 26, 2007 at 02:53 PM, jimjimjim9 said...
Crisco has reformulated to "trans fat free" as in FDA guidelines. Still some lurking trans in there, but a significant move from the company that first put transfat in every home cupboard.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/BIZ/701260338/1001


On January 29, 2007 at 06:11 PM, transfatcrusader (guest) said...
5 grams of trans fat on that new Orville Redenbacher popcorn. Heart attack in a bag!!!


On March 13, 2007 at 09:45 PM, Thor said...
Subject: Cookies
Keebler Chips Deluxe "Coconut", "Peanut Butter Cup", "Rainbow" and "Fudge Striped" include 1.5g trans fat per each 15g cookie. There are about 34 cookies per container.

So, pour a glass of milk and crack open a bag. The sky's the limit !!!!


On March 15, 2007 at 07:36 AM, an anonymous reader said...
Subject: RE: 0 trans fat.
Just out of curiosity, why are people having so much trouble coming to terms with the fact that less than 0.5 g of trans fat is considered 0?

You have to have a cut off. Every measuring scale is only as accurate as half the increments. Zero is never zero - it's always +/- some amount.

Speed cameras are accurate +/- 5 to 10% depending on conditions. Construction tolerances are +/- 5 to 10 mm for road pavements. etc


On March 15, 2007 at 08:06 AM, Michael Chu said...
Subject: Re: RE: 0 trans fat.
Anonymous wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why are people having so much trouble coming to terms with the fact that less than 0.5 g of trans fat is considered 0?

I think a lot of the issue comes from the fact that it's 0.5 g of trans fat per serving. In the cookie example from Thor, it's unlikely an individual will be eating only one serving (one cookie). Most people when they eat cookies, they eat three or four. If a different brand cookie contained 0.4 g of trans fat, then the individual would be unknowingly consuming 1.2-1.6 g of trans fat when we thought he was consuming none. If he chose the second brand on the basis that it contianed no trans fat, then he unknowingly consumed the same amount of trans fat as if he ate a serving of the Keebler cookie.


On March 18, 2007 at 08:37 AM, an anonymous reader said...
Quote:
... 0.4 g of trans fat, then the individual would be unknowingly consuming 1.2-1.6 g of trans fat when we thought he was consuming none


Granted that you get a cumulative build up due to rounding errors - but regardless of how it is measured, they still need to draw the line somewhere.

Would it be worth recommending to FDA that to address this issue that the measurements be adjusted so that it is percentage based ? I'd have thought most packaging would show per 100 g quantities as well. Which would then mean that you have the percentage shown.

In reality, whereever you draw the line for the measurement - it is still going to have cumulative rounding errors.


On March 18, 2007 at 10:05 AM, Michael Chu said...
Anonymous wrote:
Would it be worth recommending to FDA that to address this issue that the measurements be adjusted so that it is percentage based ? I'd have thought most packaging would show per 100 g quantities as well. Which would then mean that you have the percentage shown.

Some countries require nutrient information to be shown for both serving size and for a 100g portion. Unforunately, the U.S. does not require this and most products do sold here do not list nutrition info based on a 100g serving. Makes it real difficult to compare products and some serving sizes are so small, the numbers are not useful at all. For example, PAM cooking spray which is aerosolized vegetable oil (with some bottles containing a small amount of corn starch or other additives) has a serving size equivalent to a 0.3 second spray. This is much shorter than most people use the product (and much shorter than demonstrated on their TV commercials or by TV chef's who use the product). Problem is, most of the nutrition info is 0. It was even sold as a 0 fat product because the serving size was small enough to round down the fat content to zero even though the product IS fat.


On March 19, 2007 at 02:35 PM, A guest I guess (guest) said...
Subject: Amount of Trans fat
Hello,

I had a box of Gertrude Hawk Chocolates - milk chocolate cinnamon sugar cookie smidgens to be exact. The nutritional information lists 2 grams of trnas fat per serving not much until you realize that a serving is only 45 grams. Alos of note is that of the 45 gram serving size, 15g is and carbs are 26g, plus another half gram of mostly sodium. Not much else in it really. The saddest part is that these were almost inedible as they were way too sweet, kinda greasy feeling and gritty. I threw most of them away.


On March 27, 2007 at 10:13 PM, Thor said...
Subject: Capitalism Strikes Again
Quote:
Just out of curiosity, why are people having so much trouble coming to terms with the fact that less than 0.5 g of trans fat is considered 0?

You have to have a cut off. Every measuring scale is only as accurate as half the increments. Zero is never zero - it's always +/- some amount


People forget that everything depicted on a food container is subject to advertising from the manufacturer. There are certain elements and statements required to appear on the packaging. But beyond the basics, it's up to the manufacturer as to how that info is presented. It should not be a shock that the food industry tries to make their foodstuffs look healthier than they really are. Certainly the serving size and/or recipe can be buggered with until it can be stated that the amount of trans per serving is closer to 0 than to 1. This is why "0g trans fat" listed in the nutritional block does not mean you are not consuming trans fat.

If you want to know if you are eating trans, you have to become familiar with the ingredients list (a packaging requirement also subject to spin doctors). If the list includes anything like "partially hydrolyzed" anything, you are likely enjoying a dose of trans.


On March 28, 2007 at 01:30 AM, Michael Chu said...
Subject: Re: Capitalism Strikes Again
Thor wrote:
If the list includes anything like "partially hydrolyzed" anything, you are likely enjoying a dose of trans.

Thor means "hydrogenated". If something is "hydrolyzed" like soy protein, then you're most likely consuming glutamates. Not known to be harmful to the body, but for people who avoid MSG or are allergic to MSG, that's what they should look for.


On March 28, 2007 at 02:33 PM, Thor said...
Subject: Capitalism Strikes Again
Quote:
Thor means "hydrogenated". If something is "hydrolyzed" like soy protein, then you're most likely consuming glutamates


At least I was “partially” right. Thanks for the correction. I should really better organize my research, especially when it involves big words like “hydrogenated”, “hydrolyzed”, or “beer”. Perhaps I need to start my own forum . . . . .

This is somewhat off topic, so please don’t start an msg rant here. But it does reinforce the notion that we should be educated consumers. Msg is created during the process to create hydrolyzed protein. It is my understanding that the resulting substance can contain as much as 20% msg. But since msg is “generally recognized as safe” by the fda, and because the ultimate amount of msg contained in the finished product is proportionately small when related to the finished product, msg is not required to be specifically included in the ingredients list. We unknowingly eat small quantities of msg.

Read labels. Know what you are eating. Take better notes than me.


On July 13, 2007 at 01:50 PM, an anonymous reader said...
Subject: Trans Fat
Just bought a cream cheese danish.. 7g of trans fat!!!! And this thing is tiny. I think I will toss it instead.


On August 07, 2007 at 05:55 AM, Tyni (guest) said...
Watch out for the Pilsbury cookie dough. They have 2 grams of transfat per cooklie. That can add up really quickly.


On August 20, 2007 at 08:44 PM, Adam (guest) said...
Subject: McDonalds
The most trans fat I've ever seen in a food is a deluxe breakfast from Mcdonalds with a large size biscuit. 13 grams of trans fat! You can even check it on the web site


On August 24, 2007 at 01:44 AM, Michael Chu said...
Subject: Re: McDonalds
Adam wrote:
The most trans fat I've ever seen in a food is a deluxe breakfast from Mcdonalds with a large size biscuit. 13 grams of trans fat! You can even check it on the web site

The U.S. website currently reports 2.5 g of trans for the Deluxe (large biscuit). I wonder if they changed their recipe/formula.

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html

The fries are killer (large is 8 g trans)


On November 11, 2007 at 06:13 PM, Guest (guest) said...
Subject: trans-fat in Peacan Sandies
Keebler Sandies Pecan Shortbread Cookies have 2 grams of trans fat in a 16 gram serving!

PECAN SANDIES ARE 1/8 TRANS-FAT!!!


On May 08, 2008 at 02:34 AM, eileenhanley (guest) said...
Subject: trans fat
is it true that trans fat never leaves your body once you eat it? that's what i've heard, but from research i can't find anything to back it up. does anyone know?

and the most i've seen was 3 grams per serving in an individually wrapped honey-bun. :(


On May 08, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Dilbert said...
........is it true that trans fat never leaves your body once you eat it?

if transfats never exit the body, we'd all weigh . . . . well, alot.

the recommended daily intake of fats is on the order of 60 grams - that's 48 pounds of fats per year.
the amount/percentage of 'permissible/recommended' transfats content vs saturated, poly/mono-unsaturated, etc. is undefined.

there are 454 grams in a pound.

considering the widespread usage of transfats in the USA food chain - pick a percentage of 48 pounds per year to "permanently gain"

after 20-30 years the math says we all weigh (normal body weight) + (x times 100 pounds of 'retained' transfats)

1 gram per day * 365 days / year * 30 years = 10,950 grams = 24.1 pounds

60 grams of fat/day is the "recommended" guidelines -
the USA population is noted for eating too much in general
consuming fats in higher percentages than recommended

so the above math is potentially a conservative statement


On June 06, 2008 at 03:43 PM, an anonymous reader said...
Trans fats are the worst substances we can willingly ingest. On the other side, there are fats that are not unhealthy for us. The fattest thing I've seen were some fried sausages with oil dripping out of them.
---
Don't kill the ozone layer, choose a deodorant no propylene glycol aluminum.


On July 29, 2008 at 09:47 PM, Thor said...
Subject: Terminator Bans Trans


On July 17, 2009 at 04:04 PM, Guest (guest) said...
Subject: sugar wafers
I bought a pack of vanilla sugar wafers the other day and they have 4 grams for 4 wafers- so a gram of trans fat per one of those tiny wafers.

About CfE Contact User Agreement FAQ's In the Press Write for CfE