Cooking For Engineers Forum Index Cooking For Engineers
Analytical cooking discussed.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Off Topic: What's the Most Trans Fat You've Seen?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cooking For Engineers Forum Index -> Comments Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
eltonyo



Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 88
Location: WA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:21 am    Post subject: Re: Trans-fats Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Todd
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:15 am    Post subject: Re: Trans-fats Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
treznor
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:19 pm    Post subject: 0grams trans fat on label != no trans fat Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
eltonyo



Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 88
Location: WA

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:06 am    Post subject: Re: 0grams trans fat on label != no trans fat Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jimjimjim9



Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hastur
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

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.


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

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?.


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.


You could be right, we'll need to see the data. Are these studies being funded by the cattle/dairy industry?
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:35 pm    Post subject: trans fats Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:08 am    Post subject: zero or 0.5 ?? Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
Michael Chu



Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 1631
Location: Austin, TX (USA)

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:28 am    Post subject: Re: zero or 0.5 ?? Reply with quote

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.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eltonyo



Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 88
Location: WA

PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:49 am    Post subject: Re: trans fats Reply with quote

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!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
foodscigeek



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 10
Location: Vancouver BC

PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eltonyo



Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 88
Location: WA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
eltonyo



Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 88
Location: WA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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) Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:50 pm    Post subject: Kelloggs Heart Smart? Cereal Reply with quote

Isn't it ironic that a "heart healthy" cereal called:
Kelloggs Heart SmartŪ 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!
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cooking For Engineers Forum Index -> Comments Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group