Index Home About Blog
From: "Steve Harris" <>
Subject: Re: Hydrogenated Oils vs Sat. Fat...Need Help
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:11:59 -0600
Message-ID: <a9cgrm$pqn$>

"Seeker Of Porridge" <> wrote in message
> "Steve Harris" <> wrote in message
> > But not in the amounts you quote. Try getting your facts right.
> >
> Thanks.
> I think that my argument stems around the new margarines having a
> trans fatty level of less than 1%.....

And a lot of OLD margarines (what you were reading as "butter" having trans
fat contents of 20-30%.

> It is hard to find values for
> TFA in dairy, and that USDA document certainly had me confused with
> butter, as it had about 50 entries described with "butter", but no
> actual butter.

Right. But look at the TFA that is in these solid margarines. It's the worst
of the lot. As for the rest, beef fat, milk, and cheese are all of a kind,
which is not surprising. You are what you eat, or what your gut bacteria
make. That gives whole milk, creme cheese, butter, and beef fat all about
the same TFA content per gram total fat.  And it's probably one reason why
they are all bad for you (though cheese, as we've long noted, must have some
redeaming virtues).

> So I have cast around the net for some less confusing information:
> Trans fatty acids are found in the body fat of ruminants such as
> cattle and sheep, with concentrations ranging from 4% to 11% (similar
> to butter fat). The major trans fatty acid in milk, butter, and beef
> fat is 11t-18:1 (vaccenic acid). Trans fatty acids also are found in
> goats, deer, and marsupials.

There you go.

> Sommerfeld (4) reviewed data on trans
> fatty acids in plants, which although relatively rare, are reported in
> six species of plants, including pomegranates with 70% of their fatty
> acids being punicic acid (9c, 11t, 13c--18:3).

Which is interesting but not relevent, since the total amount of fat in a
pomegranite is so low.

> Although my hasty figure for butter was a bit out, it still seems that
> my original point is intact: margarine has substantially less TFA than
> ruminant fat.

No, you're still wrong. Read the damn report yet AGAIN.

> These figures are new to me. I never realised that the dairy industry
> wasn't telling me everything. Honestly, I had complete faith.

Um, what can I say.


From: "Steve Harris" <>
Subject: Re: Hydrogenated Oils vs Sat. Fat...Need Help
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:43:23 -0600
Message-ID: <a9cimh$f07$>

"Steve Harris" <> wrote in message
> "Seeker Of Porridge" <> wrote in message
> > I think that my argument stems around the new margarines having a
> > trans fatty level of less than 1%.....
> And a lot of OLD margarines (what you were reading as "butter") having trans
> fat contents of 20-30%.

Just to make this completely clear. When I white "old margarines" this does
not mean margarines not still available. MOST stick margarines and tub
margarines on your shelf are heavily trans-fatted, and have 2 or 3 times
more than you'd get from the same amount of butter, which itself isn't good.
These margarines are intensely bad for you. You've been sold a bill of goods
from the food industry for a decade, and money and power will continue this
for at least another five years. Meanwhile you have to read the net,
Prevention Mag, and some other popular sources to get the facts on how bad
must butter (and many other processed foods with "partially hydrogenated
blahblah oil.") are for you. They are even worse than butter, and butter
isn't good.

To repeat, today's solid margarines are very bad, with the exception of one
or two which are made from whipped protein and specifically say "no trans
fat." Liquid margarines, on the other hand, typically don't have enough
trans fat to be worth mentioning (it's after salt on the label). Butter buds
(a kind of solid butter flavor) is fine. You can think of the liquid
margarines as being like PUFA oils, which is what they essentially are.

Stay away from the rest like the plague.

Also (secondarily) stay away from all dairy and most beef fat. Eat non-fat
dairy foods and fish and fancy nuts and olives and avocado.  Keep beef way
down, and if you must have red meat, make it low fat ham (it's not the other
white meat). Chicken's okay but go easy (it's full of fat, but no trans
unless they fry it in Crisco). Watch the fast and processed food-- industry
puts in hydrogenates at every opportunity, because they're cheap. You can
have a little aged cheese, and a reasonable number of eggs.

Lastly, I think there is a conspiracy, of sorts-- but it's really a cultural
blindness and a wild greed for money. We've also heard endlessly about the
good things there are in chicken soup, and the bad things than hide out in
pork. That's the Jewish science lobby, which is no different than the
Seventh Day Adventists saying meat is bad (lumping in lard with chicken
fat), and the Mormons quoting their bad anti-coffee studies (which are full
of holes, and also you'll notice even the Mormons have shut up about the
science of tea).

As for the Jews and their ancient dietary laws the Kosher diet full of beef
fat and dairy fat (yea, though they may separate the two in cooking and
meals) does not keep them from getting heart disease. On the contrary, they
get it in spades-- surprise. They don't get trichinosis-- big deal.
Trichinosis is not a problem any more for the rest of us, either. Heart
disease is.


From: "Steve Harris" <>
Subject: Re: Hydrogenated Oils vs Sat. Fat...Need Help
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:06:53 -0600
Message-ID: <a9cuk5$qct$>

"Alf Christophersen" <> wrote in message

> TFA content in margarine and butter is a local national problem in US
> as many other countries are forcing industry to produce TFA free or
> very low content of it now. Only in US it seems, industry is free to
> put any amount of TFA without any consequences because otherwise US
> would be a communistic regime due to many of you :-)
> Well, I guess that is the bill of total freedom :-) Freedom to kill
> that is.

Alf, there's no doubt that the best kind of government is a benevolent
dictatorship which is all-wise.  The problem is in implementation.

In the US, people are free to buy ice cream and shortening bread and solid
margarine and Crisco (vegetable shortening) full of trans-fats, just as they
are free to buy cigarettes. That's okay with me. It's not an intrinsically
governmental problem. When somebody puts toxins in the water supply or air
where I can't get away from them, or makes me go to the store and buy trans
fats and eat them, or holds a gun to my head and forces me to smoke, then it
does become a problem for government, and I'll be calling the cops.
Meanwhile, having government get involved is a cure worse than the disease.


From: "Steve Harris" <>
Subject: Re: What is the consensus on healthiest butter substitution?
Message-ID: <1H%x9.2967$>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 03:06:37 GMT

Barry Gold wrote in message <>...
>In article <61lw9.377$>,
> <> wrote:
>>Also one that has similar or good taste. Is this too much to ask from
>Butter tastes as good as it does because it *is* butter.  Nothing else
>is going to taste the same, whether salted or unsalted(*).  If you
>are milk-intolerant, try Hollywood margerine.  Smart Beat isn't bad,
>but it's not a solid.  (Hint: if it's solid at room temperature, it's

COMMENT: Used to be true, but now has a few exceptions, due to the trick of
using solidified whipped milk proteins to get you solids with an oily
mouth-feel, but without the fat, ala non-fat cream cheese. Check the label.

> "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" is pretty convincing,
>but it's made from buttermilk and contains significant amounts of
>lactose, milk proteins, and butterfat.

There is a Lite version of this with a lot less sat fat. There are trans-fat
free tub margarines on the market now: notably Promise, Promise Buttery
Light, Smart Balance, Brummel & Brown Spread, and Fleischmann's Light
Margarine. AFAIK, they all use the whipped protein trick, and most of them
have very little butter fat. Butter fat's not mercury or lead, you know. If
you can use some spread which has 5% butter fat and no trans-fat in it, it's
hardly going to make you turn toes-up.

>(+) The original saturated fat studies found that people who ate lots
>of poly-unsaturated fats and little saturated fats had a much lower
>rate of heart attacks.  But a follow-up study showed that they had
>about the same death rate (or, more accurately, life expectancy).  So
>the researchers checked into what was happening to them.  They were
>dying of cancer.  Not much of an improvement.

That's certainly what happens if you try to lower cholesterol by simply
adding polyunsaturated fat to an already rich diet, ala the VA study. If you
want to be healthy, total fat has got to go way down from the typical
American diet, and mono fraction of what fat there is, has got to go up. If
you need some fat to "stick to your ribs," then make it *good* fat. The
easiest way to do this is to simply add olives, fancy nuts and nut butters,
and fish (and while we're at it, some salt) to a diet which is otherwise
more-or-less Pritikin/Ornish. Choice of oils would be olive, unhydrogenated
canola, almond, and avocado. Proteinoid science fiction foods like non-fat
cream cheese and the new no-trans margarines, are a big help in making all
this more palatable. And yes, the Butter Buds plus nut-oil trick works, too.

Index Home About Blog