News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The complications of nutrition science by noondip on Sunday January 17, 2016 @07:58PM (#10921918)
So avoid all animal products, then? Trans fat are found in all of them.
Re:The complications of nutrition science by DrScump on Monday January 18, 2016 @03:30AM (#10923256)
This is the third time in a month (that I've noticed) that noondip has repeated this falsehood knowing that it is false.

TL;DR: dairy products have small amounts of naturally-occurring transfat that have no established adverse effects, while meats have essentially none.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10858482 for the previous example of refutation (and it has a link to the one before that, as well as references). The one reference he posts there refers to dairy, not meat.

Re:The complications of nutrition science by noondip on Monday January 18, 2016 @11:19AM (#10925205)
Have a look at what the National Academy of Sciences - the prestigious and nonpartisan non-profit scientific community in the country - has to say about Trans Fat:

> Trans fatty acids are not essential and provide no known benefit to human health. Therefore, no AI or RDA is set. As with saturated fatty acids, there is a positive linear trend between trans fatty acid intake and LDL cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased risk of CHD. A UL is not set for trans fatty acids because any incremental increase in trans fatty acid intake increases CHD risk.

I know you disagree, but so far you've only cited one dairy industry-funded paper to support the conclusion TFAs are safe - even beneficial - for human consumption. I honestly want to know whether you have more compelling evidence, or are just defending unhealthy fat for some ideological reason.

Re:The complications of nutrition science by lnufnu on Sunday January 17, 2016 @10:15PM (#10922360)
Naturally occurring trans fats (vaccenic acid and conjugated linoleic acid) occur in trace amounts in animal products. They also have been shown to possibly be beneficial for LDL and triglycerides, while hydrogenated oil is harmful.
Re:The complications of nutrition science by noondip on Sunday January 17, 2016 @10:59PM (#10922460)
Source for that? The top result for me was the following review.

> Published data suggest that all fatty acids with a double bond in the trans configuration [produced either by industrial hydrogenation or by biohydrogenation in the rumens of cows and sheep] raise the ratio of plasma LDL to HDL cholesterol.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20209147

Re:The complications of nutrition science by DrScump on Monday January 18, 2016 @03:34AM (#10923273)

  Source for that?
Um, here's one that you already knew about from the referenced prior thread:

Effects of Ruminant trans Fatty Acids on Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Epidemiological, Clinical, and Mechanistic Studies (Adv Nutr July 2011 Adv Nutr vol. 2: 332-354, 2011

Re:The complications of nutrition science by noondip on Monday January 18, 2016 @11:14AM (#10925169)
Have you got any studies not funded by the dairy industry to share?
Re:The complications of nutrition science by Shorel on Tuesday January 19, 2016 @11:44AM (#10931860)
Trans fats are way more prevalent in hydrogenated vegetable oils that try to look like animal fat replacements. They are simply much cheaper to manufacture.

Example: margarine 15g v.s. real butter 3.3g for each 100g of product.

Re:The complications of nutrition science by noondip on Thursday January 21, 2016 @06:25PM (#10949381)
Agreed, hydrogenated oils - whether from vegetables or ruminants - all seem to have adverse health effects. But to keep things in perspective, margarine is #3 in the list of top sources, after (presumably non-vegan) baked goods and animal products - http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/ch...