A Question of Fat

[Alix]

Beth, yep, still the fat thread. And yep we sure do need fat in our diet. We just don't need as much of it as most of us get, and I think we need to understand what kinds of fat we put in there. I like to learn so I hope folks keep posting what they know or have done research on.

 

[bethzaring]

Beth, yep, still the fat thread. And yep we sure do need fat in our diet. We just don't need as much of it as most of us get, and I think we need to understand what kinds of fat we put in there. I like to learn so I hope folks keep posting what they know or have done research on.

thanks alix. I was thinking some of this dialog was in another thread, I'm easily confused.

"Edit: found this on corn oil "Refined corn oil is 99% triglyceride, with proportions of approximately 59% polyunsaturated fatty acid, 24% monounsaturated fatty acid, and 13% saturated fatty acid."


I find this interesting. I am not familiar with dietary oils being referred to as triglyceride content. Is refined corn oil the key here? I am sure what I have used is unrefined corn oil. It is nothing like the pale yellow stuff I have seen in the grocery store. But this tryglyceride thing? Dietary cholestrol does not raise blood cholestrol, but are you saying intake of dietary triglycerides raises the trig, levels in the blood? My literature has corn oil being 13% saturated, 25% monounsaturated, and 62% polyunsaturated.

 

[Maverick2272]

I wonder if we are missing the point here? I use many different oils for my cooking: canola, corn, olive, vegetable, and now I am hearing about cottonseed.
Trying to keep track of what is what, yes you do need fats, but these fats are unhealthy, etc is getting confusing. And with each oil manufacturer trying to sabotage the next, it only makes it worse.
Then there are the so-called health gurus: This causes cancer, oh wait no it doesnt, well it might. Butter is bad get margarine, oh wait thats bad too, and on and on seems like these guys can neve make up thier minds.
But, one message has stayed constant thru all this: moderation moderation moderation.
IE cooking with oils and consuming fatty foods ALL the time = bad bad bad
IE cooking sometimes with oils and sometimes fatty foods = OK, keep working on it
IE cooking with oils only when it enhances the taste and not just cause you like fried, and consuming healthy foods alot more than fatty foods = good job

JMHO

 

[kitchenelf]

Yes Maverick - it's confusing. What I think we need to remember and what it always goes back to is - balance/moderation. Whether we're talking about oils, fats, carbs, sugars, vitamin intake (even vitamins can be bad if not moderated). You want to lose weight you simply have to burn more calories than you take in. That will NEVER change!

A good healthy dose of common sense goes a long way - and it tastes really good with butter!

 

[Andy M.]

Canola Baloney

The following article addresses many of the issues about the safety of canola oil. The Author, a professor of chemistry, has written several books addessing food myths with science. Check it out. It's worth reading.

This article is too long for one post so the second half will be in a separate post.​

Canola Baloney​

By Robert L. Wolke

Wednesday, February 7, 2001; Page F01

In my e-mail, I received the attached information about the dangers of canola oil. Apparently, it's making the rounds on the Internet. How much truth is there to it?

The material you forwarded to me contains some 3,000 words of claims against canola oil. Here are some of the contents of that message, along with my parenthetical comments. Judge for yourself.

• "A friend who worked for only nine months as a quality-control taster at an apple-chip factory where canola oil was used exclusively for frying developed numerous health problems." (Her high school guidance counselor should never have recommended a career as quality-control taster in an apple-chip factory.) "These included loose teeth and gum disease, numb hands and feet, swollen arms and legs upon rising in the morning, extreme joint pain especially in hands, cloudy vision, constipation with stools like black marbles, hearing loss, skin tears from being bumped, lack of energy, hair loss and heart pains." (Memo to the State Department's Bureau of Arms Control: Please add canola oil to your catalogue of chemical and biological weapons.)
Such stories are mere hearsay, you might think. But how can you argue with the following first-person account, which I quote verbatim?

• "My daughter and her girls were telling jokes. Stephanie hit her mom's arm with the back of a butter knife in a gesture, 'Oh, Mom,' not hard enough to hurt. My daughter's arm split open. . . . She called me to ask what could have caused it. I said, 'I'll bet anything you're using canola oil.' Sure enough, there was a big gallon jug in the pantry." (Well there's your proof, right there, Sheriff.)
Then there is The Case of the Stubborn Stigmata:

• "My sister spilled canola oil on a piece of fabric. After five pre-treatings and harsh washings, the oil spot still showed. She stopped using canola oil, wondering what it did to our insides if it could not be removed from cloth easily." (That is frightening indeed, especially for those of us whose insides are lined with cloth.)
www.humbug.net
The Internet is unquestionably the greatest medium for the dissemination of information since the invention of ink and paper. Unfortunately, it is also the greatest medium for the dissemination of misinformation since the invention of the political campaign. While scandalmongering has always boosted circulation in the print media, scaremongering keeps the kilobytes flying on the Internet. Urban legends, they are called.
I quote from a column that I wrote in this space about a year ago about a widely circulated urban legend (I won't identify it for fear of giving it fuel, because it's still circulating): "Urban legends are usually recognizable by certain characteristics. They warn of dire consequences from an innocent, everyday act; they are allegedly true stories but are nevertheless anonymous and unverifiable; and they lack sufficient detail to make logical evaluation possible."
I should add that many urban-legend scare stories take flight from a grain of truth. The canola stories fit this mold, and they are encouraged by a couple of ranting books full of undocumented pseudoscientific charges.

 

[Andy M.]

Part II of the Canola Baloney Article

Some Facts
Peanut oil comes from peanuts; olive oil comes from olives. But what on Earth is a canola?
There is no such thing as a canola. Canola oil is rapeseed oil, pressed or extracted from the seeds of the rape plant (from the Latin rapa, meaning turnip) Brassica rapa or B. campestris, close relatives of mustard, kale, cabbage and broccoli. Mustard? Yes, but there is no truth to the hysterical claim made in the e-mail rave that rapeseed is the source of mustard gas, the flesh-burning chemical weapon used by the Germans in World War I; it is chemically unrelated.
The grain of truth behind the whole anti-canola crusade is that historically, rapeseed oil has proven to be toxic because of a high content -- between 30 and 60 percent -- of erucic acid, a monounsaturated fatty acid. That has never stopped people in Asia and Scandinavia, however, from using it in their cooking for centuries. But while rapeseed oil has many industrial uses, it was not permitted as an edible oil in the U.S. because of its erucic acid content.
In 1974, plant breeders at the University of Manitoba in Canada succeeded in developing a genetically modified rape plant whose seed oil contained less than 2 percent of erucic acid. They nationalistically named it canola: can- for "Canadian" plus -ola, for "oil." This euphemism was approved for edible rapeseed oil by the Food and Drug Administration in 1989, provided that the erucic acid content did not exceed 2 percent.
Today's canola oil averages 0.6 percent erucic acid, only 1 percent or 2 percent of the amount in the rapeseed oil of old. It is valued for its fatty acid profile, which is 59 percent monounsaturated, 30 percent polyunsaturated and 7 percent saturated. This compares favorably with Health Champ olive oil's profile: 74 percent monounsaturated, 8 percent polyunsaturated and 14 percent saturated.
Apparently, some people find it hard to understand that if the erucic acid has been bred out of the plant, the acid's toxicity can no longer be ascribed to the oil.
This is not the only case of a dangerous substance having to be removed from a food to make it safe. Before cashew nuts are roasted, for example, they contain a substance that would burn your skin off. And cassava, a staple of the Central and South American diet, is full of hydrogen cyanide before it is soaked or heated. Shakespeare to the contrary notwithstanding, the sins of the fathers are not to be laid upon the children.

That's Oil, Folks
Whenever there are two defensible positions in a controversy, one may expect arguments for both to turn up in an objective inquiry. In searching the Internet for information on canola, I found tons of pro-canola material from the Canola Council of Canada's prolific public relations machine, plus at least half a ton of undocumented anti-canola allegations. But significantly, I found no research studies indicating that today's low-erucic-acid canola oil, as distinguished from ordinary rapeseed oil, is harmful to humans. If credible scientific -- not anecdotal -- evidence of canola's harmfulness does exist, I would like to have it pointed out to me.

As I have said, the Internet cuts both ways; it is a medium for spreading both information and misinformation. One thing is certain: Hysterical urban legends about bizarre diseases, rotting skin and spooky stigmata are of no help to anyone who is trying to form a rational opinion. Nor are the accompanying insinuations of conspiracy, such as the one about the Canadian government's bribing the Food and Drug Administration with $50 million to declare canola oil a safe food.

My own theory is that the Canadians are deliberately poisoning the U.S. population with canola oil so they can take over the country and move down to a warmer climate. E-mail that to everyone in your address book.



Robert L. Wolke (professorscience.com) is professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh. His latest book is "What Einstein Told His Barber: More Scientific Answers to Everyday Questions" (Dell Publications, $11.95). Send your kitchen questions to wolke@pitt.edu.

 

[Maverick2272]

Some Facts
My own theory is that the Canadians are deliberately poisoning the U.S. population with canola oil so they can take over the country and move down to a warmer climate. E-mail that to everyone in your address book.

And too late, my wife is Canadian, they are already here!!!

 

[Michael in FtW]

Triglyceride is the most common form of fats (solid or liquid). They consist of a 3 molecule glycerol chain with 3 fatty acids attached to it - like the letter "E" where the vertical left side is the glycerol chain and the horizontal portions are the fatty acid chains. Other forms are diglycerids (two fatty acid chains are attached to the glycerol) and monoglycerides (one fatty acid chain attached to the glycerol). Fatty acid chains that are not attached to the glycerol chain are known as free fatty acids.

When fats are heated for cooking, the fatty acid chains begin to break apart and from the glycerol backbone .. the more free fatty acids the lower the smoke/flash point and the faster the fat will go rancid.

High Density Lipoproteins (HDL - referred to good cholesterol) and Low Density Lipoproteins (LDL - referred to as bad cholesterol) are cholesterol transport systems. LDL takes cholesterol out from the liver and leaves deposits around the body - HDL picks you the debris left by the LDL and carries it back to the liver to be eliminated from the body.

Saturated fats (fatty acid chains with no double bonds) raise both the HDL and the LDL.

Monounsaturated fats (fatty acid chains with 1 double bond) raise the levels of HDL (good) cholesterol and lowers the LDL (bad) cholesterol.

Polyunsaturated fats (fatty acid chains with 2 or more double bonds) lowers the total cholesterol by lowering both the LDL and HDL the same amount (so if your total cholesterol falls by 2 points, 1 poine came from each the good and the bad).

Saturated fats are basically straight, like the letter "I" - unsaturated fats are bent at the double bonds - so they take on shapes like the letters "L" or "C". Since sat fats have a straight shape they can "zipper" together and the more of them the more likely the "fat" will be solid at room temp. Hydrogenation irons out some of the "kinks" in the unsaturated fats so they physically behave like sat fats and can form solids at room temp.

Trans Fats: These are the really bad boys! Not only does it raise the bad LDL and lowers the good HDL - it raises the bad 2 points for every 1 point it lowers the good! So, for example, if your total cholesterol goes up 2 points from trans fats ... it has gone up 4 points in the bad, and down 2 points in the good. Opposite of what we would like to have happen!

MYTH: Trans fats only come from hyrogenated oils. The truth is, it is also found naturally in the fats, milk and milk products of ruminant animals (cattle, goats, sheep, bison, water buffalo, yak, deer, antelope, etc.) and from some research articles I have found it can run as high as 1% - 4% of the total fat content. Pork, chicken, duck and goose fat may have cholesterol, but they don't have any trans fats!

I've tried to keep it simple ... so I'm sure I've left something out.

 

[Andy M.]

Good info, Michael. Thanks.

 

[Alix]

Thanks Andy and Michael, you are always my go to guys for stuff. I'm still snickering at the deliberate poisoning thing...Dang! Foiled again!

 

[Michael in FtW]

Thanks Andy and Michael, you are always my go to guys for stuff. I'm still snickering at the deliberate poisoning thing...Dang! Foiled again!

Oh, drat! Now I know what I forgot ... about 300-500+ pages discussing the differences in fatty acids (short, medium, long, very long) and how they are mixed, matched and attached to the glycerol backbone ... and what those differences mean to nutrition.

There are the basics - the "indepth" story gets a little more complicated ...

 

[wysiwyg]

One reminder relative to labels we daily see on food and may overlook:

FDA defines Fat-Free as 0.5 g or less per serving.
The point is, just because it says is Fat-Free it may not be completely, pure 100% free.
As an example, don't use half of the Fat-Free salad dressing bottle in every meal because you will be consuming a lot of fat.

The same rationale applies to Calories, Sugar, Sodium, etc.

 

[mitmondol]

The only thing I have to say (and I just KNOW I will be the evil here), I seriously DO NOT believe in the whole fat free etc thing.
In my opinion I live only once.
I will die, no matter what I do.
So, as long as I live I will enjoy every food, however "bad" it might be, because what in the heck am I trying to preserve myself for?!
I will go one day, and so will you all. So enjoy as long as you can for cryin' out loud!!

 

[Michael in FtW]

LOL - you're really close wysiwyg - the FDA labeling guidelines are based on the "per serving unit volume/weight" being LESS than 0.5 - mg, g, %, etc. Of course that means a lot based on the funky "rounding rules" - you can round 2.4999 "down" to 2.0, but you don't have to round 0.499999 "up" to 0.5.

mit - all things in moderation ... you can live longer and enjoy more that way.

 

[GotGarlic]

I wonder if we are missing the point here? I use many different oils for my cooking: canola, corn, olive, vegetable, and now I am hearing about cottonseed.
Trying to keep track of what is what, yes you do need fats, but these fats are unhealthy, etc is getting confusing. And with each oil manufacturer trying to sabotage the next, it only makes it worse.

The way to get reliable information is to get it from the government or institutions of higher learning, not from manufacturers.

Then there are the so-called health gurus: This causes cancer, oh wait no it doesnt, well it might. Butter is bad get margarine, oh wait thats bad too, and on and on seems like these guys can neve make up thier minds.

It's not a matter of making up one's mind - the fact is, science is always evolving. People would naturally rather have one answer that never changes, but as new research techniques are developed (DNA sequencing, for example) and new information is obtained (scientists didn't have the human genome mapped out 20 years ago), some conclusions are going to change in response. All we can do is go by the best current information, and, as you say, everything in moderation.

But, one message has stayed constant thru all this: moderation moderation moderation.
IE cooking with oils and consuming fatty foods ALL the time = bad bad bad
IE cooking sometimes with oils and sometimes fatty foods = OK, keep working on it
IE cooking with oils only when it enhances the taste and not just cause you like fried, and consuming healthy foods alot more than fatty foods = good job

JMHO

I cook with oils when sauteeing and searing, too, but in smaller amounts. I rarely fry anything myself - it's too messy But I occasionally indulge in fried chicken or fish or French fries when out to dinner. And I adore tempura shrimp and veggies

 

[Fisher's Mom]

I cook with oils when sauteeing and searing, too, but in smaller amounts. I rarely fry anything myself - it's too messy But I occasionally indulge in fried chicken or fish or French fries when out to dinner. And I adore tempura shrimp and veggies

Me, too. I thought I was just really lazy but I hate cleaning out the oil and then trying to find some way to get rid of the used oil. It's easier to just go out to eat when I get a real urge for something fried.

 

[Caine]

I will go one day, and so will you all. So enjoy as long as you can for cryin' out loud!!

I eat healthful foods because, while I may die some day, I plan on making that day an extremely long way away, and in order to enjoy living that long, I will need to be healthy. Being physically or mentally handicapped(morally handicapped, I can handle) because you didn't eat right and exercise will make your life seem extremely long, regardless of how old you are when you die.

As for fats, you need fats to, among other things, lubricate your joints and transport fat soluable viatmins throughout your body. To be in balance, your diet should consist of 40% complex carbohydrates, 30% protein, and 30% fat, with less than 10% of that being saturated fat.

 

[DramaQueen]

I eat healthful foods because, while I may die some day, I plan on making that day an extremely long way away, and in order to enjoy living that long, I will need to be healthy. Being physically or mentally handicapped(morally handicapped, I can handle) because you didn't eat right and exercise will make your life seem extremely long, regardless of how old you are when you die.

As for fats, you need fats to, among other things, lubricate your joints and transport fat soluable viatmins throughout your body. To be in balance, your diet should consist of 40% complex carbohydrates, 30% protein, and 30% fat, with less than 10% of that being saturated fat.

I couldn't agree more. Eating well and getting rid of processed foods will keep you healthy and ward off so many ailments that are caused by bad diet. Why take chances when it's so easy to remain healthy as long as you can. There are enough things that can go wrong with the human body all by itself - why add to the problems?

 

[Maverick2272]

Jmho

GotGarlic:

Many good points, but I wouldn't list the government as a good source to get unbiased information from and I dont have much faith these days in University, etc. I usually use a mixture of first hand knowledge, information provided by others with first hand knowledge and the following with a grain of salt: institutions, independent entities, manufacturers, etc. governments I list last as they seem so easily swayed by lobbyists and money interests.
Yes science is evolving, but that isn't why they are waffling so much. Mostly it is because some manufacturer rushed the product onto the market to beat others, or to meet a trend (like lo cal lo fat lo carb organic free range etc which when used by manufacturers could mean almost anything), or some opportunist is jumping on the latest bandwagon and pushing something for their own profit.
None of these have anything to do with the evolution of science or even science in general. And when science says this is good, then says its bad, then says its good, well thats not evolution either, thats called a good old fashioned mistake.

I don't mean this to sound so harsh, just trying to express my opinion and view but sometimes its hard when airing them to avoid sounding a little rigid, but forgive me anyway Anyway like I said you make some good points and have given me some things to think about, thank you.

I agree with the deep frying thing. I don't do it that often as I hate the mess. As for the left over oil I strain it, pour it into an empty contain and store it for later use. Often times though, since I don't deep fry that much and I don't consider oil once used for that fit for other things, it ends up going rancid anyway.

And the wife and I love tempura as well!

 

[Andy M.]

...I usually use a mixture of first hand knowledge, information provided by others with first hand knowledge and the following with a grain of salt: institutions, independent entities, manufacturers, etc. governments I list last as they seem so easily swayed by lobbyists and money interests...

I think you are wise to be skeptical about some sources.

However, putting your first-hand (non-scientific) knowledge and that of others (also non-scientifically derived?) ahead of reliably derived scientific facts, seems reckless. How can you compare your first-hand observations to scientifically derived data from the USDA, for example?