Why fast foods are bad, even in moderation

[johnsmith45678]

Quite a difference!

Monkeys fed a diet rich in trans-fats – commonly found in fast foods – grew bigger bellies than those fed a diet rich in unsaturated fats, but containing the same overall number of calories. They also developed signs of insulin resistance, which is an early indicator of diabetes.

After six years on the diet, the trans-fat-fed monkeys had gained 7.2% of their body weight, compared to just 1.8% in the unsaturated group. CT scans also revealed that the trans-fat monkeys carried 30% more abdominal fat, which is risk factor for diabetes and heart disease.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...line-news_rss20

What foods have trans-fats? From the article: fast food, baked goods, processed snacks. Isn't margarine trans-fat?

What foods are high in mono-unsaturated fats? Olive oil...

Then there's poly-unsaturated (AFAIK - good) and saturated (AFAIK - bad).

[JohnL]

Quite a difference!

Monkeys fed a diet rich in trans-fats – commonly found in fast foods – grew bigger bellies than those fed a diet rich in unsaturated fats, but containing the same overall number of calories. They also developed signs of insulin resistance, which is an early indicator of diabetes.

After six years on the diet, the trans-fat-fed monkeys had gained 7.2% of their body weight, compared to just 1.8% in the unsaturated group. CT scans also revealed that the trans-fat monkeys carried 30% more abdominal fat, which is risk factor for diabetes and heart disease.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...line-news_rss20

What foods have trans-fats? From the article: fast food, baked goods, processed snacks. Isn't margarine trans-fat?

What foods are high in mono-unsaturated fats? Olive oil...

Then there's poly-unsaturated (AFAIK - good) and saturated (AFAIK - bad).

←

Right off the bat there's a problem with this linked piece.

The headline reads:

"Why fast foods are bad even in moderation."

The first sentence of the piece reads:

"Eating a diet consisting LARGELY of fast food COULD cause

your waistline to bulge more than eating the same amount of fat

from healthier sources."

Basically this piece is saying that if you eat a bad diet

you will be more prone to be overweight which in turn makes one more prone to

disease.

SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW?!

The piece also indicates that the fast food industry is responding by

cutting the bad fats from their offerings. But one has to read through

the entire article to get to this piece of news.

perhaps the headline should have been:

Fast Food Industry Making Their food more Healthy

In response to scientific studies..

but that doesn't really scare anyone or shock anyone into

reading or buying the magazine does it??

[johnsmith45678]

Yeah, but I think the fast food industry still has a long way to go before they're ever considered healthy.

I think "Saturated vs. Mono-Unsaturated Diet" would have been a more appropriate title, but, yeah, that's not as attention-grabbing.

Anybody know of other foods that are high in saturated/mono- poly- unsaturated fats?

[JohnL]

I agree.

My "beef" is with the media mostly.

We should be able to accept that not everything is

good or "healthy" and learn to exercise moderation and enjoy

"indulgences" once in a while.

We also should realize that "utopia" is unobtainable and there are always trade offs.

Making the world completely "safe" by banning/removing everything we deem unsafe or unhealthy because we can not teach and exercise self control and take responsibility is IMOP not the way to go.

The article in quesion is an example of bad reporting.

We really need a responsible press to inform us so we can exercise responsibility --responsibly!

[jsolomon]

I've completely cut all bad things from my diet. For the past three years all I've eaten has been library paste, which no one has complained about, and sea sand.

No engineered fats for me, no-sir-ee. I didn't feel that great when I started on the diet, but after about four weeks, I began to feel like your normal 100 year-old male. Dead. But, my diet hasn't bothered me since, so I must be doing something right, eh?

[slkinsey]

There is a point to be made here that not all fast food is bad and not all fast food is bad for you. They have been making fast foods in Mexico and Singapore and Vietnam and lots of other places all over the world that are perfectly healthful and absolutely delicious for centuries.

[Gabriel Lewis]

Actually, from what I understand there are a lot of misconceptions about fat in general, particularly saturated fat. Of course everyone knows that trans-fats are generally not good for you, but unfortunately most people think the same of saturated fats that have been lumped in with trans-fats unfairly. Many of the studies that assesed the varying degrees of "healthyness" of different types of fats grouped trans-fats and saturated fats from natural sources together. Hence a lot of the stigma that has been associated with trans-fats has also been unfairly heaped onto saturated fats as well.

Many indigenous cultures around the world consume huge amounts of animal fats and animal products yet still have rather remarkable bills of health. The inuit in northern Canada have eaten copious amounts of marine products such as a blubber for hundreds of years and are among the healthiest in the world. There are tribes in africa who sustain themselves almost solely on buffalo meat, milk, and blood and yet have rates of heart disease that put north america's to shame.

This links (http://www.thaifoodandtravel.com/features/cocgood.html) to an article on Kasma Loha-Unchit's website about the many beneficial properties of coconut and coconut oil, it also contains links to various websites with a lot of good information on nutrition and the role of animal products in our diet.

[johnsmith45678]

I recently read that saturated fats are easily converted into artery-clogging cholesterol.

And to expand on your examples, the French are famous for their diet of fatty foods while not suffering adverse effects from it. Drinking red wine is the supposed antidote, in their case.

[misstenacity]

Actually, from what I understand there are a lot of misconceptions about fat in general, particularly saturated fat. Of course everyone knows that trans-fats are generally not good for you, but unfortunately most people think the same of saturated fats that have been lumped in with trans-fats unfairly. Many of the studies that assesed the varying degrees of "healthyness" of different types of fats grouped trans-fats and saturated fats from natural sources together. Hence a lot of the stigma that has been associated with trans-fats has also been unfairly heaped onto saturated fats as well.

Many indigenous cultures around the world consume huge amounts of animal fats and animal products yet still have rather remarkable bills of health. The inuit in northern Canada have eaten copious amounts of marine products such as a blubber for hundreds of years and are among the healthiest in the world. There are tribes in africa who sustain themselves almost solely on buffalo meat, milk, and blood and yet have rates of heart disease that put north america's to shame.

This links (http://www.thaifoodandtravel.com/features/cocgood.html) to an article on Kasma Loha-Unchit's website about the many beneficial properties of coconut and coconut oil, it also contains links to various websites with a lot of good information on nutrition and the role of animal products in our diet.

←

Thank you for this post, Gabriel.

The reading I've done (very extensive to link up here, but its out there, to be sure) tends to group things this way:

trans-fats: bad in any amount greater than zero, even worse in high amounts

saturated fats from animals: can be OK, depending on how the animal was fed, etc. Grass-fed range animals are much better than feedlot specimens.

saturated fats from plants: chocolate, avocado, nuts, etc. Generally OK.

poly-unsaturated fats: jury is out. Sounds pretty neutral, certainly not as good as the next category....

mono-unsaturated fats: generally good all-around, unless you've let them get rancid which is shockingly easy to do.

I've had to get over my hang-up of tossing food when I detect that my nuts or oils are "off" - once they are rancid they can be just as bad as trans-fats. Yech.

Viva la salmon and duck fat!

Andrea

http://tenacity.net

[JohnL]

The issue of diet and health is far too complex for any resolution anywhere (certainly not here).

Disease and longevity are impacted by many many factors--diet is only one.

From genetics to socio economics to how people handle stress to environment and on and on....

Science often does not have answers let alone easy answers to all this.

A recent study indicated that eating those bran muffins reallly didn't have a positive impact on cancer of the digestive system (or something like that).

There is a constant stream of studies and their results with often contradictatory conclusions.

Remember not long ago--we were "told" that butter is bad and we should eat more margarine. (anything but butter).

If matters weren't complicated enough-all the special interests comission their own research and twist and turn data from every study to "prove" their case.

The media also do a lousy job of helping to sort things out for us and to help provide some context--they are too concerned with their special interest--more readers, viewers, listeners, web site hits etc.

Then there is common sense. With all due respect to the Inuit, I for one, will stick with my current lifestyle.

Yes we can all be healthier (even the Inuit--they don't live forever and I bet they get some diseases we have never heard of).

The key IMOP is to step back. Apply some healthy skepticism and use moderation.

Some variation in foods and some portion control combined with exercise and everyone (most people) should be fine (no matter where they are living).

[MarketStEl]

Whether it's working the readers, as articles like this one do, or working reporters, as I do, we're all looking for some hook that will draw the target to read the piece.

"Eating too much of this may lead to a, but then again, it may not," won't grab someone's attention as effectively as "If you eat lots of this, chances are you will end up with a." Note that in my second sentence, I said nothing definite: there is a qualifier, "chances are," that indicates a less-than-certain outcome.

We also can't control how the recipient hears or reads the message we send. (The postmodern literary theorists are right about this much: Every text has two authors, the person who wrote it and the person who reads it.) Our readers may filter out those qualifiers in the course of processing the story. Note how a couple of posters identified saturated fat as the villain even though the story concerned research on consumption of trans fats only?

As for the more definitive tone of the headline--"Why fast food is bad even in moderation"--it's not totally supported by the story itself; we have no evidence here of the effects of a small amount of trans fat on the health of the subjects (though reports on other research suggest that even a small amount of trans fat has a negative effect, which would make the headline accurate if it ran over a story that reported that). But "increased risk" of something is by definition bad too; if it weren't, there would be no reason for the insurance industry to exist--or for that industry to either charge up the wazoo or refuse to cover people whose choices make them more likely to cost the insurer money. Now, "a diet largely of fast food" is also by definition not "in moderation," so the headline also states something the article doesn't presume to speak on there as well. But it does do one thing well: Grabs the reader's attention. That it also prepares the reader to filter the information he or she is about to receive in a more negative fashion than it might otherwise have been interpreted is often a secondary consideration in writing a headline, if indeed it is one at all.

[Daniel]

I think about these Monkey's sitting around with big bellies and empty big mac and fry boxes laying around there cages.. And laugh a little.. Then I think about the scientists who wasted there time on this issue instead of doing something productive.. That I find sad..

This subject has been beaten to death.. High fatty fried foods are bad for you and your monkey, got it..

Edited June 15, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[ludja]

I agree by and large with people's criticism of the article. Besides the issue of whether trans fats are worse than regular fats, I think a good reason to become aware of them and to avoid them is because they are often hidden and empty calories in processed food. By avoiding excessive consumption of commercial crackers, cookies, and other processed foods you will naturally cut down on the trans fats--and a lot of "hidden" calories along the way.

[johnsmith45678]

I don't recall ever hearing about a study like this before - two diets identical in calories, but different types of fats. I was surprised by the weight and obesity differences.

[Gabriel Lewis]

I find myself very tired of the issue of fats and health at times too, but all it takes is a look at the world that surrounds me to remind me of the many inconsistencies of modern society. I certainly don't believe that a meal now and then at a fast food restaurant will result - or even increase the chances of - some form of negative health effect. However, I think it is important to recognize that the public's general picture of the role of fats in health is somewhat skewed. In my case the stigmatization of saturated fats is particularly frustrating especially in light of the relatively inconsequential evidence pointing to their adverse health effects.

I am not searching for some kind of miracle diet nor "the right answer" as to what is healthy and what is not, and I too weary of the innumerable studies that often contradict themselves. However, the general consensus on what's healthy seems very troublesome to me. Olive oil is lauded as the king of all fats, placed upon a pedestal of monounsaturated greatness, and although olive oil certainly is a good fat it has its own pros and cons like everything else. Its strong flavor (depending on the type) is not always suitable for all types of cooking, and it is really not suitable for cooking above medium or so heat due to the production of carcinogenic free radicals beyond a certain temperature. Butter, coconut oil, lard, and other animal fats are generally seen as "very bad for you" and to be consumed "sparingly". And yet these were all consumed in much vaster quanitities 75 to 100 years as compared to today. Rates of heart disease and other maladies generally associated with excessive consumption of saturated fat were a fraction of what they are today. There is a strong link between the rise of heart disease and obesity and the increasing prevalence of trans-fats in the 20th century.

Thankfully awareness of trans fats has reached a decent level of public knowledge but it remains incomplete at best in my opinion. It is time we stopped looking for succint answers of whats good and bad and looked towards the evidence and information we have to make informed and rational choices about our diet. Of course this becoming a reality does strike me as wishful thinking but damnit, butter isn't bad. Even LOTS of butter isn't bad depending on your lifestyle choices. It is suprising what you discover when you venture beyond the bubble of public health consensus.

[johnsmith45678]

Well, if the experts are to be believed, the consensus seems to be that saturated fats = cholesterol, which clogs the arteries. But in moderation... I also remember reading that butter has a lot of good and healthful compounds in it, can't remember what they are though.