The FDA wants to ban all trans fats

NationalTitles18 · Nov 9, 2013

twofbyc said:
OK, you did your research...good for you. Now, in the interest of being "open" and "honest", define "period of time". Is it a few hours? A day? A week? Even plutonium will lose it's harmful effects after a "period of time". So for your attack on the apparent, obvious and proven ill effects of trans-fat to be valid, this "period of time" must be minutes, or maybe an hour, because anyone who consumes trans fat at each meal will have a "build-up" otherwise; and if the "dissipation" period is 12-24 hours, it doesn't take long for a large "build-up" to occur, if one consumes trans fat (especially in amounts larger than what would be naturally present in any give food). And you presented nothing to counter the claim that trans fats in diet, if ingested regularly, can and do lead to health issues.
So please define "period of time" so your position can have some validity; otherwise, it means nothing.

First, it's ironic that I present the null position and yet I am the one being asked to provide evidence to support my position. I'd think if you want to ban something for everyone that burden should be on you, not to mention the impossibility of "proving' a negative.

The transient increase of ldl or decrease in hdl (which I did not mention earlier) associated with s high dietary trans fat intake can last for weeks. the thing is, people rarely consume the amounts given in the studies relating to this. (side note: HDL is generally considered the "good" cholesterol but at least one variant of HDL is thought to be harmful. This was "discovered" after people with high good cholesterol levels were found to be having a disproportionate number of cardiovascular events and underscores just how poor our understanding of cholesterol and risk factors for CHD really is)

But lets be clear: I am not stating that trans fats are good for you. I am stating that the normal average daily consumption of trans fats is not harmful in any way proven by science.

The average American takes in 1.3g of trans fats daily (see paragraph immediately preceding chart in following link):

http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/fat/transfat.html

Levels exceeding that intake level have not been shown to be harmful. It did not matter whether the source of trans fats was natural or man made. Even extremely high levels of trans fat intake 7-8x the average American's intake only showed a small increase in risk.

Ruminant-TFA intake (increments ranging from 0.5 to 1.9 g/day) was not significantly associated with risk of CHD (risk ratio (RR)=0.92 (0.76-1.11); P=0.36), and neither was industrial-TFA intake, although there was a trend towards a positive association (RR=1.21 (0.97-1.50); P=0.09).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21427742

Now, is 1 meta-analysis of cohort studies the end-all be-all on the matter? No, but what do you have other than over-hyped estimates of lives supposedly to be saved by removing a product from the market which is not shown to be harmful to the average American?

crimsonaudio · Nov 9, 2013

They should focus on banning all the unnatural garbage that's allowed into our food supply and quit worrying about stuff like this...

SavannahDare · Nov 9, 2013

crimsonaudio said:
They should focus on banning all the unnatural garbage that's allowed into our food supply and quit worrying about stuff like this...

Correct.

And don't even get me started on sugar. You want to know what's poisoning us, it's the amount of sugar we consume (not sugar itself, necessarily, but the amount).

BamaFlum · Nov 9, 2013

crimsonaudio said:
They should focus on banning all the unnatural garbage that's allowed into our food supply and quit worrying about stuff like this...

I second this. If they REALLY wanted to govern what isn't healthy, they would start with the chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, hormones, etc they allow on and in our food supply.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk, so my fat fingers cause misspellings and autocorrect makes my ships into...

NationalTitles18 · Nov 13, 2013

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/...wider-use-cholesterol-drugs/?intcmp=obnetwork

For decades, if you asked your doctor what your odds were of suffering a heart attack, the answer would turn on a number: your cholesterol level.Now the nation's first new heart disease prevention guidelines in a decade take a very different approach, focusing more broadly on risk and moving away from specific targets for cholesterol.
The guidance offers doctors a new formula for estimating risk that includes age, gender, race and factors such as whether someone smokes.

I'm not yet familiar enough with the new guidelines to comment on them, but the overall approach seems sound.

twofbyc · Nov 13, 2013

NationalTitles15 said:
First, it's ironic that I present the null position and yet I am the one being asked to provide evidence to support my position. I'd think if you want to ban something for everyone that burden should be on you, not to mention the impossibility of "proving' a negative.

The transient increase of ldl or decrease in hdl (which I did not mention earlier) associated with s high dietary trans fat intake can last for weeks. the thing is, people rarely consume the amounts given in the studies relating to this. (side note: HDL is generally considered the "good" cholesterol but at least one variant of HDL is thought to be harmful. This was "discovered" after people with high good cholesterol levels were found to be having a disproportionate number of cardiovascular events and underscores just how poor our understanding of cholesterol and risk factors for CHD really is)

But lets be clear: I am not stating that trans fats are good for you. I am stating that the normal average daily consumption of trans fats is not harmful in any way proven by science.

The average American takes in 1.3g of trans fats daily (see paragraph immediately preceding chart in following link):

http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/fat/transfat.html

Levels exceeding that intake level have not been shown to be harmful. It did not matter whether the source of trans fats was natural or man made. Even extremely high levels of trans fat intake 7-8x the average American's intake only showed a small increase in risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21427742

Now, is 1 meta-analysis of cohort studies the end-all be-all on the matter? No, but what do you have other than over-hyped estimates of lives supposedly to be saved by removing a product from the market which is not shown to be harmful to the average American?

Your opinion, and it goes against those of the majority of medical professionals. They could be wrong....but I'll take my chances on who I believe balanced by what I see with my own eyes.
So "adding" unnecessary trans fat, which we know is not healthy and does cause medical issues, if the amounts ingested are beyond a reasonable point (and 1.3 is "average"? So that means that half of the population takes in more, and obviously some take in a lot more?)
Tobacco companies got burned for adding nicotine to cigarettes to make them more addictive. I don't see much difference in adding trans fat to food (that already has it naturally) to make the food taste better.

NationalTitles18 · Nov 13, 2013

twofbyc said:
Your opinion, and it goes against those of the majority of medical professionals. They could be wrong....but I'll take my chances on who I believe balanced by what I see with my own eyes.
So "adding" unnecessary trans fat, which we know is not healthy and does cause medical issues, if the amounts ingested are beyond a reasonable point (and 1.3 is "average"? So that means that half of the population takes in more, and obviously some take in a lot more?)
Tobacco companies got burned for adding nicotine to cigarettes to make them more addictive. I don't see much difference in adding trans fat to food (that already has it naturally) to make the food taste better.

You are right. It is an opinion. It should be taken into account by everyone that the projected number of lives saved comes from a study which makes a number of assumptions to arrive at the number. These assumptions are generally sound, but have inherent weaknesses. This much should be obvious. Most food producers have moved away from trans fats altogether due to public pressure, so far less trans fats are found in the food supply today than even a few years ago. Banning them outright would not make that much of a difference now even if all the assumptions turned out to be completely true. All of that makes me say the numbers are overly hyped, especially when used to support another restriction on people which will just open the door for even more restrictions on people. Trans fat is not good for you and is likely overall bad for your health. I am not advocating for it. I am saying take the numbers with a grain of salt (which is good for you, believe it or not - and studies have shown this!http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20110504/study-shows-salty-diet-good-heart-group-disagrees) and stop imposing unnecessary restrictions on what people do. Make your own choices and let others makes theirs. Keep in mind that popular thought that everyone "knows" to be true is sometimes wrong and based on faulty assumptions, especially when study populations are compared to general populations. Caveats like this should be kept in mind when reading any study, especially when projections are made and more so when the factors underlying the assumptions change such as the removal of trans fats across most food products that has already occurred. I do support your choice and generally think it is a wise choice.

cuda.1973 · Nov 13, 2013

Oy vey....................where to start.................

The same geniuses who are now telling you that trans fats are bad for you are the same ones who used to tell us it was better for us than eating saturated fats, i.e. butter. Oh............you mean I should now believe them, this time, and assume this time they got it right? Nope, sorry, not going to do it.

Yes, I know, they have tons of studies, that all say high cholesterol leads to heart disease. Really? Maybe it is just another effect, of what the real cause is. IOW, whatever causes heart disease also raise cholesterol levels. Which means it is not a cause, merely another symptom. So, you can lower cholesterol all you want, and you will still have heart disease. And, yes, I know folks who fall into that category.

These folks eat all the supposed right foods, take all the right drugs, and guess what..................yes, they still have heart problems!

How is that?

Uh, because the entire medical system is based around pushing overpriced pills, that not only do not cure the disease, but can make it worse. But, no.................you have heart disease, and therefore we have a regimen of statins, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, and who knows what else. None of which are good for you! But, your doctor says to take it, the gubbament says it is safe, and you obey.

And what do you do if you don't get better? Or get worse? Believe me, fill your body with those drugs and you will get worse.

Seriously, why would anyone take something that affects calcium uptake? All muscles need it, and lack of it cause muscle cramps. And the heart is the most important muscle. (Ask someone who has taken this crap, and see how they liked the side effects. You don't need a medical degree to be smart enough to question the wisdom of taking that stuff.)

And the funny part...................trans fats play a larger role in Type II diabetes, than it does in heart disease. (My doctor buddies talk about "brown fat", and how fat metabolism and insulin production are affected by trans fats.)

But, no................conventional medicine pushes this stuff, and people go along with it. Why, I don't know.

I am not alone in my beliefs. If you are willing to do some work, you can turn up alternate theories. I'm just an engineer, but my gut tells me most of what modern medicine tells me to do is wrong. (As a former guinea pig, for cancer research, I got a good eyeful of where their heads are at. And it was not a pretty picture. The doctor I now see was a research associate, back in those days. When his fellowship was up, "they" offered him a "Jr. partnership", in their little mafia. He turned them down. "They kill people. I only send them patients now, when there is no alternative. And I keep my eyes on them, very closely. Because I know better.")

Anyway..................this all came about because I had a link I wanted to share.

</rant>

http://www.drwhitaker.com/new-stati...cial-facebook-whitaker-111313-blog-statinnews

Anyway, the gist is..................thanks to new FDA guidelines (and probably BoehnerCare), the guys who make statins are going to get richer.

They will probably kill a lot of you, in the process, but, hey, the sooner you die, the less expensive it is. And, it all has the blessing of the gubbament, so how can it be bad?

Pass the salt, please.

Bamaro · Nov 14, 2013

cuda.1973 said:
Oy vey....................where to start.................

The same geniuses who are now telling you that trans fats are bad for you are the same ones who used to tell us it was better for us than eating saturated fats, i.e. butter. Oh............you mean I should now believe them, this time, and assume this time they got it right? Nope, sorry, not going to do it.

Yes, I know, they have tons of studies, that all say high cholesterol leads to heart disease. Really? Maybe it is just another effect, of what the real cause is. IOW, whatever causes heart disease also raise cholesterol levels. Which means it is not a cause, merely another symptom. So, you can lower cholesterol all you want, and you will still have heart disease. And, yes, I know folks who fall into that category.

These folks eat all the supposed right foods, take all the right drugs, and guess what..................yes, they still have heart problems!

How is that?

Uh, because the entire medical system is based around pushing overpriced pills, that not only do not cure the disease, but can make it worse. But, no.................you have heart disease, and therefore we have a regimen of statins, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, and who knows what else. None of which are good for you! But, your doctor says to take it, the gubbament says it is safe, and you obey.

And what do you do if you don't get better? Or get worse? Believe me, fill your body with those drugs and you will get worse.

Seriously, why would anyone take something that affects calcium uptake? All muscles need it, and lack of it cause muscle cramps. And the heart is the most important muscle. (Ask someone who has taken this crap, and see how they liked the side effects. You don't need a medical degree to be smart enough to question the wisdom of taking that stuff.)

And the funny part...................trans fats play a larger role in Type II diabetes, than it does in heart disease. (My doctor buddies talk about "brown fat", and how fat metabolism and insulin production are affected by trans fats.)

But, no................conventional medicine pushes this stuff, and people go along with it. Why, I don't know.

I am not alone in my beliefs. If you are willing to do some work, you can turn up alternate theories. I'm just an engineer, but my gut tells me most of what modern medicine tells me to do is wrong. (As a former guinea pig, for cancer research, I got a good eyeful of where their heads are at. And it was not a pretty picture. The doctor I now see was a research associate, back in those days. When his fellowship was up, "they" offered him a "Jr. partnership", in their little mafia. He turned them down. "They kill people. I only send them patients now, when there is no alternative. And I keep my eyes on them, very closely. Because I know better.")

Anyway..................this all came about because I had a link I wanted to share.

</rant>

http://www.drwhitaker.com/new-stati...cial-facebook-whitaker-111313-blog-statinnews

Anyway, the gist is..................thanks to new FDA guidelines (and probably BoehnerCare), the guys who make statins are going to get richer.

They will probably kill a lot of you, in the process, but, hey, the sooner you die, the less expensive it is. And, it all has the blessing of the gubbament, so how can it be bad?

Pass the salt, please.

Science advances and improves. They have a pretty good handle on the effects of various fats now. You want to live in the past, go ahead.

G-VilleTider · Nov 14, 2013

Bamaro said:
Science advances and improves. They have a pretty good handle on the effects of various fats now. You want to live in the past, go ahead.

That is the problem. He can't. Doesn't matter whether I agree with him or the decision to ban the fats. He, I and you should all have the personal choice of what we want to put or not put into our bodies.

Bamaro · Nov 14, 2013

G-VilleTider said:
That is the problem. He can't. Doesn't matter whether I agree with him or the decision to ban the fats. He, I and you should all have the personal choice of what we want to put or not put into our bodies.

Well, as I said earlier in the thread I am satisfied with the labeling requirements for types of fats but there are bigger fish to fry (hopefully in monounsaturated fats

) than worrying about banning trans fats.

CharminTide · Nov 14, 2013

Given:

Healthcare represents 18% of our GDP.
Heart disease is the #1 cause of morbidity and mortality nationwide.
Most cardiovascular disease is due to poor diet (and exercise).
Trans fats increase LDL and decrease HDL.
High LDL and low HDL are strongly contributory to cardiovascular disease.

It seems like the same group of people who constantly cry out for lower federal spending are outraged by small and targeted acts to try and make the average American healthier, while simultaneously lowering spending in a sector that represents nearly 1/5th of our GDP.

If only we could somehow ban sodas, my patient population would be cut in half.

Tide1986 · Nov 14, 2013

CharminTide said:
Given:

Healthcare represents 18% of our GDP.

Heart disease is the #1 cause of morbidity and mortality nationwide.

Most cardiovascular disease is due to poor diet (and exercise).

Trans fats increase LDL and decrease HDL.

High LDL and low HDL are strongly contributory to cardiovascular disease.

It seems like the same group of people who constantly cry out for lower federal spending are outraged by small and targeted acts to try and make the average American healthier, while simultaneously lowering spending in a sector that represents nearly 1/5th of our GDP.

If only we could somehow ban sodas, my patient population would be cut in half.

What is your basis for caring about how much health care someone else consumes?

NationalTitles18 · Nov 28, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/18/h...l=1&adxnnlx=1385702315-Ljd1IzF/ow8+qZj17WGkBg

Last week, the nation’s leading heart organizations released a sweeping new set of guidelines for lowering cholesterol, along with an online calculator meant to help doctors assess risks and treatment options. But, in a major embarrassment to the health groups, the calculator appears to greatly overestimate risk, so much so that it could mistakenly suggest that millions more people are candidates for statin drugs.

The answer was that the calculator overpredicted risk by 75 to 150 percent, depending on the population. A man whose risk was 4 percent, for example, might show up as having an 8 percent risk. With a 4 percent risk, he would not warrant treatment — the guidelines that say treatment is advised for those with at least a 7.5 percent risk and that treatment can be considered for those whose risk is 5 percent.

We’re surrounded by a real disaster in terms of credibility,” said Dr. Peter Libby, the chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

What are patients and doctors to do? On Sunday, there seemed to be no firm answers, except that those at the highest risk, like people who have had a heart attack or have diabetes, should take statins.
The guideline developers said they were not totally surprised by the problems with the calculator.
“We recognize a potential for overestimates, especially at the high end of risk,” said Dr. David Goff, the dean of the University of Colorado School of Public Health and the co-chairman of the guidelines’ risk assessment working group.

Most folks seem to think that every intelligent medical professional agrees with every recommendation put out by every medical group. That's just not true, even when the medical groups are fairly well respected. Sometimes they are just off the mark or in other words just plain wrong. The fDA is just plain wrong on this issue and has no credible science to support a system-wide ban on trans fat.

Bodhisattva · Nov 29, 2013

Government science is the most awesome of all sciences.

Tidewater · Nov 29, 2013

G-VilleTider said:
That is the problem. He can't. Doesn't matter whether I agree with him or the decision to ban the fats. He, I and you should all have the personal choice of what we want to put or not put into our bodies.

If I was a leftist, I'd think people were too stupid to make their own decisions.
To put the causality the other way, If I was too stupid to make my own decisions, I'd be a leftist and hope that people like Bamaro would swoop in and save me from myself by making decisions for me.

Bamaro · Nov 29, 2013

Tidewater said:
If I was a leftist, I'd think people were too stupid to make their own decisions.
To put the causality the other way, If I was too stupid to make my own decisions, I'd be a leftist and hope that people like Bamaro would swoop in and save me from myself by making decisions for me.

If? :tongue:

TideEngineer08 · Nov 29, 2013

Bodhisattva said:
Government science is the most awesome of all sciences.

The oceans are healed, are they not? Barack said they would be.

Tidewater · Nov 29, 2013

Bamaro said:
If? :tongue:

Well, I'm not a leftist. I'll leave it to you to infer what you will from that data point.

Bamaro · Nov 29, 2013

TideEngineer08 said:
The oceans are healed, are they not? Barack said they would be.

I must have missed that one.

The FDA wants to ban all trans fats

TideFans Legend

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Suspended

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Suspended

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!