from the Boston Globe

http://tinyurl.com/2pruql

-Tracy

"Tracy" > wrote in message ...
> from the Boston Globe
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2pruql

I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?

On Jan 11, 10:41*am, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
> "Tracy" > wrote in ...
> > from the Boston Globe
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
>
> I can see banning trans-fats. *But lard?

I didn't see "lard" in the article - the ban appears to target
"artificial trans-fats."

Anyway, home users can still buy lard or other trans-fats, if they
want. The ban would apply only to commercial food preparers like
delis and restaurants, the way I read it.

N.

"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 10:41 am, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
> "Tracy" > wrote in ...
> > from the Boston Globe
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
>
> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?

I didn't see "lard" in the article - the ban appears to target
"artificial trans-fats."

Anyway, home users can still buy lard or other trans-fats, if they
want. The ban would apply only to commercial food preparers like
delis and restaurants, the way I read it.

Towards the end it mentions lard. That is phase 2. They will be
eliminating that next.

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
news:Z8Nhj.11$6F6.1@trndny09...
>
> "Nancy2" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jan 11, 10:41 am, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>> "Tracy" > wrote in ...
>> > from the Boston Globe
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
>>
>> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
>
> I didn't see "lard" in the article - the ban appears to target
> "artificial trans-fats."
>
> Anyway, home users can still buy lard or other trans-fats, if they
> want. The ban would apply only to commercial food preparers like
> delis and restaurants, the way I read it.
>
> Towards the end it mentions lard. That is phase 2. They will be
> eliminating that next.
>


I wonder how many restaurants use lard.

Julie Bove wrote:
> "Tracy" > wrote in message ...
>> from the Boston Globe
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
>
> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
>
>
Yes, that's odd. I don't agree with that at all.

--
Jean B.

Jean B. > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
> Yes, that's odd. I don't agree with that at all.
>
Regular Joes can't be trusted (given the alarming statistics on
obesity being made available to the bureaucrats whom are the right
arm of Big Brother) to make proper decisions regarding diet and
trans-fats... So why not include that nasty-of-nastiest animal
fat, too?

I don't need a gubermint agency telling me (or places I eat) what
I'm allowed and what I'm not to eat in my food. The onus is on me
to take care of myself and enjoy some of Real Life®'s pleasures
without worrying whether "it's against the law."

The "Libertarian" Ranger

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> Jean B. > wrote in message
> ...
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
>> Yes, that's odd. I don't agree with that at all.
>>
> Regular Joes can't be trusted (given the alarming statistics on obesity
> being made available to the bureaucrats whom are the right arm of Big
> Brother) to make proper decisions regarding diet and trans-fats... So why
> not include that nasty-of-nastiest animal fat, too?
>
> I don't need a gubermint agency telling me (or places I eat) what I'm
> allowed and what I'm not to eat in my food. The onus is on me to take care
> of myself and enjoy some of Real Life®'s pleasures without worrying
> whether "it's against the law."
>
> The "Libertarian" Ranger
>

All true, but much of the time, you have no idea what's in your food at
restaurants. So, you saying you can make choices...it's not necessarily so.

JoeSpareBedroom > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> All true, but much of the time, you have no idea what's
> in your food at restaurants. So, you saying you can
> make choices...it's not necessarily so.

So? I am the one -- a responsible, thinking, decision-making
adult -- willing to take those risks without a bureaucratic
oversight committee worrying-and-fretting whether I'm going to
gorge myself on something.

The Ranger

The Ranger wrote:
>
> Jean B. > wrote in message
> ...
> > Julie Bove wrote:
> >> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
> > Yes, that's odd. I don't agree with that at all.
> >
> Regular Joes can't be trusted (given the alarming statistics on
> obesity being made available to the bureaucrats whom are the right
> arm of Big Brother) to make proper decisions regarding diet and
> trans-fats... So why not include that nasty-of-nastiest animal
> fat, too?

In that case, why not include coconut oil,
which is even more highly saturated than lard?

Mark Thorson > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> In that case, why not include coconut oil,
> which is even more highly saturated than lard?

When it reaches market saturation in the US, I'll bet it gets
added.

The Ranger

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> The Ranger wrote:
>>
>> Jean B. > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Julie Bove wrote:
>> >> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
>> > Yes, that's odd. I don't agree with that at all.
>> >
>> Regular Joes can't be trusted (given the alarming statistics on
>> obesity being made available to the bureaucrats whom are the right
>> arm of Big Brother) to make proper decisions regarding diet and
>> trans-fats... So why not include that nasty-of-nastiest animal
>> fat, too?
>
> In that case, why not include coconut oil,
> which is even more highly saturated than lard?

But it is not processed in the body the same way. So it's not dangerous.
Unless we're talking about hydrogenated coconut oil.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> But it is not processed in the body the same way. So it's not dangerous.
> Unless we're talking about hydrogenated coconut oil.

You're wrong about that. Coconut oil raises
cholesterol more than beef fat does! It's
really bad stuff for your arteries!


Am J Clin Nutr. 1985 Aug;42(2):190-7.
Plasma lipid and lipoprotein response of humans
to beef fat, coconut oil and safflower oil.
Reiser R, Probstfield JL, Silvers A, Scott LW,
Shorney ML, Wood RD, O'Brien BC, Gotto AM Jr,
Insull W Jr.

This study's purpose was to evaluate the fasting
human plasma lipid and lipoprotein responses to
dietary beef fat (BF) by comparison with coconut
oil (CO) and safflower oil (SO), fats customarily
classified as saturated and polyunsaturated.
Nineteen free-living normolipidemic men aged
25.6 +/- 3.5 yr consumed centrally-prepared
lunches and dinners of common foods having 35%
fat calories, 60% of which was the test fat.
The test fats were isocalorically substituted,
and each fed for five weeks in random sequences
with intervening five weeks of habitual diets.
Plasma total cholesterol (TC), high-density
lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and low-density
lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations
among individuals follows the same relative rank
regardless of diet. Triglycerides (TG)
concentrations among individuals also maintain
their relative rank regardless of diet but in
a different order from that of the cholesterols.
Plasma TC, HDL-C, and LDL-C responses to BF were
significantly lower and TG higher than to CO.
As compared to SO, BF produced equivalent levels
of TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C and marginally higher TC.
Thus, the customary consideration of BF as
"saturated" and grouping it with CO appears
unwarranted.


J Nutr. 2003 Jan;133(1):78-83.
The serum LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio is influenced
more favorably by exchanging saturated with
unsaturated fat than by reducing saturated fat
in the diet of women.
Muller H, Lindman AS, Brantsaeter AL, Pedersen JI.
University College of Akershus, Bekkestua, Norway.

We compared the effects of a high fat diet
[38.4% of energy (E%) from fat; HSAFA diet,
polyunsaturated/saturated fatty acid (P/S) ratio
= 0.14], a low fat diet (19.7 E% from fat; LSAFA
diet, P/S = 0.17), both based on coconut oil,
and a diet with a high content of mono- and
polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA; 38.2 E% from
fat; HUFA diet, P/S = 1.9) on serum lipoproteins.
The 25 women studied consumed each diet for 3-wk
periods in a crossover design. The two high fat
diets were identical except for the quality of
the test fat. The LSAFA diet was identical to the
HSAFA diet except that half the fat was replaced
by carbohydrates. Serum total cholesterol, LDL
cholesterol and apoB concentrations did not
differ between the HSAFA and the LSAFA diet
periods. Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and
apoB were lower when women consumed the HUFA diet
than when they consumed the other two diets.
HDL cholesterol and apoA-I were 15 and 11%,
respectively, higher when women consumed the
HSAFA diet than when they consumed the LSAFA diet;
HDL cholesterol and apoA-I were lower when women
consumed the HUFA diet than when they consumed the
HSAFA diet, but not the LSAFA diet. The LDL
cholesterol/HDL cholesterol and apoB/apoA-I ratios
were higher when women consumed the LSAFA diet
than when they consumed the HSAFA diet. The LDL/HDL
cholesterol ratio was higher when women consumed
either the LSAFA or the HSAFA diet than when they
consumed the HUFA diet, whereas apoB/apoA-I was
higher when women consumed the LSAFA diet than when
they consumed the HUFA diet. Triacylglycerol and
VLDL cholesterol were higher when women consumed
the LSAFA diet than when they consumed either the
HSAFA or the HUFA diet. We conclude that, to
influence the LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio, changing
the proportions of dietary fatty acids may be more
important than restricting the percentage of total
or saturated fat energy, at least when derived
mainly from lauric and myristic acids, both of
which increase HDL cholesterol.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> But it is not processed in the body the same way. So it's not dangerous.
>> Unless we're talking about hydrogenated coconut oil.
>
> You're wrong about that. Coconut oil raises
> cholesterol more than beef fat does! It's
> really bad stuff for your arteries!
>
>
> Am J Clin Nutr. 1985 Aug;42(2):190-7.
> Plasma lipid and lipoprotein response of humans
> to beef fat, coconut oil and safflower oil.
> Reiser R, Probstfield JL, Silvers A, Scott LW,
> Shorney ML, Wood RD, O'Brien BC, Gotto AM Jr,
> Insull W Jr.
>
> This study's purpose was to evaluate the fasting
> human plasma lipid and lipoprotein responses to
> dietary beef fat (BF) by comparison with coconut
> oil (CO) and safflower oil (SO), fats customarily
> classified as saturated and polyunsaturated.
> Nineteen free-living normolipidemic men aged
> 25.6 +/- 3.5 yr consumed centrally-prepared
> lunches and dinners of common foods having 35%
> fat calories, 60% of which was the test fat.
> The test fats were isocalorically substituted,
> and each fed for five weeks in random sequences
> with intervening five weeks of habitual diets.
> Plasma total cholesterol (TC), high-density
> lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and low-density
> lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations
> among individuals follows the same relative rank
> regardless of diet. Triglycerides (TG)
> concentrations among individuals also maintain
> their relative rank regardless of diet but in
> a different order from that of the cholesterols.
> Plasma TC, HDL-C, and LDL-C responses to BF were
> significantly lower and TG higher than to CO.
> As compared to SO, BF produced equivalent levels
> of TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C and marginally higher TC.
> Thus, the customary consideration of BF as
> "saturated" and grouping it with CO appears
> unwarranted.
>
>
> J Nutr. 2003 Jan;133(1):78-83.
> The serum LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio is influenced
> more favorably by exchanging saturated with
> unsaturated fat than by reducing saturated fat
> in the diet of women.
> Muller H, Lindman AS, Brantsaeter AL, Pedersen JI.
> University College of Akershus, Bekkestua, Norway.
>
> We compared the effects of a high fat diet
> [38.4% of energy (E%) from fat; HSAFA diet,
> polyunsaturated/saturated fatty acid (P/S) ratio
> = 0.14], a low fat diet (19.7 E% from fat; LSAFA
> diet, P/S = 0.17), both based on coconut oil,
> and a diet with a high content of mono- and
> polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA; 38.2 E% from
> fat; HUFA diet, P/S = 1.9) on serum lipoproteins.
> The 25 women studied consumed each diet for 3-wk
> periods in a crossover design. The two high fat
> diets were identical except for the quality of
> the test fat. The LSAFA diet was identical to the
> HSAFA diet except that half the fat was replaced
> by carbohydrates. Serum total cholesterol, LDL
> cholesterol and apoB concentrations did not
> differ between the HSAFA and the LSAFA diet
> periods. Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and
> apoB were lower when women consumed the HUFA diet
> than when they consumed the other two diets.
> HDL cholesterol and apoA-I were 15 and 11%,
> respectively, higher when women consumed the
> HSAFA diet than when they consumed the LSAFA diet;
> HDL cholesterol and apoA-I were lower when women
> consumed the HUFA diet than when they consumed the
> HSAFA diet, but not the LSAFA diet. The LDL
> cholesterol/HDL cholesterol and apoB/apoA-I ratios
> were higher when women consumed the LSAFA diet
> than when they consumed the HSAFA diet. The LDL/HDL
> cholesterol ratio was higher when women consumed
> either the LSAFA or the HSAFA diet than when they
> consumed the HUFA diet, whereas apoB/apoA-I was
> higher when women consumed the LSAFA diet than when
> they consumed the HUFA diet. Triacylglycerol and
> VLDL cholesterol were higher when women consumed
> the LSAFA diet than when they consumed either the
> HSAFA or the HUFA diet. We conclude that, to
> influence the LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio, changing
> the proportions of dietary fatty acids may be more
> important than restricting the percentage of total
> or saturated fat energy, at least when derived
> mainly from lauric and myristic acids, both of
> which increase HDL cholesterol.

I disagree. My cholesterol has been fine since I started consuming it.

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
news:ffYhj.519$rG.250@trndny02...
>
> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>> But it is not processed in the body the same way. So it's not
>>> dangerous.
>>> Unless we're talking about hydrogenated coconut oil.
>>
>> You're wrong about that. Coconut oil raises
>> cholesterol more than beef fat does! It's
>> really bad stuff for your arteries!
>>
>>
>> Am J Clin Nutr. 1985 Aug;42(2):190-7.
>> Plasma lipid and lipoprotein response of humans
>> to beef fat, coconut oil and safflower oil.
>> Reiser R, Probstfield JL, Silvers A, Scott LW,
>> Shorney ML, Wood RD, O'Brien BC, Gotto AM Jr,
>> Insull W Jr.
>>
>> This study's purpose was to evaluate the fasting
>> human plasma lipid and lipoprotein responses to
>> dietary beef fat (BF) by comparison with coconut
>> oil (CO) and safflower oil (SO), fats customarily
>> classified as saturated and polyunsaturated.
>> Nineteen free-living normolipidemic men aged
>> 25.6 +/- 3.5 yr consumed centrally-prepared
>> lunches and dinners of common foods having 35%
>> fat calories, 60% of which was the test fat.
>> The test fats were isocalorically substituted,
>> and each fed for five weeks in random sequences
>> with intervening five weeks of habitual diets.
>> Plasma total cholesterol (TC), high-density
>> lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and low-density
>> lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations
>> among individuals follows the same relative rank
>> regardless of diet. Triglycerides (TG)
>> concentrations among individuals also maintain
>> their relative rank regardless of diet but in
>> a different order from that of the cholesterols.
>> Plasma TC, HDL-C, and LDL-C responses to BF were
>> significantly lower and TG higher than to CO.
>> As compared to SO, BF produced equivalent levels
>> of TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C and marginally higher TC.
>> Thus, the customary consideration of BF as
>> "saturated" and grouping it with CO appears
>> unwarranted.
>>
>>
>> J Nutr. 2003 Jan;133(1):78-83.
>> The serum LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio is influenced
>> more favorably by exchanging saturated with
>> unsaturated fat than by reducing saturated fat
>> in the diet of women.
>> Muller H, Lindman AS, Brantsaeter AL, Pedersen JI.
>> University College of Akershus, Bekkestua, Norway.
>>
>> We compared the effects of a high fat diet
>> [38.4% of energy (E%) from fat; HSAFA diet,
>> polyunsaturated/saturated fatty acid (P/S) ratio
>> = 0.14], a low fat diet (19.7 E% from fat; LSAFA
>> diet, P/S = 0.17), both based on coconut oil,
>> and a diet with a high content of mono- and
>> polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA; 38.2 E% from
>> fat; HUFA diet, P/S = 1.9) on serum lipoproteins.
>> The 25 women studied consumed each diet for 3-wk
>> periods in a crossover design. The two high fat
>> diets were identical except for the quality of
>> the test fat. The LSAFA diet was identical to the
>> HSAFA diet except that half the fat was replaced
>> by carbohydrates. Serum total cholesterol, LDL
>> cholesterol and apoB concentrations did not
>> differ between the HSAFA and the LSAFA diet
>> periods. Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and
>> apoB were lower when women consumed the HUFA diet
>> than when they consumed the other two diets.
>> HDL cholesterol and apoA-I were 15 and 11%,
>> respectively, higher when women consumed the
>> HSAFA diet than when they consumed the LSAFA diet;
>> HDL cholesterol and apoA-I were lower when women
>> consumed the HUFA diet than when they consumed the
>> HSAFA diet, but not the LSAFA diet. The LDL
>> cholesterol/HDL cholesterol and apoB/apoA-I ratios
>> were higher when women consumed the LSAFA diet
>> than when they consumed the HSAFA diet. The LDL/HDL
>> cholesterol ratio was higher when women consumed
>> either the LSAFA or the HSAFA diet than when they
>> consumed the HUFA diet, whereas apoB/apoA-I was
>> higher when women consumed the LSAFA diet than when
>> they consumed the HUFA diet. Triacylglycerol and
>> VLDL cholesterol were higher when women consumed
>> the LSAFA diet than when they consumed either the
>> HSAFA or the HUFA diet. We conclude that, to
>> influence the LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio, changing
>> the proportions of dietary fatty acids may be more
>> important than restricting the percentage of total
>> or saturated fat energy, at least when derived
>> mainly from lauric and myristic acids, both of
>> which increase HDL cholesterol.
>
> I disagree. My cholesterol has been fine since I started consuming it.
>


Well, that's that. Throw away all the research. :-)

"Jean B." > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Tracy" > wrote in message ...
>>> from the Boston Globe
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
>>
>> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
> Yes, that's odd. I don't agree with that at all.
>
> --
> Jean B.

Without shortening, it really only leaves lard for a great many home baked
products. Surely naturally prepared lard can be transfat free or minimally
present? It sounds like one will be left with only manufactured fake food
to take its place. Unwise.--
http://www.judithgreenwood.com

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:53:13 +0100, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Jean B." > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>> "Tracy" > wrote in message ...
>>>> from the Boston Globe
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
>>>
>>> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
>> Yes, that's odd. I don't agree with that at all.
>>
>> --
>> Jean B.
>
>Without shortening, it really only leaves lard for a great many home baked
>products. Surely naturally prepared lard can be transfat free or minimally
>present? It sounds like one will be left with only manufactured fake food
>to take its place. Unwise.--
>http://www.judithgreenwood.com
>


Crisco is now trans fat free. I do not know about any of the other
shortenings. I haven't bothered to read the labels.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

"The Cook" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:53:13 +0100, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Jean B." > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>>> "Tracy" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> from the Boston Globe
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
>>>>
>>>> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
>>> Yes, that's odd. I don't agree with that at all.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean B.
>>
>>Without shortening, it really only leaves lard for a great many home baked
>>products. Surely naturally prepared lard can be transfat free or
>>minimally
>>present? It sounds like one will be left with only manufactured fake food
>>to take its place. Unwise.--

> Crisco is now trans fat free. I do not know about any of the other
> shortenings. I haven't bothered to read the labels.
> --
> Susan N.

Crisco only exists in North America! And it seems the worst dietary
problems are also there.--
http://www.judithgreenwood.com

Giusi wrote:
> "Jean B." > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>> "Tracy" > wrote in message ...
>>>> from the Boston Globe
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
>>> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
>> Yes, that's odd. I don't agree with that at all.
>>
>> --
>> Jean B.
>
> Without shortening, it really only leaves lard for a great many home baked
> products. Surely naturally prepared lard can be transfat free or minimally
> present? It sounds like one will be left with only manufactured fake food
> to take its place. Unwise.--
> http://www.judithgreenwood.com
>
>
I think so too. Procter & Gamble did a good job of convincing
folks to eat the fake stuff instead of the real stuff!

--
Jean B.

Julie Bove wrote:
> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>> But it is not processed in the body the same way. So it's not dangerous.
>>> Unless we're talking about hydrogenated coconut oil.
>> You're wrong about that. Coconut oil raises
>> cholesterol more than beef fat does! It's
>> really bad stuff for your arteries!
>>
>>
>> Am J Clin Nutr. 1985 Aug;42(2):190-7.
>> Plasma lipid and lipoprotein response of humans
>> to beef fat, coconut oil and safflower oil.
>> Reiser R, Probstfield JL, Silvers A, Scott LW,
>> Shorney ML, Wood RD, O'Brien BC, Gotto AM Jr,
>> Insull W Jr.
>>
>> This study's purpose was to evaluate the fasting
>> human plasma lipid and lipoprotein responses to
>> dietary beef fat (BF) by comparison with coconut
>> oil (CO) and safflower oil (SO), fats customarily
>> classified as saturated and polyunsaturated.
>> Nineteen free-living normolipidemic men aged
>> 25.6 +/- 3.5 yr consumed centrally-prepared
>> lunches and dinners of common foods having 35%
>> fat calories, 60% of which was the test fat.
>> The test fats were isocalorically substituted,
>> and each fed for five weeks in random sequences
>> with intervening five weeks of habitual diets.
>> Plasma total cholesterol (TC), high-density
>> lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and low-density
>> lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations
>> among individuals follows the same relative rank
>> regardless of diet. Triglycerides (TG)
>> concentrations among individuals also maintain
>> their relative rank regardless of diet but in
>> a different order from that of the cholesterols.
>> Plasma TC, HDL-C, and LDL-C responses to BF were
>> significantly lower and TG higher than to CO.
>> As compared to SO, BF produced equivalent levels
>> of TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C and marginally higher TC.
>> Thus, the customary consideration of BF as
>> "saturated" and grouping it with CO appears
>> unwarranted.
>>
>>
>> J Nutr. 2003 Jan;133(1):78-83.
>> The serum LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio is influenced
>> more favorably by exchanging saturated with
>> unsaturated fat than by reducing saturated fat
>> in the diet of women.
>> Muller H, Lindman AS, Brantsaeter AL, Pedersen JI.
>> University College of Akershus, Bekkestua, Norway.
>>
>> We compared the effects of a high fat diet
>> [38.4% of energy (E%) from fat; HSAFA diet,
>> polyunsaturated/saturated fatty acid (P/S) ratio
>> = 0.14], a low fat diet (19.7 E% from fat; LSAFA
>> diet, P/S = 0.17), both based on coconut oil,
>> and a diet with a high content of mono- and
>> polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA; 38.2 E% from
>> fat; HUFA diet, P/S = 1.9) on serum lipoproteins.
>> The 25 women studied consumed each diet for 3-wk
>> periods in a crossover design. The two high fat
>> diets were identical except for the quality of
>> the test fat. The LSAFA diet was identical to the
>> HSAFA diet except that half the fat was replaced
>> by carbohydrates. Serum total cholesterol, LDL
>> cholesterol and apoB concentrations did not
>> differ between the HSAFA and the LSAFA diet
>> periods. Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and
>> apoB were lower when women consumed the HUFA diet
>> than when they consumed the other two diets.
>> HDL cholesterol and apoA-I were 15 and 11%,
>> respectively, higher when women consumed the
>> HSAFA diet than when they consumed the LSAFA diet;
>> HDL cholesterol and apoA-I were lower when women
>> consumed the HUFA diet than when they consumed the
>> HSAFA diet, but not the LSAFA diet. The LDL
>> cholesterol/HDL cholesterol and apoB/apoA-I ratios
>> were higher when women consumed the LSAFA diet
>> than when they consumed the HSAFA diet. The LDL/HDL
>> cholesterol ratio was higher when women consumed
>> either the LSAFA or the HSAFA diet than when they
>> consumed the HUFA diet, whereas apoB/apoA-I was
>> higher when women consumed the LSAFA diet than when
>> they consumed the HUFA diet. Triacylglycerol and
>> VLDL cholesterol were higher when women consumed
>> the LSAFA diet than when they consumed either the
>> HSAFA or the HUFA diet. We conclude that, to
>> influence the LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio, changing
>> the proportions of dietary fatty acids may be more
>> important than restricting the percentage of total
>> or saturated fat energy, at least when derived
>> mainly from lauric and myristic acids, both of
>> which increase HDL cholesterol.
>
> I disagree. My cholesterol has been fine since I started consuming it.
>
>
And there is more recent research, I do believe.

--
Jean B.

On Jan 11, 12:37 pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:55:35 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> > "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> >news:Z8Nhj.11$6F6.1@trndny09...
>
> >> "Nancy2" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Jan 11, 10:41 am, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
> >>> "Tracy" > wrote in ...
> >>> > from the Boston Globe
>
> >>> >http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
>
> >>> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
>
> >> I didn't see "lard" in the article - the ban appears to target
> >> "artificial trans-fats."
>
> >> Anyway, home users can still buy lard or other trans-fats, if they
> >> want. The ban would apply only to commercial food preparers like
> >> delis and restaurants, the way I read it.
>
> >> Towards the end it mentions lard. That is phase 2. They will be
> >> eliminating that next.
>
> > I wonder how many restaurants use lard.
>
> Mexican restaurants use a lot of it. The mexican markets around
> here would not be able to make chicarones or fried pig without
> it. Even if you start with veggie oil, the chicaharonnes
> generate their own lard, which they use to fry more pig and
> chicharones.
>
> Not to mention tamales. You can't make tamales without lard. If
> you're going to ban lard, you're going to have ban all forms of
> pork, too.
>
> -sw

Once you've banned pork, then come beef, mutton, chickens. Think the
whole country will go vegetarian?<g>

maxine in ri

In article >, says...
> from the Boston Globe
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
>
> -Tracy
>

First they ban smoking in public places. To me that wasn't so bad
because I could never understand restaurants having smoking and non-
smoking sections. Smoke circulates with ventillation systems.

Now it's the trans-fats ban. Pretty soon a restaurant won't be able to
serve red meat.

In article <921c6937-b92c-4db9-b3a9-3c72336c33d1
@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Jan 11, 12:37 pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:55:35 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> > > "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> > >news:Z8Nhj.11$6F6.1@trndny09...
> >
> > >> "Nancy2" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Jan 11, 10:41 am, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
> > >>> "Tracy" > wrote in ...
> > >>> > from the Boston Globe
> >
> > >>> >http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
> >
> > >>> I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
> >
> > >> I didn't see "lard" in the article - the ban appears to target
> > >> "artificial trans-fats."
> >
> > >> Anyway, home users can still buy lard or other trans-fats, if they
> > >> want. The ban would apply only to commercial food preparers like
> > >> delis and restaurants, the way I read it.
> >
> > >> Towards the end it mentions lard. That is phase 2. They will be
> > >> eliminating that next.
> >
> > > I wonder how many restaurants use lard.
> >
> > Mexican restaurants use a lot of it. The mexican markets around
> > here would not be able to make chicarones or fried pig without
> > it. Even if you start with veggie oil, the chicaharonnes
> > generate their own lard, which they use to fry more pig and
> > chicharones.
> >
> > Not to mention tamales. You can't make tamales without lard. If
> > you're going to ban lard, you're going to have ban all forms of
> > pork, too.
> >
> > -sw
>
> Once you've banned pork, then come beef, mutton, chickens. Think the
> whole country will go vegetarian?<g>
>
> maxine in ri
>

Not likely. A former USDA guy was quoted as saying that if we were all
to eat the recommended servings of fruit and vegetables we'd have to
increase annual production by a factor of five.

"Jean B." wrote:
>
> And there is more recent research, I do believe.

Yes, and it backs up previous research that shows
coconut oil is very unhealthful.


This study blames the MUCH higher rate of
cardiovascular mortality in Singapore as compared
to Hong Kong on consumption of saturated fats
including coconut oil.


Eur J Epidemiol. 2001;17(5):469-77.
Differences in all-cause, cardiovascular and
cancer mortality between Hong Kong and Singapo
role of nutrition.
Zhang J, Kesteloot H.
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public
Health, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.

BACKGROUND: The majority of inhabitants in Hong Kong
and Singapore are ethnic Chinese, but all-cause and
cardiovascular mortality rates in these two regions
are markedly different. This study describes
differences in the magnitude and trends in mortality
and attempts to explain these differences.

METHODS: Data of mortality rates in 1963-1965 and
1993-1995 in the age class of 45-74 years, dietary
habits and other factors were compared between
Hong Kong and Singapore using Japan, Spain and the USA
as reference countries. Mortality and food consumption
data were obtained from WHO and FAO, respectively.

RESULTS: Large differences in all-cause and cardiovascular
mortality exist between Hong Kong and Singapore. The
difference in total cancer mortality was less consistent
and smaller. The most pronounced finding was that ischemic
heart disease mortality in 1993-1995 was 2.98 and 3.14 times
higher in Singapore than in Hong Kong in men and women,
respectively. Of the five countries considered, Singapore
has the highest all-cause mortality in both sexes in the
period of 1960-1995. The ratio of animal to vegetal fat
was higher in Singapore (2.24) than in Hong Kong (1.08).
Singapore had higher serum concentrations of total
cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
than Hong Kong, but the opposite result was observed
for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

CONCLUSIONS: There are striking differences in all-cause
and cardiovascular mortality between Hong Kong and
Singapore. These differences can be most reasonably and
plausibly explained by their differences in dietary
habits, for example, a higher consumption of coconut and
palm oil, mainly containing saturated fat, in Singapore.


This study in a rat model for myocardial
infarction (induced with a synthetic hormone)
found omega-3 fatty acids to be protective
against lipid peroxidation and cardiovascular
death, while coconut oil raised indicators of
damage to the heart muscle.


J Nutr Biochem. 1999 Jun;10(6):338-44.
Effect of saturated, omega-3 and omega-6
polyunsaturated fatty acids on myocardial
infarction.
Nageswari K, Banerjee R, Menon VP.
School of Biomedical Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology, Bombay, India.

Dietary fatty acids have cholesterol lowering,
antiatherogenic, and antiarrhythmic properties
that decrease the risk of myocardial infarction (MI).
This study was designed to study the effects of
various oils rich in either polyunsaturated
(omega-3 or omega-6) fatty acids (PUFA) or
saturated fatty acids (SFA) on the severity of
experimentally induced MI. Male albino Sprague-Dawley
rats (100-150 g; n = 20) were fed diets enriched with
fish oil (omega-3 PUFA), peanut oil (omega-6 PUFA),
or coconut oil (SFA) for 60 days. Experimental MI was
induced with isoproterenol. Mortality rates; serum
enzymes aspartate amino transferase; alanine amino
transferase; creatine phosphokinase (CPK); lipid
profiles in serum, myocardium, and aorta; peroxide
levels in heart and aorta; activities of catalase and
superoxide dismutase; and levels of glutathione were
measured. The results demonstrated that mortality rate,
CPK levels, myocardial lipid peroxides, and glutathione
levels were decreased in the omega-3 PUFA treated group.
Maximum increase in parameters indicative of myocardial
damage was seen in the coconut oil group. These findings
suggest that dietary omega-3 PUFA offers maximum
protection in experimentally induced MI in comparison
to omega-6 PUFA and SFA enriched diets. SFA was found
to have the least protective effect.

In article >,
T > wrote:

> In article >, says...
> > from the Boston Globe
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
> >
> > -Tracy
> >
>
> First they ban smoking in public places. To me that wasn't so bad
> because I could never understand restaurants having smoking and non-
> smoking sections. Smoke circulates with ventillation systems.
>
> Now it's the trans-fats ban. Pretty soon a restaurant won't be able to
> serve red meat.

Faulty logic. There is nothing beneficial about either smoking or
trans-fats. Red meat is a perfectly fine part of a balanced diet.

In article >,
"Jean B." > wrote:

> Julie Bove wrote:
> > "Tracy" > wrote in message ...
> >> from the Boston Globe
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
> >
> > I can see banning trans-fats. But lard?
> >
> >
> Yes, that's odd. I don't agree with that at all.

I don't see how it would be possible to ban lard and still produce
decent baked goods. I wonder what the rationale for that is.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:29:08 -0500, T >
wrote:

>In article <921c6937-b92c-4db9-b3a9-3c72336c33d1
>, says...
>>
>> Once you've banned pork, then come beef, mutton, chickens. Think the
>> whole country will go vegetarian?<g>
>>
>> maxine in ri
>>
>
>Not likely. A former USDA guy was quoted as saying that if we were all
>to eat the recommended servings of fruit and vegetables we'd have to
>increase annual production by a factor of five.

not to mention that we'd then have to subsidize twinkie farmers.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> T > wrote:
>
> > In article >, says...
> > > from the Boston Globe
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
> > >
> > > -Tracy
> > >
> >
> > First they ban smoking in public places. To me that wasn't so bad
> > because I could never understand restaurants having smoking and non-
> > smoking sections. Smoke circulates with ventillation systems.
> >
> > Now it's the trans-fats ban. Pretty soon a restaurant won't be able to
> > serve red meat.
>
> Faulty logic. There is nothing beneficial about either smoking or
> trans-fats. Red meat is a perfectly fine part of a balanced diet.
>

You give politicians far too much credit for any leaps of logic. Having
dealt with several in my career I can tell you that for the most part,
they're clueless.

In article 1>,
says...
> Stan Horwitz > dropped this news:stan.horwitz-
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
> > In article >,
> > T > wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, says...
> >> > from the Boston Globe
> >> >
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
> >> >
> >> > -Tracy
> >> >
> >>
> >> First they ban smoking in public places. To me that wasn't so bad
> >> because I could never understand restaurants having smoking and non-
> >> smoking sections. Smoke circulates with ventillation systems.
> >>
> >> Now it's the trans-fats ban. Pretty soon a restaurant won't be able to
> >> serve red meat.
> >
> > Faulty logic. There is nothing beneficial about either smoking or
> > trans-fats. Red meat is a perfectly fine part of a balanced diet.
>
> And we need local government babysitting us so we need only do what they
> tell us is healthy for us? Reminds me of the egg. First it's bad. Then
> it's good. Then it's okay. I don't even know what the status is on the
> egg these days. I always ate them anyway.
>
> Michael

Keyron and I were talking about the whole trans-fat thing today.

Wouldn't it be far better for restaurants to disclose that they use
trans-fats as opposed to outright banning them?

In article >,
says...
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:29:08 -0500, T >
> wrote:
>
> >In article <921c6937-b92c-4db9-b3a9-3c72336c33d1
> >, says...
> >>
> >> Once you've banned pork, then come beef, mutton, chickens. Think the
> >> whole country will go vegetarian?<g>
> >>
> >> maxine in ri
> >>
> >
> >Not likely. A former USDA guy was quoted as saying that if we were all
> >to eat the recommended servings of fruit and vegetables we'd have to
> >increase annual production by a factor of five.
>
> not to mention that we'd then have to subsidize twinkie farmers.
>
> your pal,
> blake
>

A Twinkie is nothing but chemical stew, and I wouldn't be surprised if
some petrochemicals made their way into those.

In article >,
T > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > In article >,
> > T > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >, says...
> > > > from the Boston Globe
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
> > > >
> > > > -Tracy
> > > >
> > >
> > > First they ban smoking in public places. To me that wasn't so bad
> > > because I could never understand restaurants having smoking and non-
> > > smoking sections. Smoke circulates with ventillation systems.
> > >
> > > Now it's the trans-fats ban. Pretty soon a restaurant won't be able to
> > > serve red meat.
> >
> > Faulty logic. There is nothing beneficial about either smoking or
> > trans-fats. Red meat is a perfectly fine part of a balanced diet.
> >
>
> You give politicians far too much credit for any leaps of logic. Having
> dealt with several in my career I can tell you that for the most part,
> they're clueless.

Ah. Okay. If that is true; how is it that we keep electing clueless
politicians to office?

In article >,
T > wrote:

> Keyron and I were talking about the whole trans-fat thing today.
>
> Wouldn't it be far better for restaurants to disclose that they use
> trans-fats as opposed to outright banning them?

I would be fine with that.

Stan Horwitz > wrote in message
...
>> You give politicians far too much credit for any
>> leaps of logic. Having dealt with several in my
>> career I can tell you that for the most part, they're
>> clueless.
>>
> Ah. Okay. If that is true; how is it that we keep electing
> clueless politicians to office?

The clueless lead the majority of sheeple which vote using apathy
and tradition*. A thinking voter, one that actually votes on
merits and research is a minority vote that is feared by all.

* "They've always been there and I recognize his name." (e.g.
Strom Thurman, Jessie Helms, etc.)

ObFood: Pork rinds.

The Ranger

in > (Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:27:18 -0500), T wrote:
| In article >, says...
| > from the Boston Globe
| >
| > http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
|
| Now it's the trans-fats ban. Pretty soon a restaurant won't be able to
| serve red meat.

or foie .. whoops! sorry, Chicago.

in 1> (Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:31:01 GMT), Michael "Dog3" wrote:
| Stan Horwitz > dropped this news:stan.horwitz-

| > Faulty logic. There is nothing beneficial about either smoking or
| > trans-fats. Red meat is a perfectly fine part of a balanced diet.
|
| And we need local government babysitting us so we need only do what they
| tell us is healthy for us? Reminds me of the egg. First it's bad. Then
| it's good. Then it's okay. I don't even know what the status is on the
| egg these days. I always ate them anyway.

exactly. having yet another law on the books doesn't make me any safer. i
already know how to make the correct choices, thank you very much.

in > (Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:36:20 -0500), Stan Horwitz wrote:
| In article >,
| T > wrote:
|
| > Keyron and I were talking about the whole trans-fat thing today.
| >
| > Wouldn't it be far better for restaurants to disclose that they use
| > trans-fats as opposed to outright banning them?
|
| I would be fine with that.

indeed full-disclosure is a good thing.

"bitbucket" > wrote in message
...
> in 1> (Sun, 13 Jan 2008
> 13:31:01 GMT), Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> | Stan Horwitz > dropped this news:stan.horwitz-
>
> | > Faulty logic. There is nothing beneficial about either smoking or
> | > trans-fats. Red meat is a perfectly fine part of a balanced diet.
> |
> | And we need local government babysitting us so we need only do what
> they
> | tell us is healthy for us? Reminds me of the egg. First it's bad. Then
> | it's good. Then it's okay. I don't even know what the status is on the
> | egg these days. I always ate them anyway.
>
> exactly. having yet another law on the books doesn't make me any safer. i
> already know how to make the correct choices, thank you very much.

And the thing is, some of the fats that are being used to replace transfats
aren't really any better for us. Whatever they are using in Goldfish
crackers is one example. When the transfat hoopla first hit the fan, I
bought a bag of those because they said trans-fat free. Then the nutrition
guru I know pointed out that the fat used in there had been linked to heart
problems. Grr...

And the problem is in some cases when you sub in a "good" fat like olive
oil, the end result is anything but tasty. Or they have limited shelf life.
Take Triscuits with olive oil and rosemary. I don't know if they put too
much rosemary in there or if it's the olive oil or what. But they have a
very "off" taste to them and it's not at all like the original. I can get
some really tasty locally made crackers that are basically wheat, olive oil
and sea salt. They're really yummy. But they only keep for about two
weeks. It's rare for me to be able to use up a package before they go bad.
And when stale, they are quite bad.

I don't know what the answer is.

bitbucket wrote:
> in > (Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:27:18 -0500), T wrote:
> | In article >, says...
> | > from the Boston Globe
> | >
> | > http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
> |
> | Now it's the trans-fats ban. Pretty soon a restaurant won't be able to
> | serve red meat.
>
> or foie .. whoops! sorry, Chicago.


I thought this was gonna be about Lite-Brite toys.

Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
>
> bitbucket wrote:
>> in > (Sat, 12 Jan 2008
>> 13:27:18 -0500), T wrote: | In article >,
>> says...
>> | > from the Boston Globe
>> | > | > http://tinyurl.com/2pruql
>> | | Now it's the trans-fats ban. Pretty soon a restaurant won't be able
>> to | serve red meat. or foie .. whoops! sorry, Chicago.
>
>
> I thought this was gonna be about Lite-Brite toys.

I loved my Lite Brite. I used to put it in my window so all the world could
see my beautiful pictures.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:16:30 GMT, Julie Bove wrote:

> And the thing is, some of the fats that are being used to replace transfats
> aren't really any better for us. Whatever they are using in Goldfish
> crackers is one example. When the transfat hoopla first hit the fan, I
> bought a bag of those because they said trans-fat free. Then the nutrition
> guru I know pointed out that the fat used in there had been linked to heart
> problems. Grr...

Don't forget that the same groups that were calling for the ban
on animal fast a couple decades ago, forcing the move to
trans-fats, are also the same ones that are now trying to ban
trans-fats.

Tranresterfied(sp?) oil is what's replacing hydrogenated oils,
and this is just another ingredient that will be deemed bad for
us in a few years. And the same groups will be trying to ban that
in time. There wasn't *any* reserach done on this oil before
they started pumping this stuff out. It may grow hair on
toenails.

-sw