Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 183 posts

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#161

Post by vram22 »

ScottBurson wrote: post #63
wapz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been taught that after olive oil, canola is the best to use for cooking. What am I supposed to use?!

The theory I go by is to avoid highly polyunsaturated oils (which include canola); prefer monounsaturates. Olive oil is indeed the best if you're not going to get it too hot; next is avocado oil. Hi-oleic safflower/sunflower might be a third choice (better, at least, than canola).

In India safflower and sunflower oil are recommended as being better for the heart, etc. Don't know enough to say if that is right or not.

Also, recently I think I read that coconut oil may not be as harmful as thought earlier by some (my guess is people thought it was harmful because it congeals at a higher temperature than other vegetable oils do). But on the other hand, people in coastal states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, etc., must be using it a lot, and I have not read about them having higher cardiac problems.

All this is just anecdotal, BTW.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#162

Post by sedachv »

adwn wrote: post #101
sedachv wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For which you don't kill the animal. Milk cows are continually raped for the duration of their lives: http://www.humanemyth.org/happycows.htm

> Milk cows are continually raped for the duration of their lives This is misleading and utter bullshit (no pun intented). By that reasoning, every routine examination at the gynecologist or proctologist would constitute rape. We have no reason to suspect that a cow feels "raped" during artificial insemination, or anything more than slight physical discomfort.

Your argument is basically "if it feels good, it's not rape." Disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#163

Post by justin66 »

maxerickson wrote: post #160
clarry wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just checked what the Finnish wikipedia has to say about trans fats last night, and it makes the claim that margarine's trans fat content is <= 0.5% while vegetable oils contain none of it, and butter contains 2%. All numbers are low enough that the trans-fat content isn't a concern, but butter is comparatively worse. Apparently studies show similar numbers in Sweden.

Historically many margarines were made using partially hydrogenated oils. That was discontinued in recent decades. Partially hydrogenated oils were also popular for deep frying (they last longer).

Partially hydrogenated oils are shelf-stable, so they're used in a lot of individually-wrapped junk food items. That kind of stuff should be left out of just about any diet.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#164

Post by maxerickson »

justin66 wrote: post #163
maxerickson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically many margarines were made using partially hydrogenated oils. That was discontinued in recent decades. Partially hydrogenated oils were also popular for deep frying (they last longer).

Partially hydrogenated oils are shelf-stable, so they're used in a lot of individually-wrapped junk food items. That kind of stuff should be left out of just about any diet.

It used to be the case. It isn't any longer.

It's one of the reasons that packaging got more annoying in recent years.

In addition to consumer preferences, the FDA called for a phase out in 2015: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372915.ht...

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#165

Post by LordKano »

e40 wrote: post #155
LordKano wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, this is anecdotal and I'm not advocating that anyone else do what I did until they consult with their own doctor but this is my experience. I had some long term digestive issues. I began supplementing my diet with magnesium and within a week, the problem began to abate. Within a month, all of my abdominal cramping was gone. All of my constipation issues were gone.

This is a common and very natural treatment of constipation. The other treatments are very unnatural, because they amount to poisons that the body what's to reject (in the intestines). That's what my gastroenterologist told me 15 years ago.

It was like magic. No expensive drugs. No side effects.

I'm surprised and disappointed that none of the doctors I saw recommended it and I only found it by googling my symptoms.

I had a gastroenterologist suggest that I take miralax every day for the rest of my life but he never suggested vitamin or mineral supplements.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#166

Post by dcosson »

loeg wrote: post #56
dcosson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point on PUFA, that was probably worth making it into my conclusion too. In my home cooking I've started using macadamia nut oil (similar profile to olive oil, it's high in monounsaturated fats) in place of vegetable oil. You can get it on Amazon and it has a more neutral, slightly nutty flavor and a higher smoking point than olive oil, so it's great for slightly higher temps or cooking foods that you don't want…

How does macadamia nut oil compare to olive oil on price per liter? Is it within a factor of 10?

There's such a range of olive oils, but I think it's roughly the same price for a similar quality. It's just kind of hard to find.

This is the one I buy (it's been prime before, looks like right now it's not) so $0.52 an ounce.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Macadamia-Bottles-Cold-Pressed-100/dp...

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#167

Post by adwn »

sedachv wrote: post #162
adwn wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Milk cows are continually raped for the duration of their lives This is misleading and utter bullshit (no pun intented). By that reasoning, every routine examination at the gynecologist or proctologist would constitute rape. We have no reason to suspect that a cow feels "raped" during artificial insemination, or anything more than slight physical discomfort.

Your argument is basically "if it feels good, it's not rape." Disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

> Your argument is basically "if it feels good, it's not rape."

No, you're misreading my post. My argument boils down to "Stop projecting complex human emotions onto bovines without evidence."

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#168

Post by fulafel »

a3n wrote: post #42
fulafel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an animal product with the obvious ethics problems and cow methane boosting the co2 footprint.

> It's an animal product For which you don't kill the animal. > with the obvious ethics problems This may or may not be "obvious" decades or more in the future, but I think people who hold this idea are in the minority at the moment. > cow methane Point taken.

IME most people, if they look into it, find ethical problems in industrial dairy/beef production. Maybe most don't care or muster discipline enough to change their consumption, but that is different from thinking it's all fine.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#169

Post by KSS42 »

Elrac wrote: post #157
christophilus wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the Tibetans and Inuits benefit from the fact that their dietary fats come from animals who lived healthy, whole lives. Much of the US consumes dairy and meat that comes from animals who were shoved into dark, overcrowded, stressful, unnatural habitat and fed strange feed that they'd normally not eat such as corn and grain.

To argue that, you'd have to demonstrate that the fats in animals raised on what you call healthy food differ chemically from the fats you'd find in animals fed otherwise. Related example: The glucose from sugar beets is chemically identical to and indistinguishable from the glucose from sugar cane or corn. Animal fat tends to be a more complex mix, but while no expert I suspect there's only so many different lipid c…

Yes there is some evidence for that. In particular grass fed beef vs grain fed beef:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/healt...

Most claims, however, focus on omega-3 fats, in particular alpha linolenic acid (ALA). Higher intakes of this plant-based omega-3 fatty acid are associated with a lower risk of heart disease, stroke, Type 2 diabetes and depression.

According to Dr. Richard Bazinet, a professor in the department of nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto who analyzes fatty acids in beef, grass-fed beef outranks grain-fed beef when it comes to ALA.

Conventional beef has about 20 milligrams of ALA in three ounces, whereas the same amount of grass-fed beef has 50 to 100 mg. A big difference? Yes. Meaningful? That depends.

Women need 1,100 mg of ALA each day; men require 1,600 mg. Eating a six-ounce grass-fed steak three times a week provides, at most, 5 per cent to 8 per cent of your daily ALA requirement. Keep in mind that during cooking, the ALA content of meat will decrease since ALA is found in fat.

Making the switch to other grass-fed animal foods, such as pasture-raised poultry and eggs and grass-fed dairy, could conceivably make an appreciable difference towards your daily ALA needs.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#170

Post by KSS42 »

croon wrote: post #134
hollander wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I've heard, all diets work. And they work because they let you focus on what you eat, and they let you eat less energy. The problem is what happens in the long term. If you regain your weight, you're worse off. When you eat less, the body adapts by working more energy efficient. So you eat 10% less, meaning the body can use only 90% of the normal energy supply. It react by using only 85%, storing that extra 5% i…

As someone who's tried every diet and training regiment under the sun, and never (before or after) being outside of "normal" BMI and of varying levels of athletic (maxing out at 10 push-ups through 30 dead-hang pullups): On your first point, yes. Most diets work, as long as they fit with your persona and schedule. Anything you feel comfortable with and can stick to. Just by "doing" a diet, you end up being a lot more…

I just got a Fitbit. The iPhone app that comes with makes it really easy to track what you eat and the corresponding calories. I have lost weight mostly due to that.

I just do not want to record a snack of Doritos (100s of calories) versus a snack of a carrot (30kCal)

Post reply on HN