Training & Nutrition - Trans Fat disclosure labeling

I was looking at grabbing a pack of Nabisco fig newtons the other day as i like to carry em along on rides. I check the nutrition label and it had something like 0.3 gm trans fat per couple of cookies. I thought damn thats quit a bit so I skipped picking them up, and got some made with whole grain pastry instead, at about 60% increased cost too.

So then I'm killing time one night and decided to check the labeling online. The American Nabisco site lists them as either 0 grams trans fat, or doesnt list trans fat at all. American food producers are only required to list trans fat if its over 0.5 grams per serving. So companies just lower their serving size till the trans fat is 0.49 or less, then they can state 0 trans fat. Like dorritoes and others do.

Canadian regulations state a company must disclose it when the level is 0.2 or greater. So i go visit the canadian site, and they somehow forgot to include nutritional information for fig newtons. I live in canada so thats why the actual package had to state trans fat in the store. Funny how the sites managed to post zero trans fat for their new whole grain ones though.

Amazing at how companies will do things to basically lie to consumers. Reducing serving size till trans fat is below .49 seems common. I seen microwave popcorn listed at 8 servings per bag in order to show low values. Who shares 1 microwave bag with 8 people ?

Canadian laws are a bit more strict, but why do they always do half assed measures. If trans fat is the killer they say it is, and recomend zero intake, why did they give companies an out when they institute new labeling laws. Now it'll be another 20 years before they make them state any amount.

Ok mini rant over :) anyone got fig newtons in their cupboard that list transfat ?

Nope, but today I found out that pop-tarts have 5g of trans fat!! Luckily it wasn't me eating them. . .

Just look at the ingrediants. If "partially hydrogenated" anything is listed, its got trans fat.

The .5 rule applies to every part of the label. Fat, calories, sugar, etc.

Thats stupid.

yep, thank the FDA.

Fat free Fig Newtons list 0% trans fat on the label. May be more creative labeling, I dunno.

When did Canada start having nutrition labels on packaged food?

When I lived there (7 years ago) nutrition labels were not mandated (some packaged food, if they were made by a US company, had the US style labels, (like Doritos) but in general, the labels were absent.

I had to give up on fig newtons years ago when they went trans-fat. I now buy the dried figs once in a while. I use pitted Dates in the place of energy bars when I cycle. High in sugar.

Al

I had to give up on fig newtons years ago when they went trans-fat. I know buy the dried figs once in a while. I use pitted Dates in the place of energy bars when I cycle. High in sugar.

Al
there are many all natural alternatives to fig newtowns.

there are many all natural alternatives to fig newtowns.

Can you list some?

Seems all the companies now are switching to a whole wheat version, that has zero trans fat. The ones I bought were raspberry & whole wheat. Tasted quite good :)

My complaint is that the current ones do have trans fat, but american laws allow thw producers to list trans fat as zero by lowering the serving size till it gets under the 0.5 limit.

What is the suggested daily allowance of trans fat based on a 2000 calorie diet?

Can you list some?
Fig Newman's are a big one. Go to a natural foods store like Whole Foods and look down the cookie aisle. They have a few. At the Whole Foods I go to they also have whole grain fig newton's in bulk.

What is the suggested daily allowance of trans fat based on a 2000 calorie diet?

Zero

Edit: actually to clarify, there is no minimum limit recomended so try to obtain zero which almost impossible of you dont cook all your own food from scratch. There is a maximum limit suggested of 2 grams, or about 1/2 a donut :P

Yeah it sucks. They've been doing this trick for years. Back during the fat craze, packages read, "0 grams fat " per serving.

It's amazing how at your regular supermarket, you can't find cookies without any transfat.

I can go into the chemistry behind it if you guys are interested.

I am:)

Nope, but today I found out that pop-tarts have 5g of trans fat!! Luckily it wasn't me eating them. . .

If I am too lazy to make my own cycling snack (pancakes, sandwich...) I like these as a cycling snack. They are as convenient as a pop-tart and don't have as much crap:

http://www.naturespath.com/products/snack_foods

well to be an unsaturated fat, it means that there are fewer hydrogens in a molecule than there *should* be. For instance a correct molecule (with no unsaturations) would be C5H12. The formula for figuring out how many hydrogens there should be is 2n + 2 where n = # of carbons. Well, as you may have guessed, saturated fats have all the hydrogens and therefore can fit together more easily and are also therefore denser. This dense material is traveling through your body. So basically, hydrogenating fats adds hydrogens and makes those fats denser, in turn clogging your arteries. I just gave a very simplistic view. It's all much more complicated than this.

SimiCyclist is right...'If "partially hydrogenated" anything is listed, its got trans fat.'

Instead of looking at the grams or percents, look at the ingredients. Partially hydrogenated equals trans fats. It also means it goes back on the shelf.

The good thing I have noticed since the FDA required labeling of trans fat is that many companies are now eliminating partially hydrogenated oils from the ingredients on many foods.

When my doctor put me on a heart healthy diet last November it was a shock to discover the majority of the foods I was eating were loaded with partially hydrogenated oils. It took some adjustment but my wife and I have eliminated them from our diet. You'll just have to accept that there are some foods you really like that you just can't eat anymore.

Jarery said - Edit: actually to clarify, there is no minimum limit recomended so try to obtain zero which almost impossible of you dont cook all your own food from scratch. -

It's not impossible - you just have to switch from prepared/processed foods to more fruits and vegitables and whole grains. Yes, you do have to make more meals from 'scratch', but you can make most of your favorites from easilly avaible items at your store. Try ditching frozen pizza for a pre-made pizza crust, topped with canned pizza sauce, grilled chicken and fresh mozzerella. Less fat, less sodium, no trans fat and ten times the flavor...

When cheebahmunkey starts talking chemistry I start having flashbacks to college and sleeping through chem lecture...

In the end, don't eat the stuff - it's as bad for you, if not worse, than smoking...

well to be an unsaturated fat, it means that there are fewer hydrogens in a molecule than there *should* be. For instance a correct molecule (with no unsaturations) would be C5H12. The formula for figuring out how many hydrogens there should be is 2n + 2 where n = # of carbons. Well, as you may have guessed, saturated fats have all the hydrogens and therefore can fit together more easily and are also therefore denser. This dense material is traveling through your body. So basically, hydrogenating fats adds hydrogens and makes those fats denser, in turn clogging your arteries. I just gave a very simplistic view. It's all much more complicated than this.

Close, but not quite.

From "What To Eat" by Marion Nestle (highly recommended to anyone who cares about their health):
"...in partial hydrogenation [of vegetable oil], nearly half the polyunsaturated fatty acids remain; the rest are converted to monounsaturated or saturated fatty acids. It is not good to have more saturated fatty acids, because these raise blood cholesterol levels, but partial hydrogenation creates one additional problem: trans fats.

Trans fats are not normal. Hydrogenation causes some of the hydrogens in unsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids to flip abnormally from the same side of the carbon chain (in Latin cis) to the opposite side (trans). The normal cis unsaturated fatty acids are flexible, which is why they are liquid; they bend and flow around each other. But the change to trans causes unsaturated fatty acids to stiffen. They behave a lot like saturated fatty acids in the body, where they can raise cholesterol level and increase the risk of heart disease.

...researches have consistently found trans fat to be just as bad -or worse- than saturated fats from the standpoint of heart disease risk."

I think that that amount of trans fat isn't anything to worry about. I'd be more concerned about the amount of sugar and processed flour than the trans fat.

In my book, trans fat is roughtly comparable to something like butter in the effect it has on you. I think you should be careful that you don't eat too much, but it's not a big deal.

I just had 3 fig newtons on my ride tonight, and I'm not worried. Of course, I did 36 miles and about 1300' of vertical, and likely burned around 1400 calories.

Fig Newman's are a big one. Go to a natural foods store like Whole Foods and look down the cookie aisle. They have a few. At the Whole Foods I go to they also have whole grain fig newton's in bulk.

Unfortunately, Fig Newmans have high fructose corn syrup which I avoid too for the reasons discussed in other threads.

On the cookie issue mentioned, the Publix organic section has cookies which have neither transfats or HFCS, at least they did the last time I checked.

Al

Why's that? Sugar and flour doesn't clog arteries. Sugar and flour are digested into glucose, same as pastas and whole-grain breads, your body doesn't know where the glucose came from. If you have to watch GI and digestion rate, then you've got a whole lot more to worry about, such as eating way too much and/or eating when your muscle's glycogen stores are fully stocked up, forcing additional glucose to be converted to fats instead. But at least that fat is natural.

Lots of sugar and refined flour lead to high triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol. Both of which are on the path to Metabolic syndrome, type II diabetes, and higher risk of coronary artery disease.

http://www.webmd.com/hw/health_guide_atoz/hw79767.asp?navbar=hw112708
http://www.webmd.com/content/pages/3/3079_1860.htm

The insulin response increases the conversion of the carbohydrates to triglycerides.

In the case of fig newtons, it probably isn't that bad, since there's also a fair amount of fiber, which will slow the absorption some.

Everything I look at suggests that trans-fats are in the same class as saturated fat. They're certainly something to be limited in your diet, but I don't think they're any worse than the traditional butter and creme. And I think that on a balance, a diet without a lot of simple carbs but with some saturated or trans fat is far healthier than a diet with a lot of sugar and refined starches but no trans or saturated fat.

When you're talking about athletes, things change. High GI carbs are necessary to fuel for exercise and replenish glycogen stores, so eating for competition is different than eating the rest of the time.

Lots of sugar and refined flour lead to high triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol. Both of which are on the path to Metabolic syndrome, type II diabetes, and higher risk of coronary artery disease.

Sure, if you overeat anything it can cause issues. That's not the point Mothra was getting at. Just because something has sugar and refined flour in it does not make it inherently bad for you; only if you over-consume sugar and refined flour does it pose any health risks, but those same health risks would apply to over-consuming any nutrient. Trans fats are unnatural and their full effect on the body is thus unproven until they've been around for long enough for a real conclusion to be drawn. Sugar is natural and refined flour is just wheat with the fiber removed. Trans fat are molecularly modified fats. There's a big difference.

OK I've ignored this thread for long enough.

Has anyone here read ANY scientific evidence which PROVES that saturated fat has the same harmful effects as trans fatty acids or that they realy work the same way and should therefore be lumped together.

It seems that more and more studies are coming out showing the health harming effects of trans fatty acids yet somehow this is read as evidence that traditional saturated fatty acids are harmful and thats just an unsubstantiated leap.

See, http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/fats_junkscience.html

I posted this link on the cholesterol thread but its worth posting again, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/3/550

Here's another one, http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/fat_absorption.html

Regards, Anthony

You should have ignored it longer. The thread was about trans fats, not saturated. It would have been nice to have a thread without wap spam.

Mercola who apperently is someone you believe in since you paid cash for his scam on metobolic types, says himself things like the following "In the studies that did show an increased risk of heart disease with saturated fat intake, the risk was found to be relatively minor when compared to that of consuming trans-fats."

Thats kinda like saying getting shot 5 times is worse then getting shot once, therefore getting shot once is not bad for you.

You should have ignored it longer. The thread was about trans fats, not saturated. It would have been nice to have a thread without wap spam.

Mercola who apperently is someone you believe in since you paid cash for his scam on metobolic types, says himself things like the following "In the studies that did show an increased risk of heart disease with saturated fat intake, the risk was found to be relatively minor when compared to that of consuming trans-fats."

Thats kinda like saying getting shot 5 times is worse then getting shot once, therefore getting shot once is not bad for you.

Well I was happy when it was about trans fats. Its when people claim that sat fats have the same health harming qualities as trans fats that I take exception.

Dr Mercola's promotion of Metabolic Type's, I think that its a Dr Willcott who developed it is an exceptionaly useful and valid concept. It says that we can both be right on a personel level, I work better on fat and you work better on carbs and making blanket, population wide statements about what is healthy and what is not is realy stupid.

My take on it is that if you like carbs then sure have carbs but your better off with fresh food rather than proccessed junk and the fats that you have while not as much as I are better off being traditional animal fats or cold pressed oils rather than refined vegetable oils.

Regards, Anthony

Well I was happy when it was about trans fats. Its when people claim that sat fats have the same health harming qualities as trans fats that I take exception.



Mercolla says it has the same health harming effects, just not as extreme. Go take exception with him.

Oh and why i say Mercola scams is not his principle, its his questoinaire. Charging 60 bucks to ask you if you feel happier after eating a piece of bread or after eating a steak, then telling you your metabolic type is carb/fat based on that. Ya, real scientific fact there.

No argument with fresh food over refined though. We do agree on one thing :)

Mercolla says it has the same health harming effects, just not as extreme. Go take exception with him.



You have to be careful when reading articles on Dr Mercola's site. He will quote an article first and then comment on it. Not all articles are his view. Also he has changed his views over the years so you need to check the date on articles. Rather than being a problem its evidence that he is willing to change his view based on the best evidence rather than ignoring what doesn't suit.

Regards, Anthony

Rather than being a problem its evidence that he is willing to change his view based on the best evidence rather than ignoring what doesn't suit.


Oh you mean like following the advances and dicoveries in modern science and research instead of clinging, with almost religeous fanatisism, to the ancient writtings of a dead dentist turned turist ?

Interesting concept

Oh you mean like following the advances and dicoveries in modern science and research instead of clinging, with almost religeous fanatisism, to the ancient writtings of a dead dentist turned turist ?

Interesting concept

OHH come on Jarery, Your capable of more than that.

The work of Dr Weston A Price is called a control study and its totaly valid. The more and more science gets done the more his work is validated. See the link to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Regards, Anthony

Its called a controll study ? Wow, well that changes everything. If 'they' call it that, well then it has to be true.

"Over the past several years, however, a very small number of dentists and physicians have been claiming that teeth that have received root canal (endodontic) treatment contribute to the occurrence of illness and disease in the body. This claim is based on the outdated research performed by Dr. Weston Price from 1910-1930. His research stated that bacteria trapped in the teeth during root canal treatment can cause almost any type of disease, including arthritis, heart disease, kidney disease, and others.

The presence of bacteria in teeth and mouth has been an accepted fact for many years. But presence of bacteria does not constitute "infection" and is not necessarily a threat to a person's health.3 Bacteria are present in the mouth and teeth at all times, even in teeth that have never had a cavity or other trauma.

More recent attempts to copy the research of Dr. Price (and to check its accuracy) have been unsuccessful. Researchers now believe that the earlier findings may have been caused by poor sanitation and imprecise research techniques that were common in the early 1900s.1

These more recent studies support the truth we report today—that teeth that receive proper endodontic treatment do not cause illness. "

But thats the opinion on CURRENT dentists and endodontists. But you'll of course ignore all them, and prefer to believe the person who dug up prices books on root cvanals, gave it a catchy name called "the root canal cover up" and charges 70 bucks to let you in on the 'conspiracy'.

Oh and your link to american journal of clinical nutrition, pretty much says fat is still a confusing topic and please have the government send more cash for research.

Anyways, this thread is dead the second you jumped into it with your wap spam.

At the risk of taking this thread off on a tangent.

I used to have a root canal. It was a back molar and it was full of mercury. My health realy took a turn for the worse when I had it done but this was mostly due to the mercury. A few years ago I had the mercury removed and a tempory/composite filling was put in its place.

I was sceptical about what disease could be caused by a root canal and so I was happy to leave it in place. Anyway to cut this story down I decided to have it removed and I have a hole there now instead. It was quite traumatic to have it removed but once I got over the initial trauma I realy did start to feel better. It hasn't cured me overnight but I do feel that my health has improved and the gum infections that I used to get occasionaly are gone.

So I was initialy skeptical about removing root canals but I had mine removed and while its no miracile cure I do feel better for having it removed.

Mercury?

Heck that's a no brainer! That's a known highly toxic substance that makes people VERY ill.

Regards, Anthony

Sounds like statistical correlation to me.

Sure, if you overeat anything it can cause issues. That's not the point Mothra was getting at. Just because something has sugar and refined flour in it does not make it inherently bad for you; only if you over-consume sugar and refined flour does it pose any health risks, but those same health risks would apply to over-consuming any nutrient. Trans fats are unnatural and their full effect on the body is thus unproven until they've been around for long enough for a real conclusion to be drawn. Sugar is natural and refined flour is just wheat with the fiber removed. Trans fat are molecularly modified fats. There's a big difference.

If you subscribe to the "paleo diet" way of thinking - and the correlation between what they're saying and the health effects of both the traditional asian diet and the mediterranean diet - then neither refined sugar nor refined flour are natural, in the sense that humans have not eaten them until recently. Trans fats have been around for quite a while - somewhere around 100 years - and margarine use has been very common, at least long enough to show that people who eat a lot of hydrogenated oils have higher incidents of coronary artery disease. Just as people who eat a lot of saturated fat.

All I'm saying is that I put trans fats in the same class as refined sugar and refined flour. It's a good idea to limit the amount you have in the diet.

not much to add other than that I have also eliminated all partially hydrogenated stuff from my diet.. it was difficult at first, but I think worth it in the end.

BTW, this also means:
- nothing with margerine (butter please!)
- no shortening

sadly this means a lot of commercially baked things, including pie crust, etc, are gone.. my wife makes an excellent crust without any of that crap though :)

All I'm saying is that I put trans fats in the same class as refined sugar and refined flour. It's a good idea to limit the amount you have in the diet.



If you subscribe to the "paleo diet" way of thinking - and the correlation between what they're saying and the health effects of both the traditional asian diet and the mediterranean diet - then neither refined sugar nor refined flour are natural, in the sense that humans have not eaten them until recently. Trans fats have been around for quite a while - somewhere around 100 years - and margarine use has been very common, at least long enough to show that people who eat a lot of hydrogenated oils have higher incidents of coronary artery disease. Just as people who eat a lot of saturated fat.

All I'm saying is that I put trans fats in the same class as refined sugar and refined flour. It's a good idea to limit the amount you have in the diet.

Transfats are harmful for what they contain. Refined sugar and refined flour are not harmful by themselves, they just lack the nutrients/fiber that were removed. Therefore, it you have other sources of those nutrients, you suffer no harm by consuming them.

What this difference means at least to me, is that I minimize my intake of refined sugar and flour, but I'll go ahead and eat my favorite Pizza at a local restaurant and I'll eat stuff containing sugar if it's in moderation. I'm cold-turkey on transfats or at least partially hydrogenated oils which is man-made. I've avoided them ever since it was known they were harmful which if my memory is correct, is something like 30 years.

Al

Al, thanks for responding saying basically the same thing I would have.

What I find odd is that partially hydrogenated oils aren't necessary to make the products they're used in. The only reason they're in there is manufacturing cost. How much do they save on a box of Fig Newtons? 1 cent? 5 cents? I can't imagine it's 5. But if it is, why not simply add 5c to the price and remove the crap. Price matters, but to how many people does it matter so much they'd rather eat crap than pay 5c more? Cutting corners really just gets counterproductive at some point.

Yes the rationale for hydrogenating vegetable oils is to make them behave in food products like traditional animal fats such as lard, butter or tallow.

As you know I'm all in favor of animal fats and at the begining I'm sure they were introduced to cut costs but now the food companies have been politicaly corrected out of using animal fats and so they are left with a serious dilema. Regular, non-hydrogenated vegetable oils produce poor quality, poor tasting products and they are too scared to return to animal fats, even thought this would be my prefference so they still don't know what to do.

Regards, Anthony

I think that that amount of trans fat isn't anything to worry about. I'd be more concerned about the amount of sugar and processed flour than the trans fat.

Damn Atkins! Sugar and flour are not evil. They are food and are used to supply our body with necessary glucose. The USDA and FDA are recommending we get NO, as in Zero, Zip, Zilch trans fat.

Well here is what people form harvard have to say on the issue of trans fats, and saturated fats: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html
Ofcourse they might be part of some kind of conspiracy to hide benefits of saturated fats from peole. :rolleyes:

Well here is what people form harvard have to say on the issue of trans fats, and saturated fats: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html
Ofcourse they might be part of some kind of conspiracy to hide benefits of saturated fats from peole. :rolleyes:

Well at least that article did admit that low fat dietry advice was wrong. Thats a start in the right direction at least. It did give us some science and stated that trans fats were worse for you health than saturated fats but some old biases still existed although that's to be expected I guess.

It stated that trans fats worsened lipid ratio's where as saturated fats elevated both good and bad cholesterol (mindyou the whole notion of good and bad cholesterol is still in dispute) and that there was not a lot of good evidence as to what this meant but they still warned against saturated fat consumption anyway.

It did state that consumption of cholesterol rich foods had a negligable effect on overal cholesterol levels and no evidence existed to show harmful health outcomes from consuming them.

Yes there is still a bias against saturated fats but at least they're coming around slowly. The worst evidence against saturated fats is still just statistical correlation but even then the difference isn't as clear cut as some would have had us believe. The more that is known about it the more animal fats are being exhonerated.

Regards, Anthony

Your selective reading truely amazes me. They also mentioned that saturated fat along with Trans Fats increases the risk of diseases. They also mention that even though Saturated fat does raise both types of cholesteral the net effect on a body is still negative.
So anything that doesn't fit in to your world is just "biased opinon." :rolleyes: Please post any scientific findings that dispute the notion of good and bad cholesterol. I think that article did a good job of talking about it.


Well at least that article did admit that low fat dietry advice was wrong. Thats a start in the right direction at least. It did give us some science and stated that trans fats were worse for you health than saturated fats but some old biases still existed although that's to be expected I guess.

It stated that trans fats worsened lipid ratio's where as saturated fats elevated both good and bad cholesterol (mindyou the whole notion of good and bad cholesterol is still in dispute) and that there was not a lot of good evidence as to what this meant but they still warned against saturated fat consumption anyway.

It did state that consumption of cholesterol rich foods had a negligable effect on overal cholesterol levels and no evidence existed to show harmful health outcomes from consuming them.

Yes there is still a bias against saturated fats but at least they're coming around slowly. The worst evidence against saturated fats is still just statistical correlation but even then the difference isn't as clear cut as some would have had us believe. The more that is known about it the more animal fats are being exhonerated.

Regards, Anthony

did you know jiffy cornbread mix has this **** in it? i bet this crap is in everything. why don't they make laws banning it? i remember reading about another country doing so.

Your selective reading truely amazes me. They also mentioned that saturated fat along with Trans Fats increases the risk of diseases. They also mention that even though Saturated fat does raise both types of cholesteral the net effect on a body is still negative.
So anything that doesn't fit in to your world is just "biased opinon." :rolleyes: Please post any scientific findings that dispute the notion of good and bad cholesterol. I think that article did a good job of talking about it.

Well if you read the article carefully you would have noticed that a lot of it was still opinion. In the face of scientific fact opinion has been slowly changing but in the absence of science then opinion is still firmly against saturated fat despite the lack of scientific evidence to prove any harmful properties of saturated fats. The worst they can come up with is that saturated fats elevate cholesterol levels however the all cause death rate is lower for those with higher cholesterol levels than those with lower cholesterol levels.

Regards, Anthony

Well if you read the article carefully you would have noticed that a lot of it was still opinion. In the face of scientific fact opinion has been slowly changing but in the absence of science then opinion is still firmly against saturated fat despite the lack of scientific evidence to prove any harmful properties of saturated fats.
Yeah the whole research thing they referenced is just an opinion. :rolleyes:
Direct quote:


Many lines of evidence indicate that the type of fat is very important to long-term health. Replacing saturated and trans with natural vegetable oils can greatly reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes. In the Nurses' Health Study II we have seen that women who consume high amounts of red meat and high-fat dairy foods during their early adult years are at increased risk of developing breast cancer.



The worst they can come up with is that saturated fats elevate cholesterol levels however the all cause death rate is lower for those with higher cholesterol levels than those with lower cholesterol levels.

Please show one scientific study which shows that death rate in people with lower cholesterol. You also failed to mention which choletsterol. Providing a way out for yourself?

Anthony, do you have any chemistry, medical, biological background or are you just going by some crazy doctor's web site? I have extremely basic chemical knowledge and can already see how trans fat and saturated fat can be harmful to your health.