Society/Culture New York City - home of the 'nanny state'

[Niximus]

Way to dodge the question, Nick!

huh? I answered it. Lead probably should be banned. As I said you could make a case for a lot of things to be banned but we don't ban everything that is unhealthy do we?

I admitted I sometimes continue down the side track paths people try to take things when they can't make any valid points on the original argument.

I do find it ironic though that you accuse me of dodging a questions that itself was a dodge of the original argument.

What amount of trans-fat is 'healthy', btw?

No idea, what amount of cocaine is 'healthy'?

For that matter, what amount of Coca-Cola is 'healthy'?


None of this has anything to do with labeling of legal ingredients though does it?

 

[bit_pattern]

huh? I answered it. Lead probably should be banned. As I said you could make a case for a lot of things to be banned but we don't ban everything that is unhealthy do we?

I admitted I sometimes continue down the side track paths people try to take things when they can't make any valid points on the original argument.

I do find it ironic though that you accuse me of dodging a questions that itself was a dodge of the original argument.

I didn't bring up trans fat, you said that it shouldn't be banned, I disagreed. But basically you are syaing that not only should manufacturers be allowed to add whatever toxins they like to food, but that all moves to strengthen labeling regulations should be resisted. That's just ridiculous. You're slavish adherence to the market regulating itself has been shown to be a fat load of fail.

No idea, what amount of cocaine is 'healthy'?

For that matter, what amount of Coca-Cola is 'healthy'?


None of this has anything to do with labeling of legal ingredients though does it?

Apples and oranges, in the same way that I don't think that manufacturers should be allowed add cocaine to products I don't think that end users should be prosecuted for eating trans fat's. At least cocaine has some bnefit for the end user, unlike trans fat's or any other poisonous food additive, cocaine makes you feel good.

And if coca-cola had been implicated in the massive upward trend in cardio-vascular disease then, yeah, I'd support banning it too, or at least the ingredient causing the problems.

 

[Niximus]

I didn't bring up trans fat, you said that it shouldn't be banned, I disagreed. But basically you are syaing that not only should manufacturers be allowed to add whatever toxins they like to food, but that all moves to strengthen labeling regulations should be resisted. That's just ridiculous. You're slavish adherence to the market regulating itself has been shown to be a fat load of fail.

Remember what I said about taking either arguments to extremes can make both of them look silly? Like claiming that you're basically saying that anything that is bad for us should be banned which only leaves an 'approved list of foods' i.e. a government enforced diet.

I have already said I really only continued on this side-track argument for the hell of it rather than any real conviction, when people can't stick to the point and put words in my mouth sometimes I just can't help arguing that new point anyway. My original point about labels stands.

Apples and oranges, in the same way that I don't think that manufacturers should be allowed add cocaine to products I don't think that end users should be prosecuted for eating trans fat's. At least cocaine has some bnefit for the end user, unlike trans fat's or any other poisonous food additive, cocaine makes you feel good.

I know some smokers who say the same of thier drug of choice and yet you support banning that.

Trans fat does have some benefit too, it is an energy source.

And if coca-cola had been implicated in the massive upward trend in cardio-vascular disease then, yeah, I'd support banning it too, or at least the ingredient causing the problems.

Inactivity has been implicated in increasing health problems from obesity, heart disease etc. We don't legislate that people exercise.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Ah yes, there was a night where I was on the computer and not having a continuous bonk session, I obviously never have sex then...

Is that a thumbprint on your forehead?
Or another label?

 

[Niximus]

Is that a thumbprint on your forehead?
Or another label?

Ah, so now because I wasn't up inside my girlfriend last night I'm under the thumb.

I've found that people like you who constantly feel the need to talk about how their women know who's boss and insinuate how much sex they're having are usually doing so because they feel inadequate and disappointed with their own sex life.

You have my sympathies.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Ah, so now because I wasn't up inside my girlfriend last night I'm under the thumb.

I've found that people like you who constantly feel the need to talk about how their women know who's boss and insinuate how much sex they're having are usually doing so because they feel inadequate and disappointed with their own sex life.

You have my sympathies.

You are quite the intense one, aren't you.
Mate I have never "constantly" anything with you, let alone insinuated about my sex life.
Even though it is of nuclear orgasmo proportions.
Take a chill pill, find your sense of humour and relax.
I was just funnin ya.

 

[Niximus]

You are quite the intense one, aren't you.
Mate I have never "constantly" anything with you, let alone insinuated about my sex life.
Even though it is of nuclear orgasmo proportions.
Take a chill pill, find your sense of humour and relax.
I was just funnin ya.

Trolls just aren't funny.

 

[bit_pattern]

Remember what I said about taking either arguments to extremes can make both of them look silly? Like claiming that you're basically saying that anything that is bad for us should be banned which only leaves an 'approved list of foods' i.e. a government enforced diet.

So that list I linked to earlier, it should just be thrown out, because banning dangerous substances from food manufacturing is a "government approved food list"?

I have already said I really only continued on this side-track argument for the hell of it rather than any real conviction, when people can't stick to the point and put words in my mouth sometimes I just can't help arguing that new point anyway. My original point about labels stands.

Well, the trans fat issue isn't exactly wildly off topic, it was raised in the OP. I certainly didn't bring it up, I only responded to you saying that trans fats shouldn't be banned, so you being just a tad precious in saying this is a side-track. iirc you ignored all of my posts on the labeling issue and only responded to a comment about banning trans fat

I know some smokers who say the same of thier drug of choice and yet you support banning that.

Yes, but cocaine IS banned. And while I think that all effort to curtail the prevalence of smoking, by the ways I listed earlier in the thread, I don't think smokers should be prosecuted for their choice to smoke.

Trans fat does have some benefit too, it is an energy source.

No it's not, your body can't break down trans fats, which is why they are so problematic.

It's interesting that you know so little about them but insist that education and not regulation should be what drives whether manufacturers use them or not. If a bright guy like yourself is a bit vague on exactly what trans fats are, then what hope does the average junk food consumer have in making an informed choice?

 

[TheBloods]

Trans fat does have some benefit too, it is an energy source.

No it doesn't - it has zero benefit and large negative effects.

It used by manufacturers as it reduces the cost of production.

If they didn't have to disclose it then it would remain unknown to consumers.

So it comes back to the critical question again - what is it about the OP that people are complaining about?

 

[Niximus]

No it's not, your body can't break down trans fats, which is why they are so problematic.

It's interesting that you know so little about them but insist that education and not regulation should be what drives whether manufacturers use them or not. If a bright guy like yourself is a bit vague on exactly what trans fats are, then what hope does the average junk food consumer have in making an informed choice?

Yeah it is.

In 2002, the Panel on Macronutrients of the U.S. National Academies of Science, Institute of Medicine, recommended that trans fat consumption be as low as possible while ensuring a nutritionally adequate diet. The Panel did not set a safe upper limit because the evidence suggests that any rise in trans fat intake increases coronary heart disease risk. Subsequently, in 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that trans fat intake be limited to less than 1% of overall energy intake - a limit regarded by that body as a practical level of intake consistent with public health goals.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/gras-trans-fats/tf-ge/tf-gt_rep-rap-eng.php

They recommend limiting them to less than 1% of your overall energy intake - i.e. you draw energy from them.

You could argue that the negatives outweigh that benefit but then you're back to cocaine where as you said the benefit was that it makes you feel good.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Trolls just aren't funny.

Good grief.
Little wonder the GF watches so much telly with an attitude like that.
I have read quite a bit of your stuff and, in general, disagree vehemently. I also can't quite understand why you have to cover every single aspect of an argument, and then get frustrated because other posters, in your mind, go off topic.
I think you ought to get your trans fat levels checked.

 

[Niximus]

Studies show Australians have one of the lowest levels of exposure to trans fats in the world and are well within the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations for trans fat consumption.
In 2009, Food Standards Australia New Zealand conducted a formal scientific review of trans fats in our food supply. This review found that the average persons intake of trans fats is around 0.5% to 0.6% of total energy intake which is well below the WHO's goal of 1%. Importantly the review showed that our intake of saturated fats is of greater concern.

http://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au...ics/fats-and-trans-fats/#What-are-trans-fats-

 

[Niximus]

Trans fats also occur naturally. They are found at low levels (generally 2-5% of fat content) in ruminant-based foods such as dairy products and beef, although the level in lamb may be as high as 8%.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/gras-trans-fats/tf-ge/tf-gt_rep-rap-eng.php

 

[bit_pattern]

Just because they are measured by 'energy intake' doesn't mean humans derive energy from trans fats, we can't metabolise them, they store in the body and don't get burnt as energy, that's the whole problem.

 

[Niximus]

Just because they are measured by 'energy intake' doesn't mean humans derive energy from trans fats, we can't metabolise them, they store in the body and don't get burnt as energy, that's the whole problem.

Not sure where you're getting that?

When you eat normal cis fats, the body metabolizes half of them in 18 days. When you eat trans fats the body requires 51 days to metabolize half of them. This means that half of the trans fats you eat today will still be inhibiting essential enzyme systems in your body 51 days from now.

http://www.diagnose-me.com/treat/T339487.html

 

[bit_pattern]

The exact biochemical methods by which trans fats produce specific health problems are a topic of continuing research. The most prevalent theory is that the human lipase enzyme is specific to the cis configuration, rendering the human body unable to metabolize or remove trans fat. A lipase is a water-soluble enzyme that catalyzes the hydrolysis of ester bonds in water-insoluble, lipid substrates. Lipases thus comprise a subclass of the esterases. Lipases perform essential roles in the digestion, transport and processing of dietary lipids (e.g. triglycerides, fats, oils) in most – if not all – living organisms. The human lipase enzyme is ineffective with the trans configuration, so trans fat remains in the blood stream for a much longer period of time and is more prone to arterial deposition and subsequent plaque formation. While the mechanisms through which trans fats contribute to coronary heart disease are fairly well understood, the mechanism for trans fat's effect on diabetes is still under investigation.

 

[bit_pattern]

How did our metabolism deal with these natural trans FAs before we began making them artificially in hydrogenation plants?
Our digestive enzymes can handle small amounts of trans FAs, but when larger amounts are digested and incorporated into our cell membranes, the membranes become distorted and don't function properly. So the problem is not so much trans FAs per se, but too much of them in our modern diets.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36400-2005Mar15.html

 

[Niximus]

The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of trans fats you eat to less than 1 percent of your total daily calories. That means if you need 2,000 calories a day, no more than 20 of those calories should come from trans fats. That’s less than 2 grams of trans fats a day. Given the amount of naturally occurring trans fats you probably eat every day, this leaves virtually no room at all for industrially manufactured trans fats. Find out your personal daily fat limits on My Fats Translator.

You get calories from trans fats - i.e energy.

 

[bit_pattern]

Yes, Nick, but the body can't use that energy (or, more correctly, the body can only use a fraction of that energy due to the way the body metabolises the stuff). A calorie is a unit of measurement.

 

[Niximus]

Yes, Nick, but the body can't use that energy (or, more correctly, the body can only use a fraction of that energy due to the way the body metabolises the stuff). A calorie is a unit of measurement.

Of course it can, if it couldn't then there would be no point including it in the hypothetical 2,000 calories you need.

A calorie is a unit of energy.

(or, more correctly, the body can only use a fraction of that energy due to the way the body metabolises the stuff)

Right so you're willing to concede that it is a source of energy, just as I said. There is some benefit just like your cocaine making you feel good.

 

[bit_pattern]

No, it can't. Just because you measure something by calories doesn't mean the body can burn that *potential* energy. And I have provided a couple of sources that confirm it.

This is just getting ridiculous now. Can you not admit when you might be wrong?

 

[Niximus]

No, it can't. Just because you measure something by calories doesn't mean the body can burn that energy. And I have provided a couple of sources that confirm it.

This is just getting ridiculous now. Can you not admit when you might be wrong?

Actually you provided a cource that said "The most prevalent theory".

I have also provided sources and you yourself have conceded use of some of the energy. Just as I said, it is an energy source.

 

[TheBloods]

Regardless of whether we can use it or not, it is quite clear that it is unhealthy to have more than a very tiny amount in the diet and it is better not to have any.

So again I ask, what is the problem with banning them when artificially added to food?

 

[Niximus]

Regardless of whether we can use it or not, it is quite clear that it is unhealthy to have more than a very tiny amount in the diet and it is better not to have any.

Well that's really relevant as the last couple of pages arose from BP claiming that Cocaine has a benefit (making you feel good) even though it has negative health impacts and that Trans Fat has no benefit. If we use even some of the energy my point is valid.

So again I ask, what is the problem with banning them when artificially added to food?

But keep the natural stuff? Why not just encourage people to eat little of it.

We are already not eating much of it anyway and as you see below Saturated fats are more of a concern to our health. No one is proposing to ban them.

Studies show Australians have one of the lowest levels of exposure to trans fats in the world and are well within the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations for trans fat consumption.
In 2009, Food Standards Australia New Zealand conducted a formal scientific review of trans fats in our food supply. This review found that the average persons intake of trans fats is around 0.5% to 0.6% of total energy intake which is well below the WHO's goal of 1%. Importantly the review showed that our intake of saturated fats is of greater concern.

http://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/consumers/other-food-topics/fats-and-trans-fats/

 

[bit_pattern]

Actually you provided a cource that said "The most prevalent theory".

I have also provided sources and you yourself have conceded use of some of the energy. Just as I said, it is an energy source.

OK, so *some* transfat ends up being burned as energy, but a lot more hang around in the body doing all sorts of damage to your enzymes So what's your point exactly?

Your body needs a small amount of arsenic to function properly too, doesn't mean eating a few milligrams of it will do you any good, and it certainly doesn't mean that it should be included in food stuff.