You actually had one?
You know nothing of chemistry except barely enough to be upset whenever someone who actually knows anything disrupts the way you like things to be.
Now that's funny! I can't decide if you're more misinformed about chemistry or economics. Let's look at what passes for knowledge of chemistry according to doc30:
doc30 remedial chemistry class
Do you still want to argue that sucrose mediated satiation takes place in the gut instead of the blood? I notice you never answered my question about how this can be possible when a glucose IV immediately suppresses hunger.
Do you also still believe that our body's efficiency is variable thereby defying the first law of thermodynamics?
doc30 attempts to repeal the laws of thermodynamics
I think it's funny that you lecture me about chemistry and physiology when you don't even understand the metabolic steps in converting glucose to glycogen, glucose to fat or glycogen and fat to glucose.
The only thing that upsets me in these debates is having to school you over and over again about the same things.
You just cannot accept the fact that as we learn more and more about certain synthetic food additives, we learn more about what happens to them in our bodies.
Unfortunately, you don't know enough about the subject to differentiate the truth from all the BS that's out there. What passes for research today is pathetic.
These trans fats are synthetic
So what? Do you not eat any processed foods in your diet at all? Do you realize that about one-quarter of all TFA's we consume occur naturally? Good grief, milk and beef contain TFA's. Do you think milk is nasty stuff too?
These chemicals are not biologically produced. Period.
Are you saying we shouldn't combine any chemicals or use chemicals unless they are in their natural state? That's just loony.
Since they are not biologically produced, living things have not adapted to optimally digeting these materials.
Now you're making me laugh. Did you study chemistry at the Uell Gibbons school of naturalness?
That means that there are no mechanisms in specifically geared to handling these substances.
Where do you come up with this nonsense? Pharmaceutical companies are constantly creating new compounds that the human liver has never seen. Yet, the liver learns to metabolize these chemicals and pass them through the body without any ill effects.
If trans fats are biologically prepared, they are certainly not common.
25% is not common?
All the ones we use are synthesized
75% = all?
It is a known fact that trans fats are not as readily broken down as saturated fats are in the human body
If it's so well known, then please explain why trans fats are not as readily broken down as saturated fats.
My point about the garage experiment was to show that they really do help extend shelf life because they are not readily digestible by things that naturally break down saturated fats like those in butter
This proves nothing unless you can show that the same micro-flora in your gut exist in your garage. Microbes will still attack trans fat foods in your garage or anywhere else. The more double bonds a product has the the more susceptible it is to oxidation. Since hydrogenation reduces the number of double bonds, it inhibits oxidation -- but doesn't prevent it. Hydrogenation does nothing to stop mold or yeast growth though. Your example is meaningless.
In your body, they spike your LDL, supress your HDL and boost your triglycerides more than saturated fats.
Your certitude of this shows you really haven't invested the time necessary to understand the issue. The most legitimate research shows that trans-fats behave similarly to saturated fats. Trans fats also contain a compound called conjugated linoleic acid, which very recent research has shown to be helpful in fighting cancer and decreasing plaque.
If you understood how LDL cholesterol interferes with chilomicrons transferring fat through the bloodstream, and how that results in plaque forming on blood vessels, then you'd know that both TFA's and saturated fats cause the same problem in almost identical degrees. The fear of TFA's is based on a lack of knowledge and is supported by junk science. Public policy driven by junk science and the uneducated MSM is far scarier than anything industry is adding to our food. Your body will produce more cholesterol naturally than you could ever manage through diet. That's why family history is one of the most important questions in determining who is at risk for CHD. This is why for most people with serious cholesterol problems medication is the only real method for managing it. Smoking and high blood pressure as a cause for CHD takes a back seat to all this nonsense about TFA's, which when consumed in moderation, have no ill effect on our health whatsoever. That others, especially conservatives enable this nonsense is mind boggling.
Do you also still believe that our body's efficiency is variable thereby defying the first law of thermodynamics?
Yes, I still stand by my point in that thread. But I will admit I was playing loose with definitions and you rightfully caught me on that. I was trying to keep things at a very lay level. But if you want to be a definition cop, go ahead. For the 'thermodynamics issue' sure, the actual chemical reactions have the same thermodynamic properties, but that's not the point I was making and I believe you know it. The body's metabolism does have differing 'efficiency' levels via how the pathways are utilized. Care to explain why, with all other variables constant, one can gain weight when consuming fewer calories or lose weight when consuming more? It happens all the time and is a big issue with dieters. Even though the chemical processes and pathways are the same, they are operating in parallel and/or at different capacities in your system, analagous in ways to the throttle on a car. When you consume fewer calories, your body will reduce the capacity of these pathways, hence you will not be burning as many calories (sorry for giving the impression that it was the chemistry itself changing). It's your body's way of making more efficient use of scarce energy resources. Alternatively, when you exercise vigorously, you will continue to burn calories after you've stopped exerting yourself. The energy just gets wasted as heat. Or how about people with thyroid problems? The specific chemistries are the same for energy utilization, but these people can have very serious weight issues.
Are you saying we shouldn't combine any chemicals or use chemicals unless they are in their natural state? That's just loony.
Where did I say that? What is at issue here are the chronic effects of novel chemicals in our systems. There is a lot we don't know about low level chronic exposure to many things. If you know anything about chemistry at all, you would be aware of this. I was quite honest when I said that there were no specific adaptations already present in our systems. If a non-biologically occurring material has never been ingested before, how can there be a specific mechanism to handle it? The existing mechanisms may be able to, but that does not mean those mechanisms evolved specifically for the novel substance in question. The body simply uses what it has to handle the new material. Sometimes without side effeects, sometimes with.
Where do you come up with this nonsense? Pharmaceutical companies are constantly creating new compounds that the human liver has never seen. Yet, the liver learns to metabolize these chemicals and pass them through the body without any ill effects.
You are quite right that our livers will try to process anything put into us and many materials are broken down in our systems and the liver can be quite versatile. It can handle some new chemicals well, others it has difficult with. Do you realize how many drug candidates pharmaceutical companies synthesize that would be harmful as medications than what they do produce as marketable drugs? Your point is obvious if you only look at what they market, not what never gets out of R&D. They aren't going to put something on the market that is obviously toxic. And after a new drug has been on the market for a while, new, negative effects can then be discovered. Look at Vioxx as an example as a drug with unexpected issues after release. Or what about Tylanol? People have suffered liver failure from this over the counter medication.
Your body will produce more cholesterol naturally than you could ever manage through diet. That's why family history is one of the most important questions in determining who is at risk for CHD. This is why for most people with serious cholesterol problems medication is the only real method for managing it. Smoking and high blood pressure as a cause for CHD takes a back seat to all this nonsense about TFA's, which when consumed in moderation, have no ill effect on our health whatsoever. That others, especially conservatives enable this nonsense is mind boggling.
On this I agree with you. With 6 billion people on this planet, there is a lot of variability in what's in our genes and that's where the biggest risks do come from. Predisposition is very important and it explains why high cholestrol can impact some people more than others, as evidenced from the anecdotes on this thread. Smoking is also a big issue. Moderation is an important point, too. Sugary beverages and fatty foods are all OK, but if you over consume them, then you can have problems. One of my issues is the ubiquitousness of these materials. It is very hard to find something to drink without HFCS, or sugar in general, being added to it. Snack foods seem to be dropping the trans fats, too, but as a combination of marketing and perveived health benefits. And it also seems calorie rich foods are also the cheapest foods, too. But if you eat a bag a day of chips and a 2.5 L bottle of soda, your over consumption will be a bigger risk factor healthwise than the magnitude of the metabolic issues we are arguing here.
I do have one question for you. Have you ever suffered from a significant weight issue and managed to get back into shape? I've gone down that path and it takes more than just understanding basic metabolism. One does learn alot from experience about how their body handles what goes into it and it isn't an easy lifestyle change at the beginning.