Posted on 07/24/2012 7:16:20 AM PDT by neverdem
Since the city banned trans fats in restaurant food in 2008, diners have consumed 2.4 fewer grams of trans fats per lunch, which should mean better health, researchers say.
A New York regulation that took effect in 2008 prohibits all restaurants… (Kathy Willens / Associated…)New York City's pioneering ban on all but the smallest amounts of trans fats in restaurant food has led to a significant reduction in consumption, a change that should translate into better cardiovascular health in the nation's largest city, according to a new report. It also demonstrates that coffee shops, fast-food joints and other eateries can play a major role in improving the health of the public, the study authors said.
Officials from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene conducted the study to assess whether the regulation that took effect in 2008 — which prohibits all restaurants from serving food prepared with partially hydrogenated vegetable oil or dishes that contain more than 0.5 gram of trans fat per serving — was making a difference for diners.
Public health officials had zeroed in on trans fats because they pose a uniquely potent health risk. Adding fewer than 4.5 grams of them to a 2,000-calorie daily diet can increase the risk of coronary heart disease by 23%, studies have found.
Researchers fanned out across Manhattan in 2007 and examined the receipts of 6,969 diners as they left fast-food restaurants at lunchtime. (The researchers went to fast-food chains because the nutrition information on the items sold there was readily available.) In 2009, they repeated the exercise with 7,885 receipts. They found that diners consumed 2.4 fewer grams of trans fat per lunch after the ban went into effect, according to their study published in Tuesday's edition of Annals of Internal Medicine.
That decline was offset...
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.latimes.com ...
Well, looky here. look who has an interest in the outcome of the study...
Yeah, I’m sure this “study” is accurate. No, really.
Instead of a vague reduction in consumption.. How about some real numbers, like figures in Cardiovascular events, weight reduction, inflammatory markers, diabetic health improvements. Instead we get.. less availability equals less consumption. Duh! No wonder that NYC is broke. Sounds like a cover- up if they won’t produce real numbers.
An honest investigator would follow this with a study of actual weight, body-fat, or other health metrics in NYC. My guess is that weight is still rising in the city, probably faster than before the ban. A second guess: no one will do such a study. It's about power and control, not about results.
More agenda driven junk science controlling what you eat. What if they are wrong and you need trans fat in your diet?
Pray for America
You’ve got to love the decimal point accuracy of that “study”.
Two point four grams less per person.
Not 2.3, nor 2.5.
Really.
A nickel is 5 grams. It is a ridiculously small amount of food for the amount of cost.
absolutely no way this study could even be conducted..hahahahhaha
absolutely no way this study could even be conducted..hahahahhaha fiction
1000 grams is 2.2 lb.
So over the next 10 years, New Yorkers will have eaten 10 lb less food per person.
I challenge anyone in NYC government to explain the difference between “trans” fats and “_ _ _” stereoisomers of the same molecule AND explain how they are metabolised differently in the human body.
Even on this forum there are folks who try to demonize “trans fats” or fructose sweeteners and have Z E R O fact basis for what the BELIEVE.
It’s worse than global warming. harrumph.
Do they realize how tiny 2.4 grams is?
It is well documented the dangers of a high trans fat diet..not global warming bull.. Trans fat's truly lead to bad cholestral levels etc. Unlike other members of the fat family (saturated, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats), trans fats, or trans-fatty acids, are largely artificial fats and there are numerous studies showing why trans fats are bad for the body.
The human body needs good fats..not trans fats.
REM: I am a physiologist by education, albeit a while ago. My minor was chemistry.
When people refer to saturated or unsaturated fats, do you know what they are saturated with?
When people refer to “trans” fats, do you know what that means, chemically and structurally?
Do you know why (some) scientists think trans fats are ‘bad’ due to their structure?
Are you aware that “processed” [table] sugars are **NO** different from “natural” and “organic” sugar?
Are you aware that FRUCTOSE (AKA the fruit sugar in APPLES, for example) is a NATURAL part of our ‘energy’ metabolism, and that ‘artificial’ or ‘made-from-corn’ fructose are **NO** different from NATURAL fructose?
SOOOOOOO much of this ‘information’ is just crap.
When I read a ‘study’ that demonstrates *HOW* trans fats are harmful metabolically instead of using correlative data, THEN I may start to put credence into the idea that trans fats are problematic in our diet. Those studies and articles may indeed exist, but I have not read them. If you point me to one or more, I will thank you and join the crowd against trans fats in the human diet.
/rant off ;-)
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/trans-fat/CL00032
From Harvard
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-full-story/
American Heart Association:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Trans-Fats_UCM_301120_Article.jsp
Even Frito lay admitted Trans fat were not healthy (and said why in this article on their own website)and removed them from their chips in 2004.
http://www.fritolay.com/your-health/goodbye-trans-fats.html
Trail —
Thank you for those articles. Indeed those are reputable sources. The Harvard article was also referenced, which was useful. So that you know, they are understandably consumer-grade articles that don’t get into lipoprotein transport of insoluble fats etc etc, and don’t get into lipid metabolism. No biggee. They also repeat what most of those sorts of articles say ... “associated with” and “studies have shown.” One was particularly weak at refuting the high-fat Adkins diet. (not a proponent by the way).
What other articles do correctly point out is that changing your diet (like eating LESS PIZZA and MEXICAN, high sources of trans/saturated fats) and losing weight/increasing activity is/are JUST AS LIKELY to produce better LDL/HDL outcomes as limiting trans fats. Improving your diet to limit saturated fats is a good idea. Don’t just focus on trans fats. “Trans fats” to me was just a clever way of sneaking in saturated fats into manufactured foods. Focus on restricting saturated fats overall in your diet. Also anything with “partially hydrogenated” ie partly saturated is likely to be just as onerous.
FWIW, higher-diet saturated fat *IS* closely associated with Type II diabetes (adult onset diabetes) BUT that is likely more a correlation than a causal relationship. OVERALL bad diet, excess weight and lack of exercise strongly correlate to Type II diabetes incidence, not just Trans Fats. The wide-load, hypertensive, inactive, bad-diet, people-of-Walmart are a BIG reason why we have a ‘diabetes epidemic’ in the US. They bring it on themselves, and Obamacare will pay for their care. harrumph
While not yet well understood, there is an interesting correlation between inflammation, saturated fats and gum disease being VERY highly correlated with heart disease and heart attack, so much so that good dental and gum care might reduce heart attacks and CHF more than dietary changes. Amazing. <— but we don’t yet know really why, just like we don’t REALLY know why certain arrangements of hydrogen atoms along long-chain fat/oil molecules are ASSOCIATED with higher bad cholesterol. The link of the immune system (chronic inflammations) and heart disease is a fairly new study area. Worth reading more on if you are curious.
Here’s my point: people have gone off on “trans fats” without knowing what they are, really, or their mechanism of action in metabolism. They are nothing more than chemically altered liquid fats/oils; altered by SATURATING them to varying degrees with hydrogen ions so they don’t break down or spoil as easily. In other words, they are just another type of “saturated fat” we have been warned about for years. To my earlier rant, saturated means additional hydrogen atoms were added to the long chain molecules, saturating the available sites that lead to ‘going rancid’ or breaking down via oxidation. They are not some DIRE POISON.
The debate around saturated, unsaturated, partially hydrogenated, “trans” etc is settled actually, and not contrary to your position: avoid saturated fats in your diet where doable, regardless of what the media label them.
FWIW, I would argue that Frito Lay got caught on trans fats, and chose to remove them for Brand and revenue reasons.
Thanks for your replies. My rant was not AT you, but rather at the idea that few people ‘know’ the real reasons behind the debates.
Which of course was sold to follow the government's warning against animal fat. These are the last idiots I want legislating the public diet.
OK, Bub, enough. Everybody knows artificial flavorings are the real chemical killers. They ain’t natural.
heh. Polysorbate 280 to enhance freshness??? I don’t want to know.
Growth hormones.
Pesticides.
Antibiotics.
But don’t blame the fat or the sugar for that third growing out your cousin’s 4$$ ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.