69
Pretty sure this is how we ended up with Olestra; the oil substitute that gave people leaky anuses.
That's the problem with most substances with no caloric value, the body can't absorb it and tries to get rid of it by inducing the shits. Your colon is like: "Wtf is this dude eating mud?".
This is why those sugar-free gummy bears give people epic diarrhea, they are almost completely sugar replacements. The brain and nose/mouth love it, but the intestines can't do anything with it and want to get rid of it ASAP.
I'm not sure there is a way to fix this, which is kinda sad because I really want to lose weight, but also stress eat sweets.
Reverse chirality sugar may be a way forward, but nobody has figured out how to make it cheap in large quantities.
Got a bottle of 99 Banannas liquor once. Its got to be using the same sweetener as the cursed gummybears. I never threw out a bottle of alcohol before that moment. 2 shots and an hour later on on the toilet praying for death.
How do you drink that in the first place? I drink everclear and 99 bananas is like poison to me.
I tried something new and was punished for it. I clearly was not capable of drinking it.
What sugar substitute do they use in that? Cuz aspartame and Splenda (the two most common substitutes I am aware of) ain't never gave me the shits like Olestra chips did. Your body did literally nothing with that stuff so it came out the same way it went in, giving you an oily discharge.
Sorbitol and xylitol are common sugar alcohols used in gums and gummies. Sorbitol is naturally occurring in fruits in varying amounts, and, in conjunction with fiber, contributes to the medicinal effects of prunes and prune juice.
Ah... I actually go out of my way to avoid sorbitol just because it's one of the things that's really toxic for dogs. Not that I'd give them a gummy bear; but if they should get into them while I'm not looking I wouldn't want it to be something that could kill them.
You should probably spend a bit more time avoiding xylitol then, if that's your reasoning. Sorbitol isn't toxic to dogs for the most part. Xylitol on the other hand is.
oily discharge
I really dislike these words in this order.
I think they usually use some variant of stevia extracts. It depends on the person, as different people are more sensitive to one thing or the other. Another big factor is what other ingredients were used, usually preservatives and stabilizers. People make big scares about some of these, but they have been used for many decades and are totally safe. But again, depending on the person, a specific combination can trigger more intense effects. Coconut oil is often used as well, which can be a trigger for a lot of people. By far the biggest factor is the dosage. As with anything bad for you, the dosage matters. A little packet of stevia powder in a cup of tea might very little, whilst candy usually has a lot of sugar and in turn a lot of sugar substitute. Eat just a few gummy bears and you're fine, eat the whole bag and be prepared to live on the toilet for a while.
Another product often used, especially in those infamous gummy bears is Lycasin. For some reason lycasin is especially hard on the intestines, they want it out of there pronto and the best way to do that is to flood everything with water and violently eject it out of the nearest airlock.
Aspertame usually doesn't trigger anything, but isn't as sweet. So it's mostly used in drinks, where other flavors and the carbonation is dominant in the taste. Drinking a couple of liters of diet coke containing aspertame is fine for most people, the acid and gas would be a larger source of discomfort than the sweetener. Eating a couple of tablespoon of the stuff would most likely trigger a response down below.
No, Olestra was a totally new compound that replaces fats. All I am suggesting is to separate the saturated fats and use the remaining oil.
We tried that in the 90s, it went poorly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#History
I am not suggesting we add any additives, only to remove an existing fat from the mixture that makes up cooking oils.
It seems like the removing saturated fats part worked fine. They just messed it up by replacing them with trans fats which were even worse.
Saturated fat is good for you. Trans fats are the bad ones, those are unsaturated fats OR saturated fats that just become radicals. The cholesterol you get from eating is nearly nothing compared to the cholesterol your body makes out of sugar you overconsume.
My cholesterol has gone down to normal since I switched to an oil-less sugar-reduced diet. I use butter for veggies and lard for meats. Also, I only use whole-fat variants of diary.
It is generally recognized that high saturated fat consumption contributes to increases in LDL cholesterol. Trans fats are worse of course, but saturated fats in foods like hamburgers or ice cream are still a problem.
Could it perhaps be that the hamburgers cooked in grease and butter and ice cream being loaded with sugar are the issues?
Grease contains a large amount of saturated fat. As for ice cream, added sugars are unhealthy too, but since a lot of other unhealthy foods don't contain sugar we know it isn't the only cause.
The 7 Countries Study, upon which the hypothesis that saturated fat causes heart disease was based, has been proven to be highly flawed and misleading. Ancel Keys intentionally left out the data from many countries that contradicted his claims. During the last 20 years many studies have come out showing there's no correlation between saturated fat and heart disease, and pretty weak association between high LDL and heart disease. Obesity, insulin resistance and systemic inflamation are much higher predictors. And there's a lot of information to suggest seed oils - canola and soy bean oils especially - are quite harmful.
Take a look at some of the studies saying saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease. They are usually comparing the high saturated fat group to a group eating low saturated fat. Then you have to ask, what are they replacing that saturated fat with?
Often times, the subjects in these studies end up replacing saturated fat with equally unhealthy foods, especially salt and sugar. It's no surprise then that they didn't find any correlation to heart disease.
You will also notice that when the researchers specifically replace saturated fat with healthier foods like complex carbs or unsaturated fats, that the correlation suddenly appears.
I'll chime in what comes to mind, since people don't really talk about the technicality here. I'm not sure how much is common knowledge and how much is more specific information but just some thoughts.
One of the first things that you should keep in mind is that "saturated fat" is not a very specific description. It is a colloquial term for saturated fatty acids. In (cooking) oil, these are predominantly found in a form called triglycerides. This is a glycerine backbone with three fatty acids that are connected via a covalent bond. So it is a molecule, not some loose attachment. (There are free fatty acids, but they are usually removed in raffination, since they are bad for quality. There is even a specific value that measures the content of these free fatty acids in oil, the higher, the worse the quality.) A triglyceride therefore looks somewhat like '-,-' with the vertical lines being the acids and the - being the backbone. Depending on the acids, the molecule takes .ore or less funky stereo shapes.
There are many different saturated fatty acids, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated fatty acids. They come in different lengths with the "unsaturation" at different places. If you take a specific oil - i.e. peanut oil - and look up its content you will find percentage ranges of different fatty acid or triglyceride contents. Because every batch of every oil is a new mixture with different contents of fatty acids and also, and especially, different triglycerides. A lot of it is stochastic, but there is some logic in that. For example, the middle position tends to be an unsaturated fatty acid, the outer ones saturated. Or sat-unsat-unsat, if you really go for it. Yes, there are triglycerides containing only saturated fatty acids. (MCT are actually quite popular for different reasons.) But mostly it is a mix. I'm not even sure if there are triple polyunsaturated fatty acid triglycerides, I think these are rare in natural oils.
Now, to remove all the saturated fatty acids, you would have to do harsh chemical treatment on all the triglycerides and actually split the molecule. You can do this, among other methods, by making soap, or making fatty acid methyl esters. Then you can remove all the saturated fatty acids. And then you can use the others to rebuild the bond with the glycerine. (You can, in theory, also make specific combinations of fatty acids in triglycerides. But we are talking about lab grade stuff here.)
Most people who want a healthy oil would not want this kind of harsh chemical treatment of their oil (think virgin olive oil). But apart from that: a triglyceride made solely of (poly)unsaturated fatty acids, let alone an oil made of these, would be not very stable or usable. Apart from maybe unfreezing small amounts and then using it in a salad you would hardly have any use for it. I also cannot, for the love of God, imagine the taste. The type of fatty acid and its position in the molecule largely determines the physical behavior of oils and are not just contributing, but basically creating quality aspects such as mouth feel, lightness, melting point or crystallization. Your best bet would be to make a supplement with that, not to use it as an actual ingredient in food.
Finally, this perfectly answers the question I had. Thank you!
To summarize:
Trans fat is the bad one and is even banned in many countries including the USA. It is formed as a byproduct when making many processed and fast foods.
You should get less than 2% of your fat calories from trans fat - preferably you should avoid them at all costs.
Saturated fat isn't as bad as trans but it's still not beneficial, the jury may still be out on exactly how bad it is, but it's not healthy so it should be limited.
You should get less than 10% of your fat calories from saturated fat
Unsaturated fat is healthy, it's good for you and it's required in our diet as our bodies need it and can't make our own.
I feel like my calorie tracking app is really harsh about saturated fats
It gives a D grade to even the tiniest bit of coconut
Might be because fats are very energy dense. They net about 9 calories per gram. However, if the app is only tracking calories without context, it is going to miss calories-over-time and satiety. Fats tak longer to metabolize and tend to be good at triggering and maintaining feeling sated.
A lot about health and diet isn't understood very well. There are a number of advocates for saturated fats over PUFAs, with some (but not universal) evidence to support it. It's entirely possible that it's a case of correlation vs causation, but nothing has been proven with certainty.
I am so sick of this. Everything is bad for you, horribly sourced, unsustainable, promotes slave labor, has/is “evil” gmo. No one is in agreement and there is so much bad information out there and what info there is is buried behind a pay wall in a scientific paper i don’t know is there, and do not have the time or energy to decipher. The wealth of all human knowledge could be at my finger tips but the only reliable info are cat pictures.
It is really hard to do a good studies on diet. You end up with one of two conclusions: "Despite our best efforts we were unable to get our test subjects to follow the required diet"; or "These results may not generalize to the general population who isn't confined to [a prison cell/hospital bed]".
We can study how one meal effects your body, but that isn't really helpful - Does it matter if some diet causes cholesterol to go up/down for a bit and then it returns? And cholesterol is one of those markers where we have enough studies to conclude that high is bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean that high for a bit and returning to low is also bad. Some things like smoking are such large effects that we can look at general population and make conclusions, but often the effect isn't that large and so it is believed that some diet is good/bad, but we cannot prove it from data we can collect.
The above is about actual science. Most mainstream diet books at best cherry pick some fact and then take it to an extreme to create some eating plan ignoring all evidence of other facts that might limit how far you can take this one. (that is assuming they start with a fact - just making up facts is common as well) The news media doesn't care to figure out what is real science and what is made up facts.
Right, but a concrete “we don’t know” from a source that is the end all of what a study finds is needed. Because right now everyone and their mother is a arbiter of the “truth” corporate interest and idiocy have choked all reputable data to death. You can not rely on journalists to interpret studies, as their motivation is based on money one way or another. Obviously there is a problem with corruption when that authority is centralized but right now either ignorance or malice is a given
Well the "promotes slave labor" and "horribly sourced" are not limited to food, and GMOs are fine.
Diet is definitely one of those things that's really hard to research though, because people are peddling snake oil constantly. I wish i had a solution.
Snake oil is the only healthy fat and should be consumed in massive quantities.
Maybe stop looking for people to tell you what to think, read the info first hand, at the source, and make your own conclusions?
It's not really bad for you; it only depends how long past about 30 you want to live. Evolution only cares to where our children could mostly live on their own, and then we were valueless.
The rest has to be done with diet, exercise, and using our brains to extend our species' lifespan.
But yeah: go crazy. Don't get vaxed, don't wear seatbelts. Don't eat as well as you can, don't work the heart and the joints and the muscles, don't foster and build relations for a strong community that cares for one another, don't contribute to education and medicine and safety and enrichment. You'll be fine...
.. until just after your evolutionary best-before date of about 30, if you did nothing to extend that.
I mean, I’m not concerned so much about what evolution wants. I am more concerned that i can make living not suck.
According to this article, It is generally recognized that high saturated fat intake is associated with heart disease.
I think the cost/benefit ratio is the main issue. Splitting oils to remove the saturated fat is not a simple process, especially when the easier answer is “use an oil naturally lower in saturated fats” like rapeseed (canola).
You don't think they could market it as a healthier oil and sell at a higher price?
Eh I think they’re two different markets. If you prioritize health over taste, go for the cheaper, natural rapeseed. If you’re prioritising taste over health, most people are not going to be bothered by the sat fat, and would prefer an unadulterated flavour.
I believe you have to distil the oil, so it’s definitely going to be heated. You can be sure that the processing required to remove the sat fat is going to change the flavour and texture, while also somehow making it worse for you than either.
I think the point is those oils already exist and are cheaper than refining other oils.
[Insert doubt.]
We probably could, but I think it would be a lot of effort for a relatively small gain. If you're concerned about saturated fat intake, the most effective thing to do would be to cut back on meat and dairy products, since those are much more potent sources.
I'm no dietician, but I can't imagine cooking oil makes up a significant portion of saturated fat intake for most people, when you consider the popularity of dairy in all its forms in western cuisine.
no thanks, I prefer unrefined oils
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
69 points (94.8% liked)
No Stupid Questions
34916 readers
1566 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS