The Evils of Trans Fats

Along with this story is a story I saw today that apparently there are people looking at sueing Kentucky Fried Chicken over the amount of trans fats in their cooking.

This latest monkey test shows that trans fats are bad and most people should know what the trans fats are bad, I really believe that people should make a statemnt with money, do not buy products that have trans fats and the market will change very very quickly I bet faster than a lawsuit would change the fast food landscape.

Trans fats are so prevalent, because people were made to believe saturated fat (natural animal fat) is unhealthy.

Heck they still believe it. Show me conclusive proof I say!

So what we have now is an unatural fat (ironically from the beloved plant form) that is helping destroy the health of the Western World!

Thank you Authorities for taking such care with our food!

You've got that right. Trans fats just wrecks you up. Period.

Trans fats fattens up your liver.
Trans fats clogs up your arteries.
Trans fats clogs up your brains.
Trans fats wrecks your kidneys.
Trans fats gives you diabetes.
Trans fats interfers with your ability to use Omega 3s.
Trans fats wrecks up your heart.
Trans fats wrecks up your stomach.
Trans fats wrecks up your pancreas.
Trans fats wrecks up your hormonal system.
Trans fats wrecks up your wallet.
Trans fats wrecks up your life.

No I am not talking the naturally occuring Trans fats from animal meat, I am talking partionally hydronated oils. They should be banned. They should be treated like toxic waste and sent to the partionally hydronated waste dump.

What's worst? They are found in every food that I can even think of...even breads, soup, and some yogurt. Aaak. These f____en partionally hydronated crap.

Instead, they should be using palm oil, clean animal fat, olive oil, or coconut oil. They are so much healthier.

I'm very careful about what I eat, and where I eat. I think people who care about their health, take the trouble to educate themselves. However, even though I don't as a rule eat at KFC, McDonalds and the like, I do like the taste of the Kentucky Fried Chicken, and will on occasion allow myself one piece. I'm willing to ingest the transfat, and am wondering if changing the fat will change the taste.

"All things in moderation."

I'm suprised anything still has trans fats in it. Most processed foods (like the Girl Scout Cookies mentioned above) have had the trans fats taken out. I believe they've removed them because now they *have* to show how many there are on the label, and if people see that number as 0 they will go ahead and buy.

Is it any surprise that food manufacturer's are looking for ways to reduce operating costs? i.e. using longer shelf-life oil options. Why are we still sounding like TFA's are something new?

Ok, I know this is nit-picky, but I have to say it.
Trans fats are not EVIL. They are a food item (or maybe an ingredient? not sure). Food items don't have moral value in and of themselves. I think this kind of labelling is not helpful and actually can be harmful esp. to people who have eating disorders. Call trans fats unhealthy, call them unfortunate, call them icky for all I care...but they're not evil.

Lowcarb_dave: It's worth pointing out that in this study they did not compare trans fats and saturated fats, but trans fats and monounsaturated vegetable fats. Saturated fats may not be as unhealthy as trans fats, but we do know that monounsaturated fats are more beneficial than saturated.

The article mentioned that the meals fed to the two groups were of equal calories but nothing about the mass or the macronutrient breakdown by mass and calories in each meal. From what I understand about macronutriets (carbs, protein, fat) have mass and a certain amount of energry (4, 4, and 9 calories per gram respectivly, with alcohol providing 7). So if both monkey groups ate the same amounts of calories and both expend the same amount of calories just to live, then the only mechanism I can see that causes more weight in the trans-fat monkey group is simply the trans-fat meals they are eating was heavier by mass. Yes? Conservation of mass at work here? It seems, though, that when it comes to fat storage, trans-fats promote it in the abdominal region so both monkey groups should appear differently in the their fat distribution, anyway. *Unless* the trans-fat group has more abdominal fat because by fat calories they were eating more than the other group, even though the total calories were the same? Hmm...

Anyway, was curious what would happen if both meals were setup in such a way that they are both the same total mass while maintaining the trans-fat and normal fat calorie ratios (the rest being protein and carbs of course, maybe the occasional beer here and there, lol). Afterall, the same mass in trans-fats provies the same calories as saturated/unsaturated fats (9 calories per gram). Would we still see a gain in weight in the trans-fat monkey group? I'm thinking, no, but maybe I'm figuring the math wrong in my head. What I do think will be noticed is the bigger bellies on the trans-fat monkeys, yet same weight, assuming that is, indeed, what trans-fats do to us. Of course I'm sure the scientsts were thorough with all the things I'm wondering about, except the article doesn't mention much.

There is a difference on the body between 1400 calorie diet consisting of 10% carb, 10% protein, 80% fat and 80% carb, 10% protein, 10% fat, and even still from even 33% across the board.

Nic: The headline is outrageously sensational. I must have looked at too many tabloid papers the last time I was in the doctors waiting room.

PT: The level of overall fat calories was the same between each group. From the way I understand it - the only difference was that one group had some of the mono-unsaturated fats substituted with transfats.

The headline might be sensational - but so is this study. It is a sensation - but then - we are not monkeys.

Somebody tell that to the monkey chow guy.

Counting calories as a method to understand and control the weight of the body is not scientific.
It is just an idea, introduced at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century.
Calories are not something that is found in food. It is just a measurement of heat produced when food is burned in laboratories to dry powder ashes. In living organisms, this process (burning) never happens and it is pointless to apply the law of thermodynamics to explain the metabolic process in human or any other species.
Before the end of nineteenth century, people were assuming the fact that no one knows why someone is overweight. To be heavily overweigh or obese, it was considered as something what no one can do anything about it.
After introducing the counting of calories by the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century as a “scientific” way of understanding and controlling body weight, majority of the people wrongly assumed that they know why people get overweight and obese.
We can see that introducing calories as a method to understand and to control the underlining mechanism of building fat on the body was not a contribution towards the progress of science, but it was the beginning of a social acceptance of abusing overweight and obese people, and the beginnings of the weight loss industry.
This misconception is responsible for many myths, and one of them is that overweight people eat more than thin people.

The entire science of obesity and entire weight loss industry (diet and/or exercise, medications, WLS) is based on such a misconception with grave consequences for so many people.

A few years already I trying to explain underlining mechanism which determine weight and shape of the human body, with desperate intention to save many tausend of people from obesity surgery but is impossible to explain anything to people who think that metabolic waste is calories free.

Thanks, Jim. I wasn't trying to rip on you or anything. I just had to state my mind.

The bomb calorimeter method of finding out how much energy is in a food results in the same amount of heat energy released in the process of cellular respiration, that whole conversion of sugars and fats into ATP and what not that cells use. So the laws of thermodynamics still applies to biological organisms.

Its still a useful way to get a good estimation of what will happen if a person ingests more calories than they need. We *KNOW* that eating more calories than you expend will be stored as fat in most people. There's no misconception here. The problem is the fine little details like the differences between fats and sugars and their interaction with the body. That creates misconceptions and misunderstandings. Science is still discovering new things about nutrition. Yes, there may be medical conditions and environmental factors that affect fat gain/loss, but the facts are, calorie in and calorie out is a MAJOR contributor to fat loss and storage for many people.

Jim: Sounds like what they may have done after thinking about this for a while, kept the meal essentially the same, except substituted the fats. Still the weight gain is interesting. That tells me that maybe the trans-fats is interfereing with the monkey's body from properly utilizing the fat stores, or that trans-fats end up "skipping" the line" during the process of fat storage and so it accumalates differently than other fats? I dunno, trans-fats still need to be lookded at. But I agree, it sounds sensationalistic.

The concept of "skipping the line" is interesting. This study shows that there is simply not enough long term knowledge about the impact of partially hydrogenated fats.

I wonder whether our bodies are pre-disposed to metabolising and processing certain foods, but when we get foods that are chemically altered - the results are unpredictable.

vkirkman - I can't believe you said all things in moderation!

That's crazy! Trans fat in moderation? Who determines a moderate amount ?

Dave- No offense, but I think you're overreacting. All things in moderation is a good idea. Even fried foods. I don't think it's healthy to worry so much about food that you freak out at the prospect of ingesting one gram of trans fat.

Nic

Dieticians and scientists are in agreement: all foods in moderation and there are no bad foods EXCEPT those that are made with TRANSFATS. Partially hydrogenated oils are created *artificially* - they are made to be saturated so that processed foods retain a longer shelf life. They're also a lot cheaper that vegtable fats. It's all about food industry economics! *Partially* hydrogenated oils do not occur in nature. Period. Naturally occuring transfats do not have the same chemical composition as synthetic transfats.

We do not over-react when we mention the evils of transfats because the reality is that no amount is safe and they are found everywhere. Cereals, coffee creamers, Starbucks products, pastries, they are even found in so-called health foods.

The Harvard School of Public Health has called transfats "a metabolic poison" and state that there are "no safe levels of transfats". Do some research on your own and you'll find out just how many health agencies, nutritionists and scientists worldwide confirm what I've just mentioned. And this is all backed by concrete studies evidence. In some European countries they're working on enacting laws that will drastically limit the amounts of transfats that can be used in processed foods. Why would a country take such drastic measures? Because it's been established: transfats are dangerous.

http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/21/saturated_fat2.htm

Hydrogenation: This is the process that turns polyunsaturates, normally liquid at room temperature, into fats that are solid at room temperature-margarine and shortening. To produce them, manufacturers begin with the cheapest oils-soy, corn, cottonseed or canola, already rancid from the extraction process-and mix them with tiny metal particles-usually nickel oxide.

The oil with its nickel catalyst is then subjected to hydrogen gas in a high-pressure, high-temperature reactor. Next, soap-like emulsifiers and starch are squeezed into the mixture to give it a better consistency; the oil is yet again subjected to high temperatures when it is steam-cleaned.

This removes its unpleasant odor. Margarine's natural color, an unappetizing gray, is removed by bleach. Dyes and strong flavors must then be added to make it resemble butter. Finally, the mixture is compressed and packaged in blocks or tubs and sold as a health food.

Partially hydrogenated margarines and shortenings are even worse for you than the highly refined vegetable oils from which they are made because of chemical changes that occur during the hydrogenation process. Under high temperatures, the nickel catalyst causes the hydrogen atoms to change position on the fatty acid chain.

Before hydrogenation, pairs of hydrogen atoms occur together on the chain, causing the chain to bend slightly and creating a concentration of electrons at the site of the double bond. This is called the cis formation, the configuration most commonly found in nature. With hydrogenation, one hydrogen atom of the pair is moved to the other side so that the molecule straightens. This is called the trans formation, rarely found in nature.

Most of these man-made trans fats are toxins to the body, but unfortunately your digestive system does not recognize them as such. Instead of being eliminated, trans fats are incorporated into cell membranes as if they were cis fats-your cells actually become partially hydrogenated! Once in place, trans fatty acids with their misplaced hydrogen atoms wreak havoc in cell metabolism because chemical reactions can only take place when electrons in the cell membranes are in certain arrangements or patterns, which the hydrogenation process has disturbed.

In the 1940's, researchers found a strong correlation between cancer and the consumption of fat-the fats used were hydrogenated fats although the results were presented as though the culprit were saturated fats.54 In fact, until recently saturated fats were usually lumped together with trans fats in the various U.S. data bases that researchers use to correlate dietary trends with disease conditions.55 Thus, natural saturated fats were tarred with the black brush of unnatural hydrogenated vegetable oils.

Altered partially hydrogenated fats made from vegetable oils actually block utilization of essential fatty acids, causing many deleterious effects including sexual dysfunction, increased blood cholesterol and paralysis of the immune system.56

Consumption of hydrogenated fats is associated with a host of other serious diseases, not only cancer but also atherosclerosis, diabetes, obesity, immune system dysfunction, low-birth-weight babies, birth defects, decreased visual acuity, sterility, difficulty in lactation and problems with bones and tendons.57

Yet hydrogenated fats continue to be promoted as health foods. The popularity of partially hydrogenated margarine over butter represents a triumph of advertising duplicity over common sense. Your best defense is to avoid it like the plague.

Thanks Pepa. I read the ingredients, and even though it says 0g Trans fats on the label, if it still contains hydronated or partionally hydronated ANYTHING oil, avoid it! It's that bad. Fried foods, processed foods, doughnuts, and danishes? Get them out completely from your diet.

I'm sorry but you seem to have missed the point. No food is evil. Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. Trans fats are not evil. Foods do not have moral value in and of themselves. Saying "the evils of trans fats" is like saying "the saintliness of broccoli".
I'm not trying to say that we should all eat trans fat- it's obvious the stuff is unhealthy and not something people need to eat. I'm just saying that having the attitude that some foods are EVIL and we need to FREAK OUT at the prospect of possibly accidentally ingesting some "evil" food" is not quite healthy either. Honestly, it's borderline eating disorder behaviour, and it really bothers me. Obviously I'm the only one who feels this way, but I just need to say how much this really really bothers me.
Thank you. I'll shut up about it now.

Nic

Evil is synonymous with bad. Evil can be attributed to things that are not only bad, but very bad, wouldn't you agree? By your reaction it would seem as if you are more fixated on a single word and on the adjectives attributed to transfats than on anything else. Perhaps you have an unhealthy relationship with words? just kidding. :-)

I think that it would be an insult to our intelligence to assume that we would "freak out" if consuming "morally corupt" and "evil" food. We are a bit more sophisticated than that. If you notice people on this forum are usually more knowledgable about nutrition than the average person.

*Gets on soap box*

This whole thing about artifical = bad...

What quality are we attaching the "evilness" to? That these trans-fats are bad for health? Artifical? Bad and artificial? Or just simply bad for us whether artificial or natural?

Its like people just can't trust human engineering and innovations these days...If money is involved artificial creations are going to be bad for our health! (or bad for the environment or whatever) I guess that may actually be true in a lot of cases. But most of the time its just a matter of not knowing the consequences until problems are reported and investigated (like the whole tabacco fiasco). Of course there will be resistance to change. It costs money to do so...But that's why we also need studies and why the naysayers need to wait until research can conclusively prove that something is bad or not bad for us and SHOW US why its bad, not just its bad and thats it. Companies have an agenda just as much as anti-whatever groups.

Also when something isn't deemed "bad" we take it for granted and not think about where the product comes from and how its made.

Anyway, I wish people would stop concentrating on the fact that something artifical makes it bad or that something bad is also artificial, like they always go hand in hand. Like in this case of trans-fats are bad because they are artifical. Lots of things are artifical that have no health impact and in some cases actually more beneficial.

*Gets off soap box*

Yeah, I am fixated on a single word, actually.
Evil is a moral word. Trans fats are unhealthy, not evil. I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence at all, I DO think people here are smart. I'm just trying to express my opinion that saying "trans fats are evil" doesn't help anything at all. Seeing a food labelled as "evil" implies that the person eating it is guilty of something, which they're not, because FOOD DOES NOT HAVE MORAL VALUE.
I know I'm touchy, and hysterical, and over-reacting, and stupid. I'm touchy because I have an eating disorder and I'm trying hard as hell to recover and seeing foods labelled "evil" just makes me want to go throw up some more, because now not only do I think I'm fat, I think I'm a bad person because I may have eaten something "evil".

Also I just want to apologize for the "freaking out" comment. That wasn't really fair....everyone gets a little weird about some things, and this was my turn.
Sorrysorrysorry:) I really do like you guys:)

I agree that there is no such thing as a bad food. Moderation for me is the key to my weight loss (over 50 pounds). I also sought out good advice. There is a free website that motivated and encouraged me. I happen to love a good treat every now and then I treat myself, but it's in moderaration. No such thing as an evil or bad food.

I forgot to give you the website DrWilletteDavis.com

Nic & PT

Nic,

First I'm truly sorry to hear about your eating disorder and I hope you recover from it soon. I don't mean to pry, but I hope you are getting the proper professional help that is critical in overcoming such a disorder.

The word evil in this case was not meant to apply a (lack of) moral value to food. I do not think anyone here had that intention. The word "evil" was used as an expression more than anything. The ones that really lack a moral value, in my humble opinion, are the manufacturers of transfats because they know that they are creating a product that is very dangerous to the health.

PT
No one here is saying that transfats are bad ONLY because they are artifical. And I certainly do no have a problem with all things artificial. I am not a health nut, though I love health nuts :-) I am a sensible eater, I don't deprive myself of anything including treats. I often have ice-cream, chocolate, nachos, candy. Many of the food I eat have synthetic ingredients such as food dyes and flavorings. I do NOT think that artificial = bad. BUT the one thing I do avoid like the plague is transfat because the scientific evidence against them is OVERWHELMING. Transfats are not bad because they are synthetic - transfats are bad because the manufacturing process distorts their chemical composition and creates what amounts to a cumulative poison.

Lowcarb-dave and James mentioned the dangers of transfats above. Lately there's been a lot of research on them. Do we ever hear a nutritionist say that no amount of food containg artificial ingredients is safe? No. Usually nutritionist will say: You can have anything, just have it in moderation. But you do hear scienitists and nutritionist say that no amount of transfats is safe. Increasingly you hear: You can have anything in moderation, as long as they don't have transfats. The crucial thing is that their effect is cumulative. We grew up eating foods with transfat in them - imagine all those years of damage, especially as kids when consuming lots of junk food was the norm (or at least for me it was, hehe). Also transfat can cause damage upon ingestion: They produce an inflammatory reaction on major organs and blood vessels. I think that transfats are the new (or maybe not so new) cigarettes. How long did it take for people to find out the dangers of smoking? When the evidence became too clear to ignore.

I know no one meant anything malicious by it. I was just having a hard day and got upset. I'm trying to walk the line between disordered eating and paying attention to health (by doing things like not eating trans fats, etc), and it's a challenge. I get frustrated and I do not mean to take it out on anyone else!

"You can have anything in moderation, as long as they don't have transfats."

Why is trans-fats ultimately singled out in advice like this? Well, of course we ARE talking about trans-fats. What I'm saying is, yesterday it was sacchrine causes cancer. Today, trans-fats are a killer. Tomorrow, its sucralose, and next week its protein powder...It never ends. So it seems many things taken in moderation one day would be revised the next. Also WHICH trans-fats are we to avoid? Just the ones that go through the hyrdogenation process or ALL trans-fats (even the naturally occuring ones found in animals and milk that do not have to be labeled as trans-fats?) What if a new trans-fat molecule is created 5 years from now that doesn't have the same health impact? We'll still have the fear of trans-fats instilled in the hearts of the populace because trans-fats were said to be bad for us for 5 years prior.

I still think its sensationalist media mongering over issues we still do not fully understand. Yes, I understand that "OVERWHELMING" studies have shown the affects of the molecules on cells and it appears more than just a casual link to certain health problems. Yet many of these "OVERWHELMING" studies used flawed methodologies and in some cases, the conclusions were simply taken out of context by some organization or news source. Then there is also the confusion of whether or not natual trans-fats do the same thing as the artifical ones. Unless we read the study and are of a scientific mind, we will misinterpret the data and not understand the tests conducted. Most of us are at the mercy of summarized information from various sources. But to me, some of these sources could have an agenda for whatever. (Ohmigosh, conspiracies!) The whole point is there is argument and contradictions from both camps. Two things are for certain. We don't know enough of the biochemistry relating to trans-fats and cells, and the consumers are confused over the issue as a result.

I get the message though. Its healthy advice. It reminds me of "smoking could cause cancer." Scientists never claimed it WILL cause cancer but avoiding cigarettes is good advice anyway to help prevent it (its all about probability of risk). Just another factor we have control in our lives. Except, avoiding trans-fats is a bit harder than cigarettes, given how common it is in all kinds of foods we eat these days. With advice like this, though, trans-fats could be a thing of the past. Or people will eventually forget about it when something ELSE comes along that sweeps the media and our attention as "evil food".

I'm a firm believer that if we get our EFA's, minerals, vitamins, antioxidants, ect, like we're suppose to from a nice balanced diet (we're ominvores, afterall), and excercising regularly, the effects of the trans-fats should be nullified anyway.

You know, we've had hyrogenated oils for almost 100 years now, and its NOW come to our attention that its bad for us? Donuts cooked in vegetable lard and margarine as a spread...haven't they been around like forever? Where was the concern for heart disease and diabetes then caused by trans-fats? The excuse or claim is we didn't know until now. Maybe, or again, maybe its just hype. Sometimes I feel we're better off not knowing whats killing us. We'd be happier and the lawyers would make less money from these types of lawsuits...

Re: Luke's comments

"After introducing the counting of calories by the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century as a “scientific” way of understanding and controlling body weight, majority of the people wrongly assumed that they know why people get overweight and obese.
We can see that introducing calories as a method to understand and to control the underlining mechanism of building fat on the body was not a contribution towards the progress of science, but it was the beginning of a social acceptance of abusing overweight and obese people, and the beginnings of the weight loss industry.
This misconception is responsible for many myths, and one of them is that overweight people eat more than thin people."

Nothing personal, Luke, but this is absolute rubbish.

When food is scarce, people are thin. The body goes from being thin to being dangerously thin in the case of starvation, such as in some third world countries experiencing famine and in the case of the anorexic.

In American society, food is rediculously abundant, every portion size is bigger even than in Canada or Europe where food is equally available. In Canada, a supersize Coke at McDonalds is 16 ounces. In the US it is 32. In Canada, a supersize fries at McDonalds is about 100 grams. In the US it is a half pound, roughly 230 grams. McDonalds is merely following trends. As well, it is in this environment that the United States is the fattest nation in the world.

While I agree with you that the method used to determine the number of calories in foods is less than exact, it is better than no method at all.

Where I most strongly disagree with you is that you are somehow assuming that since 1900 when calorie counting became possible as the methodology was created, this is somehow used to abuse those who are overweight, to place them in their own tortuous confine of low self esteem.

What you must understand, is that if you are merely eating the majority of the portions you are served, in American style portion sizes, you will eventually get obese. Someone who is obese suffers from low energy, if they have access to a mirror they KNOW they are not very physically attractive, health problems and other socially uncomfortable situations due to their weight. It is fully understandable that anyone in this unfortunate postion would suffer from low esteem and often will turn to food for comfort.

Weight loss is a tremendous challenge, for many even harder than quitting an addictive drug like nicotene. The big challenge is that we need food to live, and food in itself isn't harmful. It takes much longer and it can sometimes be very frustrating.

However calorie counting really works. I started counting calories, and with minimal additional excercise I lowered my BMI from 36 to 25 in several months. I was 52 lbs overweight, mostly abdominal weight. I've lost 36 lbs in this time and I still have abdominal fat.

To say that someone is "born a fat person" is a worse abuse to those who are overweight than to even ridicule them in public (not that I would condone such a thing, that would be very mean); at least ridiculing them wouldn't make them feel as if they had no hope whatsoever.

Re: Kris comments

“To say that someone is "born a fat person" is a worse abuse to those who are overweight than to even ridicule them in public (not that I would condone such a thing, that would be very mean);”

I strongly agree with you that no one is born as a fat person.

You also wrote …”at least ridiculing them wouldn't make them feel as if they had no hope whatsoever”

Ridiculing overweight and obese people (children and adults) for their own good….? Do you think this is nothing more than exorcism? For me this is practicing cruel exorcism by ridiculing anyone because of their body weight.

Does that prove that humans understanding cause of obesity is based on pseudoscience (irrational belief)? A belief which is born from own fear from overweight and obesity.
Introducing calories as a method to understand weight gain/weight loss has the consequence that people from scientist to simple people think that metabolic waste is calorie free.
Can we expect any progress in human understanding about real cause of obesity as long as we think that metabolic waste is calorie free?
Or we do not need science because we have comfortable belief.
This kind of science is greatly responsible for an increase in obesity, especially in the last twenty-five years.

You also wrote …. “While I agree with you that the method used to determine the number of calories in foods is less than exact, it is better than no method at all.”

I think you misunderstood me.
It is nothing wrong with the method used to determine the number of calories in food.
Counting calories is wrong method to determine how much calories is involved in the work of metabolism.
For example; an intake of 3500 kcl does not mean that there is 3500 kcl involved. Body will take only a number of calories what it needs and the rest will be extracted as metabolic waste.
Difference between energy intakes and energy extracted as metabolic waste is the energy involved in the work of metabolism.

Before the introduction of counting calories people know that starvation causes weight loss and that eating plenty of food lead to weight gain. But they know that some people eat little and they gain weight and some people can eat plenty of food and not to gain any extra weight. Before introducing calories as a method to understanding weight gain/weight loss, people simply were not sure what cause weight gain/weight loss.

After introducing calories any thought about the cause of obesity is stopped by explanation (pseudoscience) that is due because of imbalance of calories intake and calories used.

Any thought about fat distribution on the human body is stopped by explanation (pseudoscience) that is due because of genetically factor.

I am glad that you succeeded in your attempt to achieve weight loos. But for majority of people the dogma “eat less and exercise more” simply does not work.
Between the restriction of calories and weight loss is one factor which determines whether the restriction of food causes weight loss or not.
Between unrestricted intake of calories and weight gain is one factor which determines whether the body uses excessive number of calories to build body weight or will simply extracts as metabolic waste.

I discovered the underlining mechanism which determines the weight and shape of the human body and I am sure, when people understand underlining mechanism which determine weight and shape of the human body, than everyone will be able to manage weight and shape of their own body.

Thank you for any future comment and/or question

Re: PT comments

“So the laws of thermodynamics still applies to biological organisms.”

In practical term it is possible to apply the law of thermodynamics only in close system where no energy coming in and no energy going out. That is case with any mechanical engine. In case of human body, some energy going out, like energy in metabolic waste. If we try to understand what is happen with energy in human body we need to observe human body as an open system.
Humans’ body is open system. Applying law of thermodynamics on humans does explain nothing concerning weight gain/weight loss.

For example in some cases, we can decrease intake of calories and increase physical activity and at the same time, we can start to gain weight at a higher rate than before, because in this case, body extracts less calories as metabolic waste.

Why counting calories is pointless I will try to explain on this example;
To get amount of calories involved, it is necessary to count available calories in food minus calories extracted as metabolic waste.
An if we count calories available in the food and versus calories what body use for basal metabolic work, calories used for thermo genesis, calories spend thro physical activity, calories spend for building muscle or fat tissues or both of them and calories what body do not use but simply extract out in metabolic waste. And after we finish counting all that calories we will only prove the law of thermodynamics but we will not find answer why metabolism builds fat tissues.
I suggest instead of counting calories in metabolic waste, let’s flush it out and try to understand the real reason why body need to build fat tissues.

Why the body in some cases uses some amount of excess calories intake to build body weight, and why in other cases all excess amounts of calories intake are extracted with metabolic waste is explained in my book “Gravity, Buoyancy, Strength and Balance”.
In this book I explain the scientific way to prevent and/or reverse building fat on the body.

Thank you for any future comment and/or question.

Luke, your point of view is very interesting. You are the the only person I know that thinks calories is a useless metric to guage fatloss. I don't like to use the term weight gain, becuase its fat that we are concerned with losing, not the actual weight, in most cases. I'm also aware that calories alone isn't the only factor for fatloss.

Your quote: "For example in some cases, we can decrease intake of calories and increase physical activity and at the same time, we can start to gain weight at a higher rate than before, because in this case, body extracts less calories as metabolic waste."

I don't follow. What does the calories from metablic waste have to do with this? I think I'm seeing what you are saying. You are saying metabolism isn't 100% efficient and the calories we take in are not ompletely used and lost as metabolic waste. If that is what you are saying, its true, I agree. Its also true that it varies from person to person and from species to species. But I think you are also trying to say is that unused metabolic waste calorie is stored in the body, hence the weight gain through unextacted calories from metabolic waste. For that I disagree, unless you can point me to a study that points to this.

Also in your example, we gain weight because we are also building muscles and strengthening vital organs like the heart. As I understand it, that weight gain comes from the ingested food mass (nutrients) - waste mass over a period of time. What we do not need, the excess from the metabolic processes, and the waste products that result (metabolic waste), must be expelled.

Its a known fact that a calorie deficit will reduce your fat as long as you are actively promoting the use of fat stores as an energy supply. Our bodies will ignore the fat as long as its supply of sugars and proteins are present. That is why aeroebic excercise for periods greater than 10 minutes or so are so important, to give our bodies time to get rid of the glycogen stores before switching to the less efficient conversion of fat to ATP.

Again, very intersting view point, but I'm also not interested in buying your book just so I could understand a radically different take on the issue of fatloss when fatloss through excercise and proper diet (calroies in versus calories out) have been doing the trick for many people for many years.

If the tried and true method of hardwork and time isn't working for some obese people, then they need to really evaluate what is going on with their bodies. There may be an enviornemental or emotional factor impeding progress or they are just unfortunate to have genetics that promotes easy fat gain. Except for the rare medical condition, no one should be able to NOT lose fat by couting calories, getting the right nutrient ratios of carbs, protein, fats, and exercising.

From my experience the important factors that influence our fat gain/loss is:

1) Genetics
2) Total calories ingested
3) Excercise
4) Ratio of carbs, proteins, fats we eat
5) Age

PT

One final comment on this subject. The effects of trans fats have indeed been studied for many years. And we are indeed at the point where we know exactly how these fats act in our bodies and the dangers that they pose. There are books on this subject, they've been out there for years. Search the science, biochemistry and nutrition journals and you'll find that overwhelming information that I talk about. By the way, synthetic sweeteners have not been "overwhelmingly" delcared unsafe UNLIKE trans fats. When was the last time you heard of a widely used ingredient banned in certain countries? Trans fats have been restricted in some European countries for a reason.

I advise you to take a look at these links below. One relates to a molecular study and one is an interview with Dr. Mary Enig, a leading researcher and author of Know Your Fats a book that details a lot of information on trans fat.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128224527.htm

http://www.healthy.net/scr/interview.asp?ID=163

Pepa,

Your links were interesting. I further looked into some of the things that Mary Enig and others that support her findings have said. All I know is I'm very confused about who is right and who is wrong.

All I keep seeing is bickering among of various nurtitionists and scientists and the media doesn't help any when they take things out of context or are lied and pass it on to readers and viewers.

"Our studies are right, your's our wrong." "No your test trials were flawed and our studies are correct." "You both are wrong and our studies show the truth." Rinse, lather, repeat...

Plus we have to take note of the economics of the food industry and their desire to make money. They will, of course, suppress any data that goes counter to what they claim. Then we have government regulators who are both hiding and exposing various aspects of food and health issues.

What is the consumer to do in light all the conflicting opinions and studies? There is so much noise, that whoever is speaking the truth out there, cannot be heard by the masses. Maybe that will change, but it sure is gonna take a long time.

Anyway, the consensus is showing that trans-fats are bad even though it seems not everyone can agree why and to what degree...

I have a question for anyone who can explain that a bag of chips can say 0g trans fat, but still have partionally hydrogenated vegetable oil in the ingredients??? How is this possible, it's not just chips but a lot of things, anyone have an explanation for that one?

I believe that as long as a single serving of the item has less than .5g of transfat, it can be labeled as having 0g. I happen to be one of those people that can't stop eating until the package is empty, so I find this kind of labeling deceptive at best, and will probably one day be defined as criminal.