Re: How could "trans fat" possibly be "bad?"
- From: "Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Feb 2006 15:34:19 -0800
Cubit wrote:
How could "trans fat" possibly be "bad?" By building cellwalls out a form
of fat that does not exist in nature, one may interfere with the complex
functions of the cell walls.
Finally, a reply that I can reply to.
Approximately 2% of the caveman diet consisted of trans-fat. They have
the same negatives as saturated fat, plus trans-fat will lower your HDL
levels.
They are no more a poison than rancid PUFSAs are.
They are hardly worth mentioning since you usually do not have the
opportunity to avoid them by reading food labels. Hence, your only
strategy is to minimize your consumption of junk food.
Avoid junk food and you have accomplished a number of objectives.
Hence, there is little or no reason to talk about trans-fats.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
mind-body connection. Weighing in at 17 web pages, The Nutrition of a
Healthy Diet ( http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ ) is now with
more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
.
- References:
- How could "trans fat" possibly be "bad?"
- From: montygram
- Re: How could "trans fat" possibly be "bad?"
- From: Cubit
- How could "trans fat" possibly be "bad?"
- Prev by Date: Columbia University Online Survey on Eating Behaviors
- Next by Date: Re: Dietary treatments for obesity are ineffective
- Previous by thread: Re: How could "trans fat" possibly be "bad?"
- Next by thread: Re: How could "trans fat" possibly be "bad?"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|