America Stopped Cooking with Tallow for a Reason(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
America Stopped Cooking with Tallow for a Reason
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/12/beef-tallow-kennedy-cooking-fat-seed-oil/680848/
17 comments
The upcoming American kakistocracy is really difficult to process. It feels like they have brought in a demolition crew to tear down everything America has built based on knowledge and evidence, in favor of policy lead by ideology, cynicism, and contrarianism.
I generally try to steer clear of partisan politics on HN, but this doesn't feel like partisan politics anymore. This is 2+2=5 stuff.
I generally try to steer clear of partisan politics on HN, but this doesn't feel like partisan politics anymore. This is 2+2=5 stuff.
The problem is that it's replacing (or attempting to, at least) an era of policy already led by ideology and cynicism, and all it's really adding is the contrarianism. Too many papers published in peer reviewed journals have turned out to be utter bilge, accepted only because they fit the preconceptions of the reviewers.
This would be fine if we hadn't elevated the epistemological standing of "published in a peer reviewed journal" so far that it's treated as nearly the same as "true" instead of a more accurate "something that somebody claims." It would also be fine if we never based public policy on unreplicated or cherry picked research, and always considered the possibility that even the consensus view might be wrong. (Look how many "consensus views" of the 1700-1800s are now seen as bunk.)
I'm all for evidence based policy, but for that to work we need a robust mechanism for evidence that contradicts the prevailing narrative to be heard, evaluated, and fairly assessed.
This would be fine if we hadn't elevated the epistemological standing of "published in a peer reviewed journal" so far that it's treated as nearly the same as "true" instead of a more accurate "something that somebody claims." It would also be fine if we never based public policy on unreplicated or cherry picked research, and always considered the possibility that even the consensus view might be wrong. (Look how many "consensus views" of the 1700-1800s are now seen as bunk.)
I'm all for evidence based policy, but for that to work we need a robust mechanism for evidence that contradicts the prevailing narrative to be heard, evaluated, and fairly assessed.
> Look how many "consensus views" of the 1700-1800s are now seen as bunk.
Even more recently than that. I am not sure whether aether theory (of electromagnetic waves) made it into 1900s but it was a consensus view late into the 1800s, the idea that some races were intrinsically inferior was a consensus view well into the 1900s, and the idea that homosexuality was a a treatable disease even more recently.
> It would also be fine if we never based public policy on unreplicated or cherry picked research
I think that the general public and politicians do not understand this. I have read claims that the British government was confused by getting conflicting scientific advice during the pandemic. It would come as no surprise to anyone who understood the implications of people using complex models of something novel.
Even more recently than that. I am not sure whether aether theory (of electromagnetic waves) made it into 1900s but it was a consensus view late into the 1800s, the idea that some races were intrinsically inferior was a consensus view well into the 1900s, and the idea that homosexuality was a a treatable disease even more recently.
> It would also be fine if we never based public policy on unreplicated or cherry picked research
I think that the general public and politicians do not understand this. I have read claims that the British government was confused by getting conflicting scientific advice during the pandemic. It would come as no surprise to anyone who understood the implications of people using complex models of something novel.
I may be misremembering because I was so young back then but wasn't making French fries suitable to vegetarians and hindus a big factor?
I could swear there was a lawsuit or something related to fries being cooked with cow when people thought they were not
I could swear there was a lawsuit or something related to fries being cooked with cow when people thought they were not
"The McDonald's Corporation plans to issue an apology and pay $10 million to vegetarian and religious groups for using beef flavoring in its French fries. The action is part of a proposed settlement of lawsuits charging that the company misled consumers."
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/us/mcdonald-s-to-settle-s...
Goose fat (not duck) is actually comparatively healthy and great for fried potatoes.
To be fair: restaurant-style deep frying involves keeping oil hot for long periods of time, and more unsaturated fats are less stable. All these cheap seed oils are quite high in polyunsaturated fatty acids, they often (AFAICT) have preservatives added to try to stabilize them, and all the papers suggest that frying oil that’s been used for a few hours contains lots of stuff that is not present in fresh oil. If you want good performance out of an unmodified oil from a plant, you end up with peanut oil (a bit more expensive) or something like avocado or coconut oil (very expensive). Seriously: go shop at a restaurant supply site for frying oils, and you’ll discover a lot of options like “soybean oil based”. Or you can use animal fats.
And competently-done deep frying doesn’t result in much absorption of the oil into the food. But, as the oil polymerizes, it gets stickier and more ends up in the food.
(Yes, those apparently healthy oils, high in polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids, are even unstable at room temperature. Old flaxseed oil is sticky and utterly disgusting. Old canola oil is not quite as nasty smelling but still rather sticky.)
And competently-done deep frying doesn’t result in much absorption of the oil into the food. But, as the oil polymerizes, it gets stickier and more ends up in the food.
(Yes, those apparently healthy oils, high in polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids, are even unstable at room temperature. Old flaxseed oil is sticky and utterly disgusting. Old canola oil is not quite as nasty smelling but still rather sticky.)
Personally I will start drizzling soybean oil back onto my French Fries, while I take my quarterly COVID vaccine despite having gotten deathly ill with COVID 5 times, and adding fluoride BACK into my water. Take that, Republicans!
Garbage hit piece.
>But in recent years, a fringe theory has gained prominence for arguing that seed oils are toxic
Sources please. I would say this certainly not "fringe" theory.
>But in recent years, a fringe theory has gained prominence for arguing that seed oils are toxic
Sources please. I would say this certainly not "fringe" theory.
But that what it appears to be, see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efTBLsv4yYs&t=444s
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/5-studies-on-saturated-...
here is a good breakdown of the recent data around saturated fat and heart disease.
tl;dr - it is a risk factor, but is not the end-all, be-all risk factor that some of us grew up hearing over and over it that it was.
here is a good breakdown of the recent data around saturated fat and heart disease.
tl;dr - it is a risk factor, but is not the end-all, be-all risk factor that some of us grew up hearing over and over it that it was.
Just to be clear, RFK Jr. is claiming that saturated fats are healthier than unsaturated fats, without any evidence of this. In fact, he goes as far as to call unsaturated fats "poisons".
While it would be advisable to adjust our views on different fats based on new evidence, the changes being proposed have absolutely nothing to do with anything resembling evidence.
While it would be advisable to adjust our views on different fats based on new evidence, the changes being proposed have absolutely nothing to do with anything resembling evidence.
and fats from dairy may have different effects from fats from meat, etc.
The addition to seeds oils in our food supply is highly correlated to poor health outcomes. Also countries that used a lot of saturated fat like France also saw less CVD ('the french paradox') than the US who switched though this has started to wane as they adopt more and more western foods. Of course correlation isn't causation but I think suspicion here is warranted.
There are also a lot nuances like if we're talking about EVOO unheated in a salad vs like canola oil repeatedly heated used in frying. Animal fat is more 'stable' than vegetable oil which forms harmful compounds when repeatedly heated to high temperatures so you can say it may be better than vegetable oil for that particular use-case without saying it is categorically better for all use-cases.
There are also a lot nuances like if we're talking about EVOO unheated in a salad vs like canola oil repeatedly heated used in frying. Animal fat is more 'stable' than vegetable oil which forms harmful compounds when repeatedly heated to high temperatures so you can say it may be better than vegetable oil for that particular use-case without saying it is categorically better for all use-cases.
Wow. From front page to nowhere to be found. I gave up around #800 and stopped looking for the article.
Did the Monsanto filter get applied? This article was of course an argument on the side of seed oil, but perhaps we don’t even want a conversation about this, do we?
Did the Monsanto filter get applied? This article was of course an argument on the side of seed oil, but perhaps we don’t even want a conversation about this, do we?
But claiming the opposite is quite counterfactual, and warrants scrutiny.
A more interesting point about oil is their burning point. It is better to use animal based oil that won't burn than a vegetable oil that will. Another thing to know is that you can mix a tasty oil with low burning point (butter, unrefined sesame) with one with a higher burning point (any Extra refined will do) and will be able to heat your pane a bit more.