I found this interesting and thought I would share


A Bad Replacement for Trans-Fats?
BLI Experts | October 30, 2009

Something new is being placed into many of the packaged food products consumed in the United States. Most people have never heard of interesterified fats and are unaware of their function within the processed food industry. Interesterified fats are used as substitutes for partially hydrogenated oils in order to decrease or eliminate trans- fats while preserving the texture, flavors and taste in processed food products. Typically, the interesterified process uses enzymes to alter the molecular structure of vegetable oil to make it taste and feel like fat. By separating molecules (like triglycerides) with the enzyme catalyst, factories and manufacturers of food products can reconfigure the fatty acid molecules in various combinations, depending upon the hardness of the fat needed. These can include heavy fats for deep frying, semi-solid fats used to make margarine or other liquid oils for bottling purposes. Manufacturers like using interesterified fats because they produce products that can have an indefinite shelf life and are fairly cheap to turn out. Some examples of products that probably contain interesterified fats are as follows:

margarine and shortening
doughnuts
French fries
Fried chicken, fish
cookies
pastries
cakes
crackers
processed foods such as cereal and waffles
salad dressings
mayonnaise

Unlike trans-fats, which are required to be listed on labels food labels, interesterified fats are usually listed as "fully hydrogenated" or even as "interesterified fats”, which confuses many consumers, who may not have even heard of interesterified fats before. And, some researchers believe that this new kind of fat replacement may be just as bad as the trans-fats the food industry is trying to replace.

Why should we be cautious about the use of interesterfied fats in our diet? First of all, we really do not have a clear idea about the health consequences of long term use of these fat substitutes. It took us about 30 years to acknowledge that trans-fats were not a healthy alternative for food processing in the U.S. Some studies show that interesterfied fats can raise both LDL/HDL ratio as well as fasting blood glucose and can contribute to coronary heart disease in men and women. Other scientists claim that the residue of toxic metals used in the interesterfication process (usually nickel and aluminum) accumulate in the body and can lead to neurological conditions as well as a wide variety of other health problems. We just don’t have the full story yet.

We do know that if the U.S. (and the rest of the world for that matter) insist upon eating a diet of mostly processed, long shelf life, fatty tasting foods, manufacturers have to use either saturated fats (bad), trans-fats (bad) interesterified fats (who knows) or some other man made process to produce these products.

Better Life Unlimited and Better Life Institute, Inc., strongly suggest that you adopt or maintain a dietary plan that increases the consumption of fresh foods as much as possible and limit the eating of processed foods.

Copyright © 2009 Better Life Unlimited™

Originally Posted by 24974

Tink, I understand how you feel.
But YOU ARE WORTHY!!!!!

Thanx, Sheryl! And I want to add my thanx to those of the others for your leadership of the Heartbreakin' Rockstars.

I am at a bit of a quandary today. I friend sent me a website that calculates how many calories you should be eating depending on your height, weight, exercise, etc. and it said that I should eat 2632 for extreme weight loss and they recommend I eat 3229 for "normal" weight loss. Right now I eat around 1200-1300 every other day and 1400-1800 (usually 1600) on the off days and then once a week I have a free day. I started doing this two weeks ago and have had my best results to date. I am now worrying that I am going to low. I don't understand though because when I was eating 2600 calories (recommended) I wasn't losing at all. I checked out other websites and they put my calories around the same as this place.

What do you all think? I really don't want to up my calories but don't want to harm myself either.

Originally Posted by 18086

I am at a bit of a quandary today. I friend sent me a website that calculates how many calories you should be eating depending on your height, weight, exercise, etc. and it said that I should eat 2632 for extreme weight loss and they recommend I eat 3229 for "normal" weight loss. Right now I eat around 1200-1300 every other day and 1400-1800 (usually 1600) on the off days and then once a week I have a free day. I started doing this two weeks ago and have had my best results to date. I am now worrying that I am going to low. I don't understand though because when I was eating 2600 calories (recommended) I wasn't losing at all. I checked out other websites and they put my calories around the same as this place.

What do you all think? I really don't want to up my calories but don't want to harm myself either.

I think 1200 - 1300 cals is too low for your weight. You don't want your body to feel like it is starving. I think I would compromise. If you don't lose at the 2600 then don't do it. All those sites are in general terms. I would use the 1500-1600 for your low cal days and up it to 1800 - 2000 for your high cal days and see how that works. This is the challenge with weight loss, nothing is set in stone.
Since I have started taking my day off I have changed things. Those sites say I should eat between 1850 -2100 calories a day. BUT what I have been doing is eating 1200 - 1300 6 days a week and then on my day off I would guess I eat about 3000 -3500, not because I eat more food but it is the types of food, like pasta, tamalie, etc. So, at the end of the week I am pretty balanced for the right amount of calories. BUT I have to tell you that the one "Day off" does wonders for my mental stability!
You will just have to play with it Tobey, but each time you change it, I would give it 2 -4 weeks before changing it again so you know if it is really working.

Originally Posted by 15520

Thanx, Sheryl! And I want to add my thanx to those of the others for your leadership of the Heartbreakin' Rockstars.

Like I said to Sandy, I really feel this is a TEAM effort.
EVERYONE contributes something to the team.
We have a Fabulous team

Originally Posted by 18086

I am at a bit of a quandary today. I friend sent me a website that calculates how many calories you should be eating depending on your height, weight, exercise, etc. and it said that I should eat 2632 for extreme weight loss and they recommend I eat 3229 for "normal" weight loss. Right now I eat around 1200-1300 every other day and 1400-1800 (usually 1600) on the off days and then once a week I have a free day. I started doing this two weeks ago and have had my best results to date. I am now worrying that I am going to low. I don't understand though because when I was eating 2600 calories (recommended) I wasn't losing at all. I checked out other websites and they put my calories around the same as this place.

What do you all think? I really don't want to up my calories but don't want to harm myself either.

i weighed in @ 256 and my nutritionist put me on a 1500 calorie eating plan. Maybe u shd talk to one. My dr. has one in his office, maybe ur dr. can recommend one. you don't hav to see him 4ever, just to get urself on the right track. or you could ask your dr. they do have good information, even if they distribute it with a bad attitude toward we overweight patients.

how can i get in on this??

Originally Posted by 37400

how can i get in on this??

We do have two opening so you can get started with us right away. I will sent you some information to you Buddy slim mail account.

OK TEAM
We have a new Member
WELCOME Rebecca

I'm in!