>good to eat more than 3 times a day
>meat is unhealthy
>eggs are bad for you
please add more
>searing meat seals in the juices
>microwaves make your food radioactive
>your blood is blue inside your body
>red meat stays undigested in your colon for years
>if you swallow a seed a tree grows inside you
>pork should always be cooked well-done
>tapping on the side of a shaken soda can stops it gushing out
>mussels that don't open when cooked shouldn't be eaten
>fries aren't vegetables
>msg gives you headaches
That was actually disproven a few months ago
There was a huge study and in a majority of samples the low carb beat low fat in both weight loss and lowering risk for cardiovascular disease
Okay, hang on, so which one actually is better?
Like, which is better for your metabolism (a healthy, fast, efficient one, like for weight loss/maintenance and shit?)
Eating multiple times throughout the day, or just having three significant meals?
Eating 5-7 smaller meals a day is beneficial to people trying to control their blood sugar, lose/maintain weight or build muscle. Three meals a day isn't bad if they are well portioned and balanced.
>Doesn't realize that the overwhelming majority of linguistic differences between American English and British English are literal meme language invented by the nobility a couple of centuries ago and imitated by the jelly masses.
American English is basically English before rich brits memed it up.
>tfw msg gives me heart palpitations
>decide I'll try it out just to be sure
>every single time I use the seasoning for chicken that contains MSG I get heart palpitations
>completely fine to eat the chicken without it
this is actually true though. American English dialect is older than British RP (and rhotic dropping more generally) which was artificially created in the 19th by prep school teachers
British is a literal meme dialect
There's nothing wrong with that sequence of posts. The thread topic is myths
>"Margarine is healthier than butter."
So in this case, the reverse would be "true", that butter is healthier than margarine.
Then we have the next post:
>implying that transfats are healthy
He is debating the assertion that butter is healthy, because butter contains transfats whereas (most) margarines (nowadays) do not.
Do you understand now?
>because butter contains transfats
Yes, many (if not most) animal products contain trace amounts of trans-fats.
>whereas (most) margarines (nowadays) do not.
>Not many margarines are hydrogenated
>do not contain trans fat.
They are partially hydrogenated vegetable oils by definition, thus have trans-fats. Goddamn, can you get any more retarded?
>Butter absolutely contains trans fat.
All hydrogenated fat contains trace amounts of trans fat. It's a chemical inevitability. Animal fat contains nowhere near as much as the old hydrogenated vegetable shortening that was killing people.
Trans-fat is a result of incomplete hydrogenation. Biological processes are much cleaner than the messy nickel catalyst processes used by the food industry.
No, they are water in fat emulsions by definition. Not that that's of any consequence, because fucking today, as in nowadays, in our current times, most margarines have no trans fat.
"In the US, partial hydrogenation has been common as a result of preference for domestically produced oils. However, since the mid-1990s, many countries around the world have started to move away from using partially hydrogenated oils. This led to the production of new margarine varieties that contain less or no trans fat."
That's "no" trans fats in the same way that your megabag of doritos has "zero grams per serving." Meanwhile butter has never contained trans fats in significant enough amounts to cause any health problems.
It's also utterly impossible in practice to have fats that don't contain traces of trans fat. Theoretically, even if you had pure saturated fats, even exposing those to heat will cause a certain amount of them to break down into trans fats. But it's still a tiny tiny amount, of the same significance as what occurs naturally in animal fat. Seriously, we're talking less than a hundredth of a gram here.
The FDA allows companies to label products that have .5 grams or less *per serving* of trans fats as 0 grams. Since it's impossible for their product to actually contain no trans fats, I can deduce that them saying that is the dodgy, FDA definition of the word. A huge tell is if they say there's "no" transfat (or something more weasely, like "without all those trans fats!" te qualifier all those could mean they reduced the quantity by a single atom) in their advertising, but the language on the product label itself says "Zero grams of transfat.* *per serving" They can't say there's no trans fat because the product ABSOLUTELY CONTAINS TRANS FAT.
Our rules seem to be a little stricter (.2 grams, which ironically is exactly what a popular butter brand here contains) but I see your point. I guess that's the end of this particular internet feud.