300014 Tue Mar 22 06:42:44 -0800 2005 22 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 1665166 I've noticed recently that a lot of recipes use oil instead of butter to be more healthy, often in lower fat recipes. The thing is, I often can't see a reduction in the quantity of fat, just in the type. Aside from cholestrol, healthy-heart stuff, what gives? They're both fat, right? Is using a tablespoon of oil less fatty than a tablespoon of butter? Or does the fact that oil measurements are often given as a volume (1/4 cup, 1 TBS, etc.) and butter as a weight (1/2 stick, 20g, etc.)ultimately affect the calories you're putting into your body? I have no problems whatsoever with cholestrol, so why don't I just use butter in recipes (such as cakes)that traditionally call for it, rather that putting in canola oil and losing what butter does for the texture and taste? Can I just substitute directly, or would I have to allow for the difference in the weight/volume issue? Tue Mar 22 06:42:44 -0800 2005 0 fusilli 1 1665167 In fact, oil has MORE fat and calories than butter. Butter is typically 70% fat, 30% water and milk solids, protein, etc. Oil is 100% oil. -=$>Dave<$=- Tue Mar 22 07:43:08 -0800 2005 1665166 0 JugglerDave 2 1665168 Correct. If you don't need to worry about cholesterol, and the nature of the recipe does not require the textural properties of oil versus butter, then using the same unit value of butter is arguably healthier in the sense that, from a dietary perspective, calories is calories in the end. Tue Mar 22 08:40:27 -0800 2005 1665167 0 Karl S. 3 1665169 And, btw, this is even more true of cream versus oil. That's why many classic vinaigrettes are higher in calories per unit of volume than "creamy" dressings. Tue Mar 22 08:41:54 -0800 2005 1665168 0 Karl S. 4 1668078 Oil is better when used at room temperature. At cooking temperature any oil breaks down into compounds that are no longer oil but toxins. Note, oil starts oxidizing as soon it is pressed out of the plant part (not good). Clarified butter on the other hand maintains it's original form at cooking temperatures. But since it is high in sat fat one should use it in moderation. Sat May 21 02:03:56 -0700 2005 1665169 0 soch 3 1665171 I'll buy that butter may have less calorie per gram than some oils, and so using butter could be better for people who are trying to lose weight. And I suppose butter probably has more calcium in it. And butter certainly tastes better in many settings. But I think it's very hard to argue that butter is more healthful in the overall sense, compared to, say, canola oil. Fats and oils are both triglycerides. The different terms refer mainly their different melting points. Oils tend to be liquids at room temperature, and fats tend to be more solid. Some substances are kind of in between. I once had a jar of coconut oil that looked like lard on a cold day, but looked like oil on a warm day. The saturated fats that make "fat" more solid at room temperature also tend to make them less healthful, as a general rule. Link: http://www.chowhound.com/boards/notfood/messages/53678.html Tue Mar 22 09:08:45 -0800 2005 1665168 0 Caseophile 3 1665174 But this assumes that calories are the only measure of healthfulness. "Calories is calories" is true for weight loss, but not for health; a cup of blueberries is healthier than a tablespoon of butter, even though they have the same number of calories. Sure, if your main concern is with calories, butter beats an equal volume of oil. (Anyone eating enough of either that the difference in calories is significant probably isn't that concerned about weight.) But if you don't have a weight problem, the monounsaturated fats in oil are probably better than the saturated fats in butter. Tue Mar 22 09:48:52 -0800 2005 1665168 0 Grace 4 1665259 And again, there is contradictory evidence on this point. When you say that a cup of blueberries is healthier than a tablespooon of butter, that's not necessarily true. Butter is one of the only sources of natural selenium in our diets, a nutrient we all need. The quality of the blueberries (are they GMO? are they canned? are they tame little fructose globules or are they nutrient-dense wild blueberries?) would also dictate if that statement is true. There are also studies praising the effects of lard on the body, showing significant health benefits just from consuming that fat. This is scary ground, actually. I think nutritionists have to admit that we really don't know what is healthy for our body and what is not. The latest what I would call "alternative" science is that refined oils, sugars, and flours are what raises overall bad cholesterol and contributes to heart disease, etc, not natural saturated fats at all! This is supported by the dramatic blood cholesterol drops in people doing the Atkins and similar plans (I don't endorse these plans either, but I do personally know people who have had amazing cholesterol turnarounds by consuming steak and butter and no potatoes or bread, but again I digress). Nobody, not the federal governement, not nutritionists, not doctos can categorically say that any particular kind of fat is "good" or "bad". It appears from the latest evidence that the more whole and natural and least "denatured" or refined a product is, the less harmful it may be to the majority of the population. New studies are going on right now, however, showing that different ethnic groups can have VASTLY different calorie needs and mineral/vitamin/fat requirements. Inuit peoples who consume almost nothing but protein and fats have practically no rates of heart disease. The same diet for a Caucasian living in San Francisco may cause kidney, liver, and heart problems. Norwegian studies have shown that ethnically Norwegian people can process the cholesterol in dairy more efficiently better than ethnically Italian people (not just the lactose intolerance factor, but the actual use of the fat in the dairy product). Rural Chinese may live on largely vegetarian soy-based diets which keep them very healthy to an advanced age, but would cause bone loss in African American women over 45. There IS a difference in what people need, based not only on ethnicity, but also on age, sex, activity level, and family history. Food choices are actually more complicated, and, in my opinion, simpler than most people think. I definitely agree that natural food choices are, in almost every case, a better choice than processed. This includes fats and oils, carbs of every kind, meats and fish, dairy (raw milk is my latest favorite), and fruits and vegetables. This is a no-brainer. The rest, involving lipid profiles and insulin resistance is pretty complicated for the average eater. If one is healthy and hasn't been directed by a doctor to eat such and such, then the variety-of-natural-foods-in-moderation is really the only sensible plan. It's also the tastiest. I would recommend Sally Fallon's book "Nourishing Traditions" as a big big eye opener. Longtime readers of this board know that I've talked about it before. Even if you don't believe everything that she writes (it's extremely well-researched, by the way, and this book has grown in respect in the field in the last few years) you will not look at food the same way after reading it. Also, if you try some of her foods recommendations as an experient, you may be surprised at the results you feel, personally. Her plan may sound radical at first, but then when you read her menus you find how easy it is to eat "normally" within her parameters. I don't say that I eat as she recommends all the time, but I have tried to channel my food choices much more toward the natural, the raw, and the un-"denatured". I jog, and, as many women runners in their thirties have experienced some mild problems with digestion. Overall women have more digestive problems than men, but it appears, from my annectdotal evidence, that women runners seem to have a lot of them! I tried eating more raw food (not just fruits and veggies, but also sushi and raw beef dishes occasionally, like carpaccio and very lightly cooked beef in Pho broth). Almost magically, in like two weeks, my digestive problems went away. I know how, by eating more enzyme-rich (and sometimes sat-fat rich) food to manage my admittedly mild digestion difficulties. Other people find that decreasing the Omega 6s and even increasing their sat fats, while limiting (not eliminating) refined carbs makes weight loss incredibly easy. There is more than one road to health, and the nutrition recommendations of us all is not something that can be reported on CNN. People believed that low-fat and no-fat diets were the most healthful, and now they have been almost certainly linked to depression and even SUICIDE in many people. I honestly can't think of a worse health risk than tendency to suicidal feelings, can you? There are many many many many many nutritional theories out there. I don't think any one scientist has the answers, mostly because I think nutrition is different for everyone and we have only scratched the surface of what I will call "nutrition personalization". Eat what feels right. Don't overindulge in processed food. Experiment a little with different plans, seeing if it helps or hurts certain indicators which may be of concern to you (blood sugar, cholesterol, weight, etc). Don't believe that one food is bad or one food is good, but rather see food as a continuum -- good for somethings, bad for others. Eat natural foods as un-messed-around-with as possible. Don't necessarily trust "doctors" (other than your own doctor, who knows your own case intimately) -- they have been incredibly wrong about many things in the past. I am climbing down from my soapbox. Wed Mar 23 14:12:52 -0800 2005 1665174 0 Mrs. Smith 5 1665412 Yea-a-a, Mrs. Smith.   Your philosophy is almost exactly the same as mine. I've also been trying to use "Nourishing Traditions" in my diet in addition to the other items you mentioned. It all seems to make a lot of sense.   And, definitely, my attitude towards food has changed drastically in the last few years since I've read the book. Mon Mar 28 20:40:07 -0800 2005 1665259 0 shoo-bee-doo 6 1668077 Oil is better when used at room temperature. At cooking temperatures any oil breaks down into compounds that are no longer oil but toxins. Note, oil starts oxidizing as soon it is pressed out of the plant part (not good). Clarified butter on the other hand maintains it's original form at cooking temperatures. But since it is high in sat fat one should use it in moderation. Sat May 21 01:59:49 -0700 2005 1665412 0 soch 1 1665170 Fat is fat but butter is higher in saturated fat than most vegetable oils (don't ask me which ones), which does have health implications. Also, vegetable oils do not contain cholesterol. To me, butter tastes much better than oil for some dishes and I wouldn't change just for that reason. As with everything else, moderation is the key, whatever you are eating. Tue Mar 22 09:04:28 -0800 2005 1665166 0 Ellen 2 1665198 Fifteen years ago, I was running the food operation of a large hospital serving an innercity area. As 90% of our patients were indigent, we were provided with a great deal of free food from the USDA. We received a ton of butter at a time. At the time, we decided not to use butter in favor of corn oil margarine for all low fat and cholestrol diets despite the budgetary concerns. Now, many of the medical professionals favor the use of butter over the margarine due to the trans-fatty acids and all those concerns. The best advice that I woudl recommend is moderation in the consumption of all fats, including those that are favored at any given moment. Tue Mar 22 14:20:45 -0800 2005 1665170 0 jlawrence01 2 1665199 Fifteen years ago, I was running the food operation of a large hospital serving an innercity area. As 90% of our patients were indigent, we were provided with a great deal of free food from the USDA. We received a ton of butter at a time. At the time, we decided not to use butter in favor of corn oil margarine for all low fat and cholestrol diets despite the budgetary concerns. Now, many of the medical professionals favor the use of butter over the margarine due to the trans-fatty acids and all those concerns. The best advice that I woudl recommend is moderation in the consumption of all fats, including those that are favored at any given moment. Tue Mar 22 14:22:22 -0800 2005 1665170 0 jlawrence01 3 1665213 I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that margarine is better than butter. For me, it's just a matter of common sense, or maybe it's just a hunch: vegetable fat (plant oils) is better than animal fat (butter/lard) is better than fake oil (margarine/shortening/olestra). Tue Mar 22 18:05:29 -0800 2005 1665199 0 Grace 4 1665214 Actually, pure (non hydrogenated) lard is not nearly as "bad" as was once feared. Then again, it is sorta nonsense to think of foods in terms of bad and good. Tue Mar 22 18:29:46 -0800 2005 1665213 0 Karl S. 5 1665216 I dunno, lard very adversely affects one's lipid profile, and contributes to the atherosclerotic disease that causes heart attacks and strokes. Animal and/or human studies have linked lard consumption to obesity, high blood pressure, insulin resistance (diabetes), colon cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and even multiple sclerosis. It's profoundly bad for your body. But it makes for some really good cooking sometimes, and that's important too. I don't think it's very healthy to go through life without really enjoying one's food, at least once in a while. Tue Mar 22 19:24:26 -0800 2005 1665214 0 Caseophile 1 1665186 There is a growing body of evidence that using refined vegetable oils high in omega-6 fats (e.g., canola oil) is potentially unhealthy. See these articles for more info: Link: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/search/srch-list.cgi?p=both&cs=&es=&fm=03&fd=12&tm=03&td=12&y=2003&b=&h=&q=oil+and+fat&submit.button=Search+Again&t=sorted_search.tmpl&a=search&d=thedate&wdb=%2Fweb%2Fwais-indexes%2F Tue Mar 22 12:34:37 -0800 2005 1665166 0 nja 2 1665200 your capsule summary of the many articles listed overstates the "evidence" - dietary books by a couple of authors. reminds me of the non-stop airing of perricone infomercials on my local pbs station. plus the specific article below mentions canola oil as being high in omega-3! are we reading the same article? Link: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/12/FD181277.DTL Tue Mar 22 14:35:59 -0800 2005 1665186 0 misleading 1 1665215 As for substituting (the last question in your post which no one else seems to have addressed): You need to use more butter if you're subbing butter for oil. Other than that, I reccomend leaving to the Food Puritans the question of how many saturated carbon bonds can dance on the head of a pin. Tue Mar 22 18:56:35 -0800 2005 1665166 0 Noah 1 1665220 As far as weight/volume, especially in baking, butter and oil are very different. If a baking recipe calls for oil, do not substitute butter, and vice versa. In cooking, it's usually less important. However, the flavor (such as for olive oil) will be different, and sometimes you want that flavor (of olive oil, or butter) or not (such as the case with grapeseed or, to a lesser degree, canola oil). I don't buy that oils are any more healthy for a non-heart-patient/cholesterol-restricted person. Fat is fat as far as calories go (although butter is not pure fat -- it has milk solids. Ghee/clarified butter is pure fat). But as far as heathfulness overall, nobody is going to convince me that a refined oil is more healthful than natural butter. Butter has all sorts of healthful qualities that many oils do not. But that is a different thread. If you are worried about calories, there is no big difference between butter and oil. And butter tastes better than canola oil any day. Do not be convinced than any recipe is more healthful if it has oil instead of butter. As said, unless you have a doctor-prescribed diet, both are good and both are bad for you. Too much saturated fat (the fat in butter) is bad for you, but also too little and too much of the Omega-6 fat (in refined oils) is also bad for you. There is so much bad science and information out there, it's a bit depressing. Eat a variety of foods in moderation, I say, and that's your best bet. Tue Mar 22 20:08:22 -0800 2005 1665166 0 Mrs. Smith 2 1665244 Brava! Down with food fads! You know, back in the '70s my poor grandparents switched from butter to margarine because at the time it was supposed to be healthier. Now we know (or think we know) that the transfats in traditional margarines are much worse than the natural saturated fats in butter. In addition to Mrs. Smith's eminently sensible "variety and moderation" advice (which is what the vast majority of reputable nutritionists and dietitians will tell you), I try to focus on foods that are "natural" -- not necessarily organic, but foods that are minimally processed and not overly refined or manipulated or loaded with additives. If a food is found in nature, the human body is probably adapted to handle it; if it comes from a lab, then all bets are off. Butter is pretty darn natural, and people have been eating it for thousands of years. Unless you have a specific health condition, enjoy it. Wed Mar 23 12:30:28 -0800 2005 1665220 0 Ruth Lafler 3 1665253 A friend used to go be the rule "If my great-great grandparents ate it, I can eat it." Common sense about quantities should apply of course - most of us can't burn calories like a farmhand. But our bodies are probably able to handle the same foods. Some of the newer "innovations," however, are suspect. Why should I gamble? Wed Mar 23 13:25:16 -0800 2005 1665244 0 curiousbaker 3 1665291 In the 70's, my husband's Mom would drive from Wisconsin, where it was illegal to buy margerine, across the border to Illinois to get her "oleo", because it was cheap. Ah, if price were the only consideration in butter consumption, I'd go home right now and make cinnamon toast (the proper way) and lemon curd and puff pastry and chopped liver and some buttercream icing and pasta with butter and sage and brioche and my college roommate's BBQ shrimp and blondies.............. Thu Mar 24 08:39:19 -0800 2005 1665244 0 danna