Grant
Honorary Master
I like Lurpak, especially on fresh warm bread
call me stupid & burn me alive, but what makes lurpak different to any of the other butters we get here ?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
Spreadable butter
- Thread starter Quixotic
- Start date
call me stupid & burn me alive, but what makes lurpak different to any of the other butters we get here ?
Hosehead
Executive Member
some of the REal butter spreadables have vegetable oil added to make them soft and spreadable. I think Kerrygold tub is one.
Hosehead
Executive Member
It's from Denmark and it has an exquisite luxurious tongue feel because of the higher butterfat content and it's far less salty than other butters. Unfortunately it's priced out in the stratosphere like ALL butter including our own home butter, Did you realise that one of our home brands was using butter from New Zealand and priced the same as domestic for a while and you could taste the difference immediately- it was slightly rancid maybe added oils were off- anyway the MD of that company says that this was because there was a local shortage of dairy and they imported at a loss. Those stocks are now hopefully finished and the normal butter is back. Funny that the same packaging was used. you had to read that it was imported in fine print when in fact it supposedly is normally made in the karoo. Of all the local butters WW seems to be the tastiest and they often discount 500g bricks to R24 with the average domestic butter around R34 per 500g. Prices have shot up since 2009 and continue to do so.
akescpt
Honorary Master
so blossom lite is bad for me? donner!
Grant
Honorary Master
Ahh.
this is why I asked.
The one fridge is packed with butter, must be about 15 to 20 bricks of the stuff there. My housekeeper does the shopping, I hate it, she loves it, I am useless, she is great at it.
I thought she has lost the last of her marbles when I opened the fridge in the pantry to embark on a great foraging expidition, and was faced with a wall of woolworths butter. There appears to be method in her madness.
Hosehead
Executive Member
Yeah I stock up too when they run the butter specials. Best deal in town.
Better not let that housekeeper get too clever...
Let's break down this issue into its components:
1) cholesterol - butter is high in saturated fats, which traditionally was considered the leading cause of increased blood cholesterol. As we know, elevated blood cholesterol levels are a major risk factor for heart disease, in fact the leading cause last I checked. But the issue is not as black and white as that. In order to understand the idiosyncratic nature of saturated fats, one has to understand the various hydrocolloid chains in fats. I won't bore you to death with in-depth explanations about these, but suffice it to say that there is still no strong evidence either way in this respect. Studies have shown paradoxical outcomes for various lipid-based intake research. In fact they show vastly different results in men and women with various lipoprotein physiologies. All that we know, is that more research is required.
As an example of how complicated this research gets, men and women will use different indicators for HDL and LDL pointers for coronary disease or suppressed lipoprotein physiologies. Researchers for the last few decades did not realise this, and instead lumped everyone onto the same tests. We're slowly having to rethink and perform these tests all over again using better indicators. More info here if you're interested - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1102.full
Such conclusions make meta analysis of research more important, and such research has already been conducted - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract
The conclusion?
In other words, an analysis of all studies into this issue shows no correlation between higher saturated fat intake and increased risks of coronary disease. Again, going against what we thought we knew about heart disease. Here is the abstract from modern research using better indicators: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900711003145
Other research shows no correlation between higher saturated fat intake and increased cholesterol at all, but rather a positive correlation between increased saturated fat intake and mass of LDL particles.
So the bottom line is that we have been conned by the margarine industry into believing outright that butter is bad for you. As far as we know at the moment, no specific case can be made either way. Some research shows a direct correlation with increased saturated fat intake and coronary disease, but modern research disagrees with a lot of the conclusions they came up with back then.
However that doesn't make margarine bad for you necessarily. In fact it can be pretty damn good for you:
2) Hydrogenation - let's start off with the basics. A saturated fat will usually be solid at room temperature. Like butter. Or lard. Or bacon fat. Unsaturated fats however will not be solid at room temperature. This is because of the way the hydrocolloids bond with each other and has to do with "spare" hydrogen atoms. Basically, unsaturated fats have double bonds that cannot stack neatly on top of each other, in simplistic terms, which means they cannot form a solid bond. Hence why they are liquid at room temperatures.
Hydrogenation is the process of chemically altering the structures of unsaturated fats to allow them to bond better, making them solid at room temperature. They achieve this using a combination of metal catalysts, heat and pressurised hydrogen injected into the oils. We have come to the understanding that hydrogenation is not good for you. Most modern research points to it being quite bad for you, in fact, and induces significant quantities of trans-fatty acids which are very bad for you. Hence why more than a decade ago already, most manufacturers turned their attentions to alternatives to hydrogenation for margarines and spreads. They came up with a process called interesterification. This is the process of moving fatty acids from one triglyceride to another, which in turn changes the viscosity of the product, its shelf-life, and its melting point, which allows it to remain solid at room temperature without the need for hydrogenation. So far interesterification appears to be perfectly safe, and it makes sense that it would be, as unlike hydrogentation, interesterification does not alter the fatty acids at all.
So nowadays most brands do not hydrgenate their oils to make margarine. In fact they use a perfectly safe method of altering the melting point of oils. In addition, the likes of Flora add cholesterol fighting additives to their spreads which have been proven to combat cholesterol. Flora in fact stopped hydrogenating their oils in the 90s already and I believe their current products are completely free of trans-fatty acids.
But be warned, cheap margarine manufacturers absolutely still use hydrogenated oils in their products. Buying the cheap stuff is just not healthy for you at all. Rather buy margarine that advertises that it doesn't use hydrogenated oils, and is trans-fatty acid free. There are a lot of butter proponents out there, and I in fact believe that butter is hardly a danger to your health unless you are eating hundreds of grams of the stuff daily. If all you do is put it on a sandwich then your intake is very low, and not a health concern. However there are some ridiculous websites stating that it is actually very healthy for you. Well, that's just not true. The truth is that we don't know yet - there is conflicting evidence in both directions. I'd say just keep it in moderation, or if you're concerned, swap to margarine which in this day and age (and from proper processors like Unilever's Flora) is actually pretty damn healthy for you...
1) cholesterol - butter is high in saturated fats, which traditionally was considered the leading cause of increased blood cholesterol. As we know, elevated blood cholesterol levels are a major risk factor for heart disease, in fact the leading cause last I checked. But the issue is not as black and white as that. In order to understand the idiosyncratic nature of saturated fats, one has to understand the various hydrocolloid chains in fats. I won't bore you to death with in-depth explanations about these, but suffice it to say that there is still no strong evidence either way in this respect. Studies have shown paradoxical outcomes for various lipid-based intake research. In fact they show vastly different results in men and women with various lipoprotein physiologies. All that we know, is that more research is required.
As an example of how complicated this research gets, men and women will use different indicators for HDL and LDL pointers for coronary disease or suppressed lipoprotein physiologies. Researchers for the last few decades did not realise this, and instead lumped everyone onto the same tests. We're slowly having to rethink and perform these tests all over again using better indicators. More info here if you're interested - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1102.full
Such conclusions make meta analysis of research more important, and such research has already been conducted - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract
The conclusion?
In other words, an analysis of all studies into this issue shows no correlation between higher saturated fat intake and increased risks of coronary disease. Again, going against what we thought we knew about heart disease. Here is the abstract from modern research using better indicators: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900711003145
Other research shows no correlation between higher saturated fat intake and increased cholesterol at all, but rather a positive correlation between increased saturated fat intake and mass of LDL particles.
So the bottom line is that we have been conned by the margarine industry into believing outright that butter is bad for you. As far as we know at the moment, no specific case can be made either way. Some research shows a direct correlation with increased saturated fat intake and coronary disease, but modern research disagrees with a lot of the conclusions they came up with back then.
However that doesn't make margarine bad for you necessarily. In fact it can be pretty damn good for you:
2) Hydrogenation - let's start off with the basics. A saturated fat will usually be solid at room temperature. Like butter. Or lard. Or bacon fat. Unsaturated fats however will not be solid at room temperature. This is because of the way the hydrocolloids bond with each other and has to do with "spare" hydrogen atoms. Basically, unsaturated fats have double bonds that cannot stack neatly on top of each other, in simplistic terms, which means they cannot form a solid bond. Hence why they are liquid at room temperatures.
Hydrogenation is the process of chemically altering the structures of unsaturated fats to allow them to bond better, making them solid at room temperature. They achieve this using a combination of metal catalysts, heat and pressurised hydrogen injected into the oils. We have come to the understanding that hydrogenation is not good for you. Most modern research points to it being quite bad for you, in fact, and induces significant quantities of trans-fatty acids which are very bad for you. Hence why more than a decade ago already, most manufacturers turned their attentions to alternatives to hydrogenation for margarines and spreads. They came up with a process called interesterification. This is the process of moving fatty acids from one triglyceride to another, which in turn changes the viscosity of the product, its shelf-life, and its melting point, which allows it to remain solid at room temperature without the need for hydrogenation. So far interesterification appears to be perfectly safe, and it makes sense that it would be, as unlike hydrogentation, interesterification does not alter the fatty acids at all.
So nowadays most brands do not hydrgenate their oils to make margarine. In fact they use a perfectly safe method of altering the melting point of oils. In addition, the likes of Flora add cholesterol fighting additives to their spreads which have been proven to combat cholesterol. Flora in fact stopped hydrogenating their oils in the 90s already and I believe their current products are completely free of trans-fatty acids.
But be warned, cheap margarine manufacturers absolutely still use hydrogenated oils in their products. Buying the cheap stuff is just not healthy for you at all. Rather buy margarine that advertises that it doesn't use hydrogenated oils, and is trans-fatty acid free. There are a lot of butter proponents out there, and I in fact believe that butter is hardly a danger to your health unless you are eating hundreds of grams of the stuff daily. If all you do is put it on a sandwich then your intake is very low, and not a health concern. However there are some ridiculous websites stating that it is actually very healthy for you. Well, that's just not true. The truth is that we don't know yet - there is conflicting evidence in both directions. I'd say just keep it in moderation, or if you're concerned, swap to margarine which in this day and age (and from proper processors like Unilever's Flora) is actually pretty damn healthy for you...
Last edited:
More margarine myths. If our bodies were not "designed" (cringe) to assimilate margarine, it would come out the other end undigested.
Yup. There are so many stupid food myths doing the rounds here that I sometimes think that this is a dumping ground for 90s chain-mails.
The whole "our body was not designed to bla bla bla" is just such a load of nonsense that I've stopped addressing it with people. The body doesn't magically stop metabolising things because a hydrogen bond was shifted in the chemical chain. It might make something poisonous to us (which it doesn't in margarine), but it wouldn't prevent the body from metabolising it. Science has an incredibly good understanding of the metabolism, metabolic rates, absorption rates, and so on, and is in fact how synthetically better equivalents of nutrients are made, and in fact why they are made.
I really and truly do not understand people who go about perpetuating food myths they heard from their homeopath conman...
Rocket-Boy
Honorary Master
I going with DJ here, at least his argument is just regurgitated "things I heard from x person"
It fascinates me. People will happily regurgitate things they see on Facebook and in chain mails without thinking. Witness things like "Facebook will shut down unless you lick your own butthole right now and then spread this status".
In this particular case though, its easy to get people to believe margarine is harmful because it is not "natural". People seem to have an innate belief that anything natural is good for you.
Necuno
Court Jester
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 58,566
- Reaction score
- 3,437
I'm going with what tastes better... Butter. End.
Fscking hippies and homeopaths! They perpetuate this bullschit to people and blatantly lie to them for the sake of a buck! Then the little minions go about bitching about how big corporates are stealing from them and making people sick!
Oh, the flipping irony of it all...
The irony is that one of the largest fines the US ever issued for anti competitive behaviour was for a company in the alternative health business.
Grant
Honorary Master
She has worked for me forever and is totally depended upon.
She knows what to buy and when.
I am pathetic in a shop, to begin with, I hate shopping, so I rush in and out when the house has zero to eat, & then only grabbing what appeals to me as & when I see it.
I will spend R2k and not be able to cook a meal with what I have bought, just able to continually snack.
So, yea, she does the shopping - and does it well.
There is no reasoning with some people though. My cousin is a homepath "doctor". She studied for a few years, then dropped out of medicine and chose to go the homepathic route. I know more about the human body than she does. I understand science better than she does. But she has a degree yet still believes that banging her water against a table turns it into a magic potion and that water has a memory but only for the good stuff, of course).
The issue is that the moment you introduce science to debunk this, the argument turns to an emotive one. "Why must you belittle what we do? Why can you not have an open mind?" If I'm not hurting anyone then what's the problem? Who are you to question me?" etc. Yet they refuse to address the valid arguments made, nor the science. They are the politicians of the medicine world. Yielding power that they shouldn't; lying to people who trust them; taking people's money on promises that will never be fulfilled; and concocting bullschit to forever remain relevant.
But we're getting off the beaten track here...
Health merits of real butter, psuedo butter and margerines aside, the central issue is spreadability straight out of the fridge. Lurpack tastes too close to margerine (i.e. tasteless). Kerrygold is too hard. Butro is softer but still too hard. Nothing beats 'I Can't Believe..' for taste and instant spreadability out of the fridge (on fresh bread).