Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghaff | Hacker News Reader

>What happened in Norway is that butter was rationed because of WWII and they introduced margarine (another product of hydrogenation) as a substitute, and after the war, it was promoted as a healthier alternative to butter.

Margarine was extremely popular in the US for a time (and there's still plenty of it in grocery stores). Among health conscious people, butter was looked on with suspicion as recently as 20 years or so ago. (I ran/run weekend hiking trips sometimes and 20 years ago, I would definitely have gotten dirty looks if I only bought butter. Today no one cares.)

Crisco was pretty popular at one point in the US but AFAIK it's receded quite a bit. I don't do a lot of baking but I don't really see it in recipes these days. And lard is still not in mainstream use at all.

View on HN

I get the impression you're generally better off sticking to (whole fat/"normal"/etc) versions of products and simply being aware of portion sizes than substituting or diluting things just because there's some health fad going on against something in it like cholesterol or fat or sugar. Have a breakfast of eggs with real butter and a glass of whole milk, use full real mayonnaise instead of some sickly-tasting light version, have a burger, just watch out for daily calories. An exception of course if if you have a particular medical condition that requires a special diet.

"All you have to do is eat less. Two words: Eat. Less. That's all you need to know about weight loss. Eat less, I guarantee you'll lose weight. It worked in Changi. It worked for Ghandi - no love handles on that man! But remember, eating less will not work unless you actually eat less." - Dr Rudi

"All you have to do is breath. Two words: Just breath. That's all you need to know about not dying from asphyxiation. Just breath, I'll guarantee you'll not die from asphyxiation. It worked for me. It worked for James LeBron - no asphyxiation signs on that man! But remember, just breathing will not work unless you actually just breath." - Dr Rudi (probably) to an Asthma patient

I know there is some small proportion of the population who physically cannot refrain from overeating. That doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority, eating less IS an option, which is good because it's literally the only way to lose weight apart from surgically removing things from your body.

All that aside, yeah, Dr Rudi probably would say that because he's a satirical caricature.

Health conscious people prefer margarine to butter on a hiking trip? Must be some pretty relaxed trips: Food is fuel, the more calories the better!

I carry peanut butter and Crisco on my backpacking and canoeing trips...they're heavy, but nutritionally dense! A peanut butter jar might last you two months at home, but you can likely expect to be packing the empty jar out with you after a week in the woods.

Most people doing weekend trips don't suddenly abandon their day to day eating habits and start eating jars of peanut butter and mayonnaise.

ADDED: That wasn't intended as snark but my observation is that most people on weekend dayhike trips or even multi-day backpacks maintain fairly conventional eating habits even if they're not energy/weight optimal. I certainly do.

The calories aren't the issue; as far as I know butter and margarine have about the same amount per serving. Margarine was preferred because it was thought that the saturated fat in butter was going to clog your arteries and kill you.

Makes as much sense as zero-calorie sports drinks. Food shaming has trained people to want things that are of no use to them.

That is not true even on difficult hikes. You need more calories then normal, but it is not like you would suddenly had to eat tripple portion of everything else you die.

Also, it is not like extreme cardio or weight lifting. You can go on for hours without eating. It won't feel great, but won't be big issue either.

Besides, for long hikes and climbs, people minimize weight. Bin of peanut butter to go through in two days sound excesive.

Bringing butter, peanut butter or mayonnaise on a hike is not about eating more but about carrying less.

300g of butter for example is about 2150 calories, enough food for a day for a small person. Compare that to pasta and you would need to carry more than 1.6 kg for the same amount of calories. If you're going on a five day hike you're carrying 8 kg of pasta vs only 1.5 kg of butter.

That said I only bring butter and mayonnaise on week long hikes, for weekends or day trips I don't bother.

Pasta sounds like highly theoretical food for a hike. I have yet to see anyone who would carry pasta or similar food for a hike as main source of calories. Sounds impractical and waste of space. Or raw butter which would melt in the heat. Also, eating 300g of butter as energy source for whole day sounds like one of those things that makes your stomach go real bad.

Quick energy in sugary food weights a little and comes in gazimilion sources. Proteins bars or dry meant are easy to get, weight a little and have enough calories. Both are slow calories.

But besides, already traditional bread and ham or sausage or bacon or whatever are good enough for day hike. Or any kind of already cooked meat that can survive a day. You do not need more for one day. For more days, you need to consider more then just calories in the thing. Which where pasta like food or canned food comes into play - people carry it because they want real food to actually fills stomach and comfort of it, not because they would worry about being unable to fill calories. Besides, you can hike on caloric deficit.

Carrying 1.5kg of butter as primary source of food for 5 days hike sounds like one of those things that gets hikes cancelled second day and someone needing help to get back.

I bought some lard at Safeway just last week. It can be had, but it's usually in the dustiest, lowest, most-hidden shelf in the baking aisle.

It's excellent for deep frying, and economical because it can be used over and over and the flavor only improves. (Unless you burn something.)

Has the flavor and usefulness of Crisco suffered since they removed trans fats and partially hydrogenated oils?

Crisco still has trans fats/partially hydrogenated oils, just less than .5g per serving, letting them round down to 0g.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/01/09/144918710/th...

We don't use it much, but it seems to work about the same.

Ah yes. If you set the serving size low enough, you can sell trans fat while claiming it has 0g of trans fat.

Somebody should do this. Make little packets like the ones for butter.

That's how tictacs, which are almost 100% sugar, are sold as 0 sugar - servimg size is 1 tictac.

Find a Mexican grocery or butcher. They often have fresh lard as a result of making carnitas. It’s so much better. For cooking you can also save bacon grease or render chicken fat and skin (which also gives you tasty chicken cracklings). Natural animal fats as well as making stock are great ways to level up your cooking game.

Lately I've been boiling up cheap bones and offcuts. You get a few L of stock and a few hundred mL of fat – enough to last the week unless you're deep frying.

I'm younger...I view manufactured products like Crisco and margarine with suspicion, and consider butter to be much healthier.

As a little kid in the 1960's I asked my dad where margarine came from and after the explanation I was yeah not eating that stuff.

> Among health conscious people, butter was looked on with suspicion as recently as 20 years or so ago

Sense must be prevailing in the US much faster than in the UK then - many people here still think butter is bad for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com