Butter vs Margarine

Yesterday, we asked you for your (health-related) opinion on butter vs margarine, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

• A little over 60% said butter is a health food and margarine is basically plastic with trans fats
• A little over 20% said that both are woeful and it’s better to avoid both
• A little over 10% said that margarine is a lighter option, and butter is a fast track to cardiovascular disease.

Comments included (we will summarize/paraphrase, for space):

• “…in moderation, though”
• “I’m vegan so I use vegan butter but I know it’s not great, so I use it sparingly”
• “butter is healthy if and only if it’s grass-fed”
• “margarine has unpronounceable ingredients”

To address those quickly:

• “…in moderation” is a stipulation with which one can rarely go too far wrong
• Same! Speaking for myself (your writer here, hi) and not for the company
• Grass-fed is indeed better; alas that so little of it is grass-fed, in the US!
• Butter contains eicosatrienoic acid, linolelaidic acid, and more*. Sometimes big words don’t mean that something is worse for the health, though!

*Source: Quality characteristics, chemical composition, and sensory properties of butter from cows on pasture versus indoor feeding systems

So, what does the science say?

Butter is a health food: True or False?

True or False, depending on amount! Moderation is definitely key, but we’ll return to that (and why not to have more than a small amount of butter) later. But it is a rich source of many nutrients, iff it’s grass-fed, anyway.

The nutritional profile of something isn’t a thing that’s too contentious, so rather than take too much time on it, in this case we’ll point you back up to the scientific paper we linked above, or if you prefer a pop-science rendering, here’s a nice quick rundown:

7 Reasons to Switch to Grass-Fed Butter

Margarine is basically plastic with trans fats: True or False?

False and usually False now, respectively, contingently.

On the first part: chemically, it’s simply not “basically plastic” and everything in it is digestible

On the second part: it depends on the margarine, and here’s where it pays to read labels. Historically, margarines all used to be high in trans fats (which are indeed woeful for the health). Nowadays, since trans fats have such a (well-earned) bad press, there are increasingly many margarines with low (or no) trans fats, and depending on your country, it may be that all margarines no longer have such:

❝It’s a public health success story. Consumers no longer have to worry about reading product nutritional labels to see if they contain hydrogenated oils and trans fats. They can just know that they no longer do❞

Source: Margarines now nutritionally better than butter after hydrogenated oil ban

So this is one where the science is clear (trans fats are unequivocally bad), but the consumer information is not always (it may be necessary to read labels, to know whether a margarine is conforming to the new guidelines).

Butter is a fast track to cardiovascular disease: True or False?

True or False depending on amount. In moderation, predictably it’s not a big deal.

But for example, the World Health Organization recommends that saturated fats (of which butter is a generous source) make up no more than 10% of our calorie intake:

Source: Saturated fatty acid and trans-fatty acid intake for adults and children: WHO guideline

So if you have a 2000 kcal daily intake, that would mean consuming not more than 200 kcal from butter, which is approximately two tablespoons.

If you’d like a deeper look into the complexities of saturated fats (for and against), you might like our previous main feature specifically about such:

Can Saturated Fats Be Healthy?

Enjoy!

Homeopathy: Evidence So Tiny That It’s Not There?

Yesterday, we asked you your opinions on homeopathy. The sample size of responses was a little lower than we usually get, but of those who did reply, there was a clear trend:

• A lot of enthusiasm for “Homeopathy works on valid principles and is effective”
• Near equal support for “It may help some people as a complementary therapy”
• Very few people voted for “Science doesn’t know how it works, but it works”; this is probably because people who considered voting for this, voted for the more flexible “It may help some people as a complementary therapy” instead.
• Very few people considered it a dangerous scam and a pseudoscience.

So, what does the science say?

Well, let us start our investigation by checking out the position of the UK’s National Health Service, an organization with a strong focus on providing the least expensive treatments that are effective.

Since homeopathy is very inexpensive to arrange, they will surely want to put it atop their list of treatments, right?

❝Homeopathy is a “treatment” based on the use of highly diluted substances, which practitioners claim can cause the body to heal itself.

There’s been extensive investigation of the effectiveness of homeopathy. There’s no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.❞

The NHS actually has a lot more to say about that, and you can read their full statement here.

But that’s just one institution. Here’s what Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council had to say:

❝There was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered: no good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than placebo, or caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment❞

You can read their full statement here.

The American FDA, meanwhile, have a stronger statement:

❝Homeopathic drug products are made from a wide range of substances, including ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animal or human sources, minerals and chemicals, including known poisons. These products have the potential to cause significant and even permanent harm if they are poorly manufactured, since that could lead to contaminated products or products that have potentially toxic ingredients at higher levels than are labeled and/or safe, or if they are marketed as substitute treatments for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions, or to vulnerable populations.❞

You can read their full statement here.

Homeopathy is a dangerous scam and a pseudoscience: True or False?

False and True, respectively, mostly.

That may be a confusing answer, so let’s elaborate:

• Is it dangerous? Mostly not; it’s mostly just water. However, two possibilities for harm exist:
  • Careless preparation could result in a harmful ingredient still being present in the water—and because of the “like cures like” principle, many of the ingredients used in homeopathy are harmful, ranging from heavy metals to plant-based neurotoxins. However, the process of “ultra-dilution” usually removes these so thoroughly that they are absent or otherwise scientifically undetectable.
  • Placebo treatment has its place, but could result in “real” treatment going undelivered. This can cause harm if the “real” treatment was critically needed, especially if it was needed on a short timescale.
• Is it a scam? Probably mostly not; to be a scam requires malintent. Most practitioners probably believe in what they are practising.
• Is it a pseudoscience? With the exception that placebo effect has been highly studied and is a very valid complementary therapy… Yes, aside from that it is a pseudoscience. There is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy’s “like cures like” principle, and there is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy’s “water memory” idea. On the contrary, they go against the commonly understood physics of our world.

It may help some people as a complementary therapy: True or False?

True! Not only is placebo effect very well-studied, but best of all, it can still work as a placebo even if you know that you’re taking a placebo… Provided you also believe that!

Science doesn’t know how it works, but it works: True or False?

False, simply. At best, it performs as a placebo.

Placebo is most effective when it’s a remedy against subjective symptoms, like pain.

However, psychosomatic effect (the effect that our brain has on the rest of our body, to which it is very well-connected) can mean that placebo can also help against objective symptoms, like inflammation.

After all, our body, directed primarily by the brain, can “decide” what immunological defenses to deploy or hold back, for example. This is why placebo can help with conditions as diverse as arthritis (an inflammatory condition) or diabetes (an autoimmune condition, and/or a metabolic condition, depending on type).

Here’s how homeopathy measures up, for those conditions:

• Homeopathy for rheumatoid arthritis: does it work?
• Do homeopathic treatments for diabetes work?

(the short answer is “no better than placebo”)

Homeopathy works on valid principles and is effective: True or False?

False, except insofar as placebo is a valid principle and can be effective.

The stated principles of homeopathy—”like cures like” and “water memory”—have no scientific basis.

We’d love to show the science for this, but we cannot prove a negative.

However, the ideas were conceived in 1796, and are tantamount to alchemy. A good scientific attitude means being open-minded to new ideas and testing them. In homeopathy’s case, this has been done, extensively, and more than 200 years of testing later, homeopathy has consistently performed equal to placebo.

In summary…

• If you’re enjoying homeopathic treatment and that’s working for you, great, keep at it.
• If you’re open-minded to enjoying a placebo treatment that may benefit you, be careful, but don’t let us stop you.
• If your condition is serious, please do not delay seeking evidence-based medical treatment.