Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Because in the early 2000s there was a war on natural fats. Nutritionists declared all fat bad. We now know that to not be the case.

Your stainless steel, high carbon steel, and cast iron pans require using a small amount of oil/butter to have nonstick cooking properties.




> Because in the early 2000s there was a war on natural fats.

Non-stick was popular well before the early 2000s, its popularity is not due to any “war on natural fats” that occurred at that time. (And the early ’00s is late for that, anyway.)

Non-stick is (and has been for a long time) most popular for particular forms of cooking that use natural fats, whereas particular steel designs (sometimes referred to as “waterless” because of their properties in other applications) were specifically promoted (including in the early 2000s, though they were around before and remain on the market now) as eliminating the need to use fats as one would with conventional and non-stick cookware.


> in the early 2000s there was a war on natural fats. Nutritionists declared all fat bad. We now know that to not be the case.

Saturated fats were and remain to be generally thought unhealthy (if we say things like 'all' or 'always', we're almost certainly spreading misinformation; the world doesn't work that way). Other fats (polyunsaturates and monounsaturates) are believed to be healthy or neutral. There is ongoing uncertainty and debate; the degrees and nuances change; we don't get sure, hyperbolic answers.

https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/well/fda-healthy-food.htm...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/well/good-fats-bad-fats.h...

I'm not a grammar and spelling critic, but I'm going to be a style critic here (sorry to the parent; lots of people write this way): Hyperbole commonly leads to misinformation. 'War', 'all fat', 'nutritionists declared', 'bad' etc. divert us to an emotional, adversarial contest with a strawperson enemy, rather than into the pursuit of truth, whose object is always nuanced and whose pursuit is difficult enough as it is.


"A war on all fats" is a pretty good summary of a lot of popular nutritional messaging in the '90s though. Low fat or fat free was a big selling point on lots of food packaging, even when it didn't make sense. Magazine articles about how you could cut just a bit more fat out of this or that recipe. I'm 100% in agreement that the reality is more nuanced, including that dietary fats, some more than others, can be harmful to health when consumed in excess. In other words, that it's not just the other extreme from that 90s consensus. I think the GP would agree too (the only hyperbole in their post was a statement attributed to nutritionists of the time). But the war on fat was real, and had a big presence in the culture.


> "A war on all fats" is a pretty good summary

No, it's pushing hyperbole. It tells the world your emotional position - you think it was a war. Let's try something more factual, that reveals the underlying issues - if we know the facts.

Low fat and fat free is still a big selling point. Look at the NYT article on the FDA's plans, for example.


Even academic articles call it that, e.g.: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24911982/ from 2007

The first paragraph of the introduction, in case you don't have access:

> Since medical research first established a potential link between dietary fat intake, obesity, and cardiovascular disease [1], multiple components of the public health continuum have waged war on dietary fat. That war has generally been successful, not necessarily at preventing obesity or heart disease but at convincing Americans that dietary fat is bad for us.


If we search databases we can find many phrases, including in random papers with 5 cites. The language has the same impact no matter who uses it.

Don't you see the impact of the Internet and its dialog on our society? Let's do something better.


It tells the world your emotional position

It doesn't read as if they're describing their own position, emotional or not. It's a characterization of the public messaging surrounding dietary fat.

Low fat and fat free is still a big selling point

Yes, that's mainly because of aforementioned public messaging.


It's a selling point because it has an impact on people's health.

> It's a characterization of the public messaging surrounding dietary fat.

Hyperbole is characterization, reflecting the author's emotional state.


I have trouble with stainless. What’s the trick? Do you use cast iron for skillets and stainless for slice pans?


For stainless, I've found it to be a combination of making sure there's enough heat before adding food, being OK with using a bit more fat (e.g., oil, butter) than I initially expect, using the right utensil while cooking, and deglazing as necessary.


I use stainless for acidic foods (e.g. tomato sauces) and frying eggs. I use cast iron for pancakes, meats, and other items that benefit from the pan not being a perfectly flat texture or heat retention.

If I had to have a single pan, I’d probably go high carbon steel.


The trick is get the pan hot (not smoking hot, you’ve preheated too much), then put 1-2tbsp butter or cooking oil in the pan and spread it around. It should sizzle a bit and then mostly disappear, leaving behind a nonstick coating.


You hit the nail on the head. Yes, now that you bring it up, it was this low-fat disinformation that caused all these unintended consequences.


They weren’t completely wrong about fats, we just know there’s a difference between saturated fats and unsaturated fats now. Don’t throw the baby out.

Canola oil looks like a superfood when you swap butter for it in the literature.


> They weren’t completely wrong about fats, we just know there’s a difference between saturated fats and unsaturated fats now.

We knew that in the early 2000s, too. And in the early 1990s, which is more when when the war on fats was actually happening; by the early ’00s, the diet trend had focused on low-carb diets, reversing the war on fats.


Good point. You can find research that links saturated fat to increased blood cholesterol back in the 1950s.

Perhaps it's only a reminder how much the zeitgeist may be divorced from science, or how little impact the latter actually has on the former unless it's convenient. Though that's for another discussion.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: