The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Margerine is worse for your health than butter

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,484 times Debate No: 79395
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




My opponent will make their arguments in their first round. I will make my rebuttals and arguments in my last and second round. My opponent will make any rebuttals and addition arguments in their last and second round. Begin


Maybe it is better for your mental health but not physical health. I say mental health, because it may taste better and be more enjoyable then margarine, but according to the Mayo clinic Margarine lowers heart disease and is strongly suggested for anyone at risk for heart failure. The Mayo Clinic does say not all margarine's are created equal, and some do have trans fat. The more solid the margarine the higher the transfat, so tub margarine's are the healthiest of the margarine as stick margarine is thick and higher in transfat. However, both stick margarine and tub margarine are both still healthier then straight up butter.

"Switching butter to margarine is one way to reduce saturated fat content and add healthier unsaturated fats, for heart health protection.

Butter is around 50% saturated fat and 4% trans fat – the unhealthy fats that raise our cholesterol levels. On the other hand, margarine spreads with the Tick have around 28% saturated fat, less than 1% trans fat (most only 0.1-0.2%) and are a good source of healthier fats." (heart par 4)

My debater will say "Margarine is full of transfats"

According the the heart foundation, that isn't true across the board. In the 90's, the heart foundation worked hard to eliminate trans fat margarine in Australia, and today margarine in Australia has some of the lowest trans fats in the world, and is significantly lower then butter.

Now, it may be possible to find some margarine here in the states that is "as" unhealthy as butter, but I don't think even in that situation you would find any that is "more" unhealthy. Some maybe equally unhealthy here in the states, but not more unhealthy, except for maybe a rare case or two.

However, the topic didn't specify a country. The topic was a generalized statement about margarine vs butter and how margarine is worse. This was a general statement that is easy to disprove because if you took butter and compared it against the margarine of Australia, the margarine of Australia would win the healthy argument by an embarassing margin for my opponent.

here is the link to the article from the heart foundation.
Debate Round No. 1


About 50 years ago there was a major epidemic of heart disease in America. It used to be a rare disease, but became the number one cause of death. It still is to this day
Researchers back then claimed that eating saturated fat seemed to increase levels of cholesterol in the bloodstream.
At that same time they also knew that having high cholesterol was linked to an increased risk of heart disease.

This led to the following Hypothesis being made:

"If saturated fat raises cholesterol (A causes B) and cholesterol causes heart disease (B causes C), then this must mean that saturated fat causes heart disease (A causes C).

This was not based on any experimental evidence in humans. It was merely hypothesized and never scientifically tested

This hypothesis (called the "diet-heart hypothesis") was based on assumptions, observational data and animal studies

The "diet-heart hypothesis" was then turned into public policy in 1977, before it was ever proven to be true

We now have plenty of experimental data in humans showing these initial assumptions to be wrong, people are still being told to avoid saturated fat in order to reduce heart disease risk.

"HDL and LDL, the "good" and "bad" cholesterols, aren"t actually cholesterol" they are proteins that carry cholesterol around, known as lipoproteins."

"LDL stands for Low Density Lipoprotein and HDL stands for High Density Lipoprotein. All "cholesterol" is identical."

At the time the hypothesis was made scientists only measured "Total" cholesterol, which includes cholesterol within both LDL and HDL. Later, through proper scientific research, they learned that LDL was linked to increased risk, HDL was linked to reduced risk.

"Total" cholesterol is a highly flawed marker. It also includes HDL. So having a high HDL (protective) actually contributes to a high "Total" cholesterol."

Saturated fat raised LDL levels. At the time the hypotheses was made, it was assumed that this would increase the risk of heart disease. Scientists at the time didn't know or ignored the fact that saturated fat also raises HDL.

New proper scientific research has shown that LDL isn"t necessarily "bad" because there are different subtypes of LDL

"Small, dense LDL: These are small lipoproteins that can penetrate the arterial wall easily, which drives heart disease."

"Large LDL: These lipoproteins are large and fluffy and don"t easily penetrate the arteries."

"Small, dense particles are also much more susceptible to becoming oxidized, which is a crucial step in the heart disease process"

"People with mostly small LDL particles have three times greater risk of heart disease, compared to those with mostly large LDL particles"

To reduce the risk of heart disease, you want to "have mostly large LDL particles and as little of the small particles as possible."

" Eating saturated fat changes the LDL particles from small, dense to Large."

Even though saturated fat can mildly raise LDL, they are changing the LDL to a benign subtype that is associated with a reduced risk of heart disease. "The large."

The effects of saturated fat on LDL aren"t dramatic. They increase LDL in the short-term. Long-term observational studies find no link between saturated fat consumption and small dense LDL levels.

There are other factors that also raise LDL. The "chain length" of the fatty acid. For example, palmitic acid may raise LDL, while stearic acid does not

Through proper scientific research scientists have learned that "it"s not just about the LDL concentration or the size of the particles, but the number of LDL particles (called LDL-p) floating in the bloodstream."

"Low-carb diets, which tend to be high in saturated fat, can lower LDL-p, while low-fat diets can have an adverse effect and raise LDL-p"

"Saturated fats raise HDL (the "good") cholesterol and change LDL from small, dense (bad) to Large LDL, which is mostly benign. Overall, saturated fats do not harm the blood lipid profile like previously hypothesized.

Nutritional value of margarine:

It has none. Any nutritional value is added artificially. The body will only absorb and use about 50% of any artificial nutrient, even less in many cases depending on other additives. Your diet should contain at least 20% saturated fat to help absorb and use the vitamins you get from eating food. A low or no saturated fat diet leads to poor health and vitamin absorption.

Nutritional value of butter:

Butter is Rich in Fat-Soluble Vitamins. This includes vitamins A, E and K2.

"Vitamin K2 can have powerful effects on health. It is intimately involved in calcium metabolism and a low intake has been associated with many serious diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and osteoporosis"

Butter Contains a Lot of Healthy Saturated Fats, "Saturated fats raise HDL (the good) cholesterol and change the LDL from small, dense (very bad) to Large LD, which is benign"

Butter Lowers Heart Attack Risk Compared to Margarine. Margarine significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular disease, while butter had no effect.

Butter is a Good Source of "The Fatty Acid Butyrate" This improves the function of mitochondria and lowers fasting triglycerides and insulin.

Butter is Rich in Conjugated Linoleic Acid. CLA has been shown to have anti-cancer properties as well as lowering body fat percentage in humans.

Butter is Associated With a Lower Risk of Obesity. A new review paper came out in 2012 that examined the effects of high-fat dairy consumption on obesity, cardiovascular disease and other metabolic disorders. High-fat dairy did NOT increase risk of metabolic disease and was associated with a significantly reduced risk of obesity.

Butter helps change the small dense LDL's in other foods you eat into the benign large LDL's.

Butter is Delicious and good for you. Margined is processed hydrogenated chemicals and oil with no nutritional value

So eat butter, it's way better for you than margarine, it all natural and improves the absorption of vitamins in the other foods you eat.



Here's what I think.

I think you care too much. I think you love too much. I think you are stupid, and if you actually care so much about which is better for you margarine or butter, I would say you have zero life and at this point it doesn't matter what you do loser. :) I just had to get this off my chest. See, I was bored the other day so signed up for this stupid debate. You obviously are some sort of crazy life nut. Enjoy yourself freak.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by scaleofpeace 2 years ago
u know what is also good for you weight... getting off your a.s.s!
Posted by Nivek 2 years ago
I usually deepfry my butter. that way you have twice the amount of fats.
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
Yes yes yes sure you did.
Posted by scaleofpeace 2 years ago
I gave you the win because I didn't care lol. I'm studying for college :)
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
I think my opponent was overwhelmed by my second round arguments given his second round response.
Posted by Fudge_Packer 2 years ago
It's all crap. You can either get gored by a 3 ton rhino or a 7 ton elephant. Take your pick.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nivek 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more to proffer. He offered beyond the scope of fats, unlike con. Moreover, pro had more depth in his arguments. It is quite discourteous of con to leave a bunch of personal attacks towards the end. The debate had a clear a winner.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Basically a concession by Con, they refused to make any constructive arguments or rebuttals in the last round, saying they were bored and that's why they signed up for the debate. Conduct to Pro, because Con decided to end the debate with unnecessary ad hominem attacks.