FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » nutrition
transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [12 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
MattLB
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 111

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:37 am    Post subject: Re: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

montygram wrote:
Quote:
To cguttman (the others I will debate on a moderated forum, but they
refuse a fair, academic debate):

If you read my other posts, I've said that "trans fat" is an abstract
category (just like "saturated fat" and "cholesterol"). "Nutritional
science" is often not very scientific. 'Think about it: they can't
even get their language defined in a precise way. How can you do an
experiment and make claims about molecules when you don't define the
terms so that you are describing specific molecules? It is beyond
ridiculous.

Some companies are now blending fully hydrogenated oil, which has
become, for all intents and purposes, 100% saturated fatty acids
(though perhaps containing contaminants) with an oil that has not been
hydrogenated and is usually very high in omega 6 PUFAs. Then they can
claim that there is no "trans fat." However, before this, "trans fat"
meant that you took a highly unsatuated oil and patially hyrogenated
it, then you had to add antioxidants so that the double bonds did not
go rancid before they reached the person's mouth. It is a nasty
concoction, but the bonds molecules that are fully hydrogenated are not
harmful. Again, I propose an experiment in which half the animals are
raised to be adults and all appear healthy. At that point they are
given either fish and canola oil at 30% daily caloric intake, or 30%
fully hyrdrogenated coconut oil instead. Then we will see which group
lives longer. If the coconut group lives just as long or longer, the
other person would pay for all expenses; otherwise, I will.

So, there is a difference between saying "trans fat," which is a
combination of very different molecules (even assuming no contaminants)
and saying "trans fatty acid" molecules, but even saying that is
misleading, because a fatty acid molecule can have more than double
bond. If one bond (or more) is hydrogenated, it is apparently said to
be a "trans fatty acid" molecule.

No, you still don't understand. If you simply hydrogenate then you just
reduce the number of double bonds. To become trans the double bond has
to break and reform in the trans conformation WITHOUT taking up
hydrogen.

Quote:
So if you take a fatty acid with
four double bonds and hydrogenate 3 of them, it is a "trans fatty acid"

No it's monounsaturated. It *may* also be trans, but there's no
particular reason it should be.

Quote:
molecule, but if you hydrogenate 4, it could be said to be a "saturated
fatty acid."

It *is* a saturated fatty acid. There's no "could be said to be" about
it.

Quote:
For example:

"When an unsaturated oil is hydrogenated, hydrogen atoms are forced
into the fatty acid molecules. The hydrogen atoms bind to the carbon
chain in the vacant double-bonded sites, where only one hydrogen atom
is attached to the carbon atoms. In so doing the extra hydrogen removes
the double bond, straightens the chain, and makes the molecule more
saturated."

Yes, if you remove double bonds it becomes *more* saturated with
hydrogen, but not completely saturated. It doesn't become a "saturated
fatty acid" until it is actually saturated with hydrogen.

Quote:
My point is that the double bonds are potentially very dangerous.

Yet you demonstrate very little knowledge of them.

Quote:
This
has been known for a long time, and is basic biochemistry.

It's basic chemistry, yet you still haven't got it straight.

Quote:
The new
blending idea is not likely to be any healthier, but they can eliminate
the "trans fat" phrase.

Fair enough because there aren't any trans fats.

Quote:
The Mead acid is a PUFA
and is much more biochemically stable than the omega 3 and 6 analogues
(arachidonic acid, for example).

They aren't analogues.

Quote:
Your body needs some unsaturated
fatty acids, including a PUFA, which is used in situations where cells
are stressed. This we seem to all agree upon. What I am saying is
that the Mead acid is best, and that it is very easy and inexpensive to
do an experiment to demonstrate this. There is undeniably a huge body
of evidence showing how the metabolites of arachidonic acid cause
"chronic disease" and BigPharma is making huge profits selling the
"COX-2 inhibitors." Yet, with the Mead acid, there is no COX-2
activity to begin with.

COX-2 exists for a good reason. If it had no use it would have been
lost from the genome. You consistently fail to realise that you need an
activation of a membrane protein before arachidonic acid is released
from the phosholipid it's in. Only then will it exert a biochemical
effect.

Quote:
Fish oil can also have this effect, but it is
very susceptible to lipid peroxidation

So is Mead Acid.

Quote:
so again, why not let the body
make its own, much more stable PUFA? The EFA claim just makes no sense
no matter how you look at it, and when you look at the evidence that is
presented in the professional literature (from 1930 Burr & Burr to the
most recent studies), the flaws are so glaring as to be laughable.

Yet you fail to muster any sort of coherent evidence for these flaws
you claim.

Quote:
Other
experiments feed hydrogenated coconut oil to pregnant cats (100%
saturated) and find that only some of the kittens are born healthy.
Well, that means that the "EFAs" are not "essential;" otherwise no
kitten would have been healthy.

Or to put it another equally false way: coconut oil caused pregnancy
failure in almost all the cats, so "only some" could resist the toxic
effects of coconut oil.

As you've been told before, the real explanation is that in a few cases
the mother's body would have had EFA to pass on to the kitten.

Quote:
A fully saturated fat source will mean
that growth will indeed be hindered, because they interfere with the
swapping of electrons,

How? And what "swapping of electrons" are you talking about? You always
claim "molecular level detail" now's the time to prove it.

Quote:
In nature, there is no
100% saturated fat, and this is probably why, so that experiment made
no sense whatsoever. I proposed feeding pregnant cats all the mice
they want (and let the cats pick apart the mice and eat what they
want), but the mice would be fed 100% saturated fatty acids. The mice
would then create their own PUFA, the Mead acid, and then the pregnant
cats would get a PUFA without getting any omega 3s or 6s, so that we
would then know whether it was a matter of any PUFA being helpful in
pregnanacy or the omega 3s and 6s in particular. This is a controlled
experiment that follows the scientific method, unlike the others often
cited.

So what's the control?

Quote:
How can something be "essential" in a scientific way, but
only some of the time? What kind of "essentialness" is that?

You're misinterpreting both the term and the study.

Quote:
I have proposed experiments, asked the "pro EFA" people to present
their claim in the form of a scientific hypothesis, and now I have
found a moderator of a forum dedicated to health and disease who is
willing to moderate a fair, academic-style debate, but they do not want
to do so. Why?

Equally you've been asked to prove your claim of EFA-deficiency with a
blood test many times, yet you won't do that. Why?

MattLB
Back to top
montygram
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 825

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:41 am    Post subject: Re: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

To cguttman (the others I will debate on a moderated forum, but they
refuse a fair, academic debate):

If you read my other posts, I've said that "trans fat" is an abstract
category (just like "saturated fat" and "cholesterol"). "Nutritional
science" is often not very scientific. 'Think about it: they can't
even get their language defined in a precise way. How can you do an
experiment and make claims about molecules when you don't define the
terms so that you are describing specific molecules? It is beyond
ridiculous.

Some companies are now blending fully hydrogenated oil, which has
become, for all intents and purposes, 100% saturated fatty acids
(though perhaps containing contaminants) with an oil that has not been
hydrogenated and is usually very high in omega 6 PUFAs. Then they can
claim that there is no "trans fat." However, before this, "trans fat"
meant that you took a highly unsatuated oil and patially hyrogenated
it, then you had to add antioxidants so that the double bonds did not
go rancid before they reached the person's mouth. It is a nasty
concoction, but the bonds molecules that are fully hydrogenated are not
harmful. Again, I propose an experiment in which half the animals are
raised to be adults and all appear healthy. At that point they are
given either fish and canola oil at 30% daily caloric intake, or 30%
fully hyrdrogenated coconut oil instead. Then we will see which group
lives longer. If the coconut group lives just as long or longer, the
other person would pay for all expenses; otherwise, I will.

So, there is a difference between saying "trans fat," which is a
combination of very different molecules (even assuming no contaminants)
and saying "trans fatty acid" molecules, but even saying that is
misleading, because a fatty acid molecule can have more than double
bond. If one bond (or more) is hydrogenated, it is apparently said to
be a "trans fatty acid" molecule. So if you take a fatty acid with
four double bonds and hydrogenate 3 of them, it is a "trans fatty acid"
molecule, but if you hydrogenate 4, it could be said to be a "saturated
fatty acid."

For example:

"When an unsaturated oil is hydrogenated, hydrogen atoms are forced
into the fatty acid molecules. The hydrogen atoms bind to the carbon
chain in the vacant double-bonded sites, where only one hydrogen atom
is attached to the carbon atoms. In so doing the extra hydrogen removes

the double bond, straightens the chain, and makes the molecule more
saturated."

Source:
http://www.tfx.org.uk/page32.html

My point is that the double bonds are potentially very dangerous. This
has been known for a long time, and is basic biochemistry. The new
blending idea is not likely to be any healthier, but they can eliminate
the "trans fat" phrase. Again, as I have pointed out, the misleading
or downright silly categories "nutritional science" created so that
they could claim to be a unique scientific discipline are doing much
more harm than good.

What those who criticize me often do is to point out something that I
agree with, but then attempt to use it to say that they are "right."
For example, if you don't eat any major source of unsaturated fatty
acids, your body will make oleic acid, which makes up about 3/4 of
olive oil and then the Mead acid from oleic. The Mead acid is a PUFA
and is much more biochemically stable than the omega 3 and 6 analogues
(arachidonic acid, for example). Your body needs some unsaturated
fatty acids, including a PUFA, which is used in situations where cells
are stressed. This we seem to all agree upon. What I am saying is
that the Mead acid is best, and that it is very easy and inexpensive to
do an experiment to demonstrate this. There is undeniably a huge body
of evidence showing how the metabolites of arachidonic acid cause
"chronic disease" and BigPharma is making huge profits selling the
"COX-2 inhibitors." Yet, with the Mead acid, there is no COX-2
activity to begin with. Fish oil can also have this effect, but it is
very susceptible to lipid peroxidation, so again, why not let the body
make its own, much more stable PUFA? The EFA claim just makes no sense
no matter how you look at it, and when you look at the evidence that is
presented in the professional literature (from 1930 Burr & Burr to the
most recent studies), the flaws are so glaring as to be laughable. In
Burr & Burr, a no fat diet was compared to a mixed fat diet, but
because for some reason they assumed that saturated and monounsaturated
fatty acids were not essential, they concluded that PUFAs are. In
1948, the experiment was repeated and found to be incorrect (see
Britannica book of the year, 1948, biochemistry section). Other
experiments feed hydrogenated coconut oil to pregnant cats (100%
saturated) and find that only some of the kittens are born healthy.
Well, that means that the "EFAs" are not "essential;" otherwise no
kitten would have been healthy. A fully saturated fat source will mean
that growth will indeed be hindered, because they interfere with the
swapping of electrons, which is necessary for biochemical activity,
which in turn is necessary for cells to live. In nature, there is no
100% saturated fat, and this is probably why, so that experiment made
no sense whatsoever. I proposed feeding pregnant cats all the mice
they want (and let the cats pick apart the mice and eat what they
want), but the mice would be fed 100% saturated fatty acids. The mice
would then create their own PUFA, the Mead acid, and then the pregnant
cats would get a PUFA without getting any omega 3s or 6s, so that we
would then know whether it was a matter of any PUFA being helpful in
pregnanacy or the omega 3s and 6s in particular. This is a controlled
experiment that follows the scientific method, unlike the others often
cited.

I have avoided all major sources of omega 3s and 6s since 2001. My
omega 3 intake in particular has to be as close to zero as possible on
a natural diet. I have seen only benefits, with several chronic
problems disappearing. All these conditions doctors treated
unsuccessfully or told me that there was little that could be done. My
great grandparents lived to be 96 and 100, and had no source of omega
3s, and they too had no "chronic diseases." She died of a fall, and he
died of pneumonia when a flu was going around.

All the evidence suggests that what I am saying (and many scientists
before me) is the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence, but
what has happened is that a myth of "essential fatty acids" has taken
hold, and the actual data is being misinterpreted, as in the pregnant
cat study. How can something be "essential" in a scientific way, but
only some of the time? What kind of "essentialness" is that?

I have proposed experiments, asked the "pro EFA" people to present
their claim in the form of a scientific hypothesis, and now I have
found a moderator of a forum dedicated to health and disease who is
willing to moderate a fair, academic-style debate, but they do not want
to do so. Why?

As to ORAC and other methods: I am not familiar enough with all of them
to say which makes the most sense, in the dietary context. I was
reading studies of the antioxidant potential of various herbs and
spices when I saw that lard and low quality olive oil were being used
in the Rancimat test. As I said, fresh coconut oil would not render
good results because it would resist oxidation much better than lard or
the low quality olive oil. However if you used fish or an oil high in
omega 6s, there would be so much oxidation that it would be more
difficult to tell which herb or spice was best. They chose fat sources
that oxidize fairly quickly, but not too quickly, to get a "middle
ground" that allow them to measure the herbs/spices in a reasonable
way.
Back to top
MattLB
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 111

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:05 pm    Post subject: Re: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

cguttman wrote:
Quote:
This is interesting. You explained the oxidization process well, thanks.

He didn't really explain it at all. Have a look at
http://www.cyberlipid.org/perox/oxid0006.htm

Quote:
I just read some previous postings of you. Is it correct that you assert
that the consumption of much unsaturated fat can be unhealthy (if you do
not take an appropriate amount of antioxidants). And also, opposed to
common guidelines: you seem to suggest that eating omega 3/6/9 fats can
be unhealthy because of lipid peroxidation?

He's got a bit snarled up with exactly what he's saying over the years,
because he hasn't always realised which fatty acids are unsaturated and
which aren't. Eating oxidised fatty acids is a bad idea whatever omega
they are.

Eating essential PUFA is a good idea as they are precursors to
important signalling molecules. This is the bit montygram doesn't
believe and he goes to the illogical extreme of assuming that anyone
who thinks they *are* essential also thinks you should eat as much of
them as possible. "Essential" is another term he has his own definition
of, one that's different to the standard biochemical definition.

MattLB
Back to top
MattLB
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 111

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:45 pm    Post subject: Re: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

montygram wrote:
Quote:
"Trans fat," if by that is meant a molecule that was unsaturated but is
now saturated, does no harm.

A molecule that was unsaturated and is now saturated is saturated.
Trans fats are always unsaturated. The terminology is very
straightforward, so don't just invent your own definitions.

Quote:
There is some ridiculous notion

Explain why it's ridiculous.

Quote:
about
"lipid bilayer membranes" being rendered dysfuntional, but proteins do
the actual work,

And require a fluid lipid environment to do it.

Quote:
and the fatty acids are there due to electrostatic
forces.

From what?

They provide some protection, especially if saturated, but a
"trans fatty acid" molecule has no mechanism to do harm.

It's unsaturated so it can be oxidised just like any unsaturated fatty
acid. Do a search for montygram in this group and you'll see that's a
bad thing.

Quote:
Put a bunch
of them in a tube with cells, and yes, they have an anti-growth effect,
because they act as a barrier to biochemical activity.

What does the abstract term "barrier to biochemical acitivity" actually
translate to in terms of biochemistry?

Quote:
As to "oxidized fats:" Exposing a highly unsaturated fat source (let's
say safflower oil), to oxygen leads to the the fatty acids bonding with
each other, due to "stolen" electrons,

You need a source of free radicals first. Plain oxygen isn't enough.
Nor is superoxide.

Quote:
and a plastic-like substance is
formed.

Plastic-like substance? In what way?

Quote:
Boiling is okay, because there is little
oxygen exposure that way,

So what's in the bubbles?

Quote:
Now, for something you probably want to know: why is "saturated fat"
called the "bad fat." This seems to be related

"seems to be related" - in other words you don't know.

Quote:
to how "nutritional
science" got established in the first place. There was a need to
essentially make up their own language, as other scientific disciplines
have, and so all kinds of abstract categories were invented. The
problem is that they are often misleading or dangerous.

A bit like you making up your own definitions of things.

Quote:
The key point is that if underlying cause of "chronic disease" is
cellular-level stress, and if oxidative stress is the most common
stressor (and there is a proverbial mountain of evidence supporting
this idea), then one "saturated fat" is "good" and the other is "bad,"
rendering the classification scheme of the "nutritional experts" to be
worse than useless.

You aren't talking about the classification scheme of nutritional
experts, it's your own system where saturated fat=saturated fatty acid
and trans fatty acid=saturated fatty acid.

MattLB
Back to top
cguttman
medicine forum addict


Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Posts: 67

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:34 am    Post subject: Re: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

Ah. Yes, MMU is right. Trans fats fall into the category of unsaturated
fats. It seems that Monty meant that trans fats behave like saturated fats.

cheers, Chris



MMu wrote:
Quote:
"montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1137647056.242539.242000@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

"Trans fat," if by that is meant a molecule that was unsaturated but is
now saturated, does no harm.


brush up your basic organic chemistry before spreading such terrible
nonsense.
a "trans" fat, can NEVER be saturated. the namegiving element of the fatty
acid -"trans"- comes from the configuration of a DOUBLEBOND having an
s-shaped "trans" form instead of a c-shaped "cis" form.

you might want to read this for a start:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html#s1q3

Back to top
MMu
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 418

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:04 am    Post subject: Re: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

"montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1137647056.242539.242000@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
"Trans fat," if by that is meant a molecule that was unsaturated but is
now saturated, does no harm.

brush up your basic organic chemistry before spreading such terrible
nonsense.
a "trans" fat, can NEVER be saturated. the namegiving element of the fatty
acid -"trans"- comes from the configuration of a DOUBLEBOND having an
s-shaped "trans" form instead of a c-shaped "cis" form.

you might want to read this for a start:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html#s1q3
Back to top
cguttman
medicine forum addict


Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Posts: 67

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:55 am    Post subject: Re: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

This is interesting. You explained the oxidization process well, thanks.

I just read some previous postings of you. Is it correct that you assert
that the consumption of much unsaturated fat can be unhealthy (if you do
not take an appropriate amount of antioxidants). And also, opposed to
common guidelines: you seem to suggest that eating omega 3/6/9 fats can
be unhealthy because of lipid peroxidation?

I have also seen a webpage where they use a antioxidant measure called
Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC). Do you know anything about
this measure? Do you think it is useful and should be taken into account
when one eats many unsaturated fats?

cheers, Chris


montygram wrote:
Quote:
"Trans fat," if by that is meant a molecule that was unsaturated but is
now saturated, does no harm. There is some ridiculous notion about
"lipid bilayer membranes" being rendered dysfuntional, but proteins do
the actual work, and the fatty acids are there due to electrostatic
forces. They provide some protection, especially if saturated, but a
"trans fatty acid" molecule has no mechanism to do harm. Put a bunch
of them in a tube with cells, and yes, they have an anti-growth effect,
because they act as a barrier to biochemical activity.

As to "oxidized fats:" Exposing a highly unsaturated fat source (let's
say safflower oil), to oxygen leads to the the fatty acids bonding with
each other, due to "stolen" electrons, and a plastic-like substance is
formed. This is how oil paintings are possible. It is best to
"refine" the antioxidants out of the oil, because then the process is
quick enough to meet the practical demands of the painter. However,
you do not want this happening in your body, because electrons will be
stolen from vital biomolecules, leading to cellular death or
dysfunction, and then possibly worse (tissue/organ failure). "Stones"
can form as well, leading to blockages. Oxidized cholesterol leads to
arterial damage that is known as "coronary artery disease," meaning you
could get a heart attack. Boiling is okay, because there is little
oxygen exposure that way, but you also don't want to eat food that not
fresh. If you eat any major source of unsaturated fatty acids, you
need to have antioxidant protection, because the fatty acids will go
rancid ("lipid peroxiation") in your body. Even some olive oils are
very bad, because the antioxidants have been refined out of them.
Eating organic purples olives that taste fresh is a better idea.

Now, for something you probably want to know: why is "saturated fat"
called the "bad fat." This seems to be related to how "nutritional
science" got established in the first place. There was a need to
essentially make up their own language, as other scientific disciplines
have, and so all kinds of abstract categories were invented. The
problem is that they are often misleading or dangerous.

Let's take an example: both lard and coconut oil are classified as
"saturated fats." Lard is 39% saturated and has no antioxidants.
Coconut oil is 92% saturated and has some natural antioxidants in it.
There is a food industry standard test to determine how dangerous a
food item might be, in terms of lipid peroxidation. It is called the
Rancimat. Here it is described:

"The Rancimat works according to the following principle: Lard is
heated with and without a test substance to 110 C and air is
constantly blown into the mixture. After all components with
antioxidative effects have been consumed, easily volatile substances
are formed from the lard. They are expelled with the airstream and
collected in bidistilled water, where they increase the conductance
according to the quantity added. The time of increase in conductance is
registered."

Source:
https://www.barthhaasgroup.com/cmsdk/content/bhg/research/scientific2/69.htm

Now you could run this same test with fresh coconut oil, but the
results would be remarkably different. Sometimes this test is used to
determine how good herbs and spices are as antioxidants, and either
lard or a low quality olive oil are used. However, if you mixed herbs
and spices with fresh coconut oil, you would see that there is hardly
any activity.

The key point is that if underlying cause of "chronic disease" is
cellular-level stress, and if oxidative stress is the most common
stressor (and there is a proverbial mountain of evidence supporting
this idea), then one "saturated fat" is "good" and the other is "bad,"
rendering the classification scheme of the "nutritional experts" to be
worse than useless. It is dangerous.
Back to top
montygram
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 825

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 am    Post subject: Re: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

"Trans fat," if by that is meant a molecule that was unsaturated but is
now saturated, does no harm. There is some ridiculous notion about
"lipid bilayer membranes" being rendered dysfuntional, but proteins do
the actual work, and the fatty acids are there due to electrostatic
forces. They provide some protection, especially if saturated, but a
"trans fatty acid" molecule has no mechanism to do harm. Put a bunch
of them in a tube with cells, and yes, they have an anti-growth effect,
because they act as a barrier to biochemical activity.

As to "oxidized fats:" Exposing a highly unsaturated fat source (let's
say safflower oil), to oxygen leads to the the fatty acids bonding with
each other, due to "stolen" electrons, and a plastic-like substance is
formed. This is how oil paintings are possible. It is best to
"refine" the antioxidants out of the oil, because then the process is
quick enough to meet the practical demands of the painter. However,
you do not want this happening in your body, because electrons will be
stolen from vital biomolecules, leading to cellular death or
dysfunction, and then possibly worse (tissue/organ failure). "Stones"
can form as well, leading to blockages. Oxidized cholesterol leads to
arterial damage that is known as "coronary artery disease," meaning you
could get a heart attack. Boiling is okay, because there is little
oxygen exposure that way, but you also don't want to eat food that not
fresh. If you eat any major source of unsaturated fatty acids, you
need to have antioxidant protection, because the fatty acids will go
rancid ("lipid peroxiation") in your body. Even some olive oils are
very bad, because the antioxidants have been refined out of them.
Eating organic purples olives that taste fresh is a better idea.

Now, for something you probably want to know: why is "saturated fat"
called the "bad fat." This seems to be related to how "nutritional
science" got established in the first place. There was a need to
essentially make up their own language, as other scientific disciplines
have, and so all kinds of abstract categories were invented. The
problem is that they are often misleading or dangerous.

Let's take an example: both lard and coconut oil are classified as
"saturated fats." Lard is 39% saturated and has no antioxidants.
Coconut oil is 92% saturated and has some natural antioxidants in it.
There is a food industry standard test to determine how dangerous a
food item might be, in terms of lipid peroxidation. It is called the
Rancimat. Here it is described:

"The Rancimat works according to the following principle: Lard is
heated with and without a test substance to 110 C and air is
constantly blown into the mixture. After all components with
antioxidative effects have been consumed, easily volatile substances
are formed from the lard. They are expelled with the airstream and
collected in bidistilled water, where they increase the conductance
according to the quantity added. The time of increase in conductance is
registered."

Source:
https://www.barthhaasgroup.com/cmsdk/content/bhg/research/scientific2/69.htm

Now you could run this same test with fresh coconut oil, but the
results would be remarkably different. Sometimes this test is used to
determine how good herbs and spices are as antioxidants, and either
lard or a low quality olive oil are used. However, if you mixed herbs
and spices with fresh coconut oil, you would see that there is hardly
any activity.

The key point is that if underlying cause of "chronic disease" is
cellular-level stress, and if oxidative stress is the most common
stressor (and there is a proverbial mountain of evidence supporting
this idea), then one "saturated fat" is "good" and the other is "bad,"
rendering the classification scheme of the "nutritional experts" to be
worse than useless. It is dangerous.
Back to top
cguttman
medicine forum addict


Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Posts: 67

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:13 am    Post subject: Re: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

What are oxidized fats exactly? How are they created? Are they different
to transfats? Hydrogenation and oxidization of fats are different, but
what does that mean?

Chris

MMu wrote:
Quote:
"cguttman" <4everclever4@web.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:43ce29f1$0$23753$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Hello folks,

Transfats are created when oil is heated up to a temperature of 260 degree
celsius. However, when you use oil to fry food, then the pan is usually
heated up only to up to 185 degrees celsius! So, actually transfats are
not likely to be produced by frying food in a pan with oil. Is this true,
or did I get this wrong?

Chris


Transfats don't matter much in comparison to the oxidized fats (and their
products) you get when frying in oil.
But yes, I'd definitely say that you won't get much transfat by means of
heating oil to frying temperature for the reasons John Sankey already
mentioned.

Back to top
MMu
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 418

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:33 pm    Post subject: Re: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

"cguttman" <4everclever4@web.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:43ce29f1$0$23753$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote:
Hello folks,

Transfats are created when oil is heated up to a temperature of 260 degree
celsius. However, when you use oil to fry food, then the pan is usually
heated up only to up to 185 degrees celsius! So, actually transfats are
not likely to be produced by frying food in a pan with oil. Is this true,
or did I get this wrong?

Chris

Transfats don't matter much in comparison to the oxidized fats (and their
products) you get when frying in oil.
But yes, I'd definitely say that you won't get much transfat by means of
heating oil to frying temperature for the reasons John Sankey already
mentioned.
Back to top
John Sankey
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 286

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:11 pm    Post subject: Re: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

As noted previously, electric stove elements hit 1900F and
gas can get hotter.

But it's true - you are unlikely to create transfats when
frying, mostly because there isn't much free hydrogen around.
Fats, polyunsaturated in particular, do however oxidize
under normal frying conditions, and that isn't good for us
either.
Back to top
cguttman
medicine forum addict


Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Posts: 67

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:43 am    Post subject: transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C Reply with quote

Hello folks,

Transfats are created when oil is heated up to a temperature of 260
degree celsius. However, when you use oil to fry food, then the pan is
usually heated up only to up to 185 degrees celsius! So, actually
transfats are not likely to be produced by frying food in a pan with
oil. Is this true, or did I get this wrong?

Chris
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [12 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:19 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » nutrition
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Why God created Farts and Diarhea Greatcod lyme 5 Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:00 pm
No new posts Crackers or Crispbread - Zero Transfats John Wilson nutrition 1 Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:33 am
No new posts The Pope in the frying pan Happy Oyster dentistry 3 Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:22 pm
No new posts Advantage trial created as promotional tool: Merck official outrider cardiology 1 Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:22 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0259s ][ Queries: 19 (0.0021s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]