Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdccs5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccs5!ee161abe
From: ee161abe@sdccs5.UUCP (Doug Salot)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Partially Hydrogenated Oils
Message-ID: <1148@sdccs5.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Jan-84 23:50:14 EST
Article-I.D.: sdccs5.1148
Posted: Sat Jan 28 23:50:14 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Jan-84 03:42:15 EST
References: <239@pyuxss.UUCP>, <859@ihuxl.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Computer Center
Lines: 22

I'm interested in the responce to ihuxl!seifet's recent posting
concerning saturated vs unsaturated fats in the diet.  I have
always been under the impression that saturated fats were the
ones to stay clear of.  I believe there have been studies which
have shown that high intake of saturated fats (primarily from
animal sources) increased one's chance of coronary artery
disease.  The references of ihuxl!siefer seem to imply that
the switch from saturated (animal) to unsaturated (plant) fats
is detremental.
Also, I believe that the difference between partailly hydrogenated
oils and naturally occuring unsaturated oils comes from the
process of hydrogenation.  Nature uses enzymes to catalyze the
hydrogenation reaction.  This tends to stick the H's on in a
precise fasion (I believe the 'd' optical isomer is prevalent in
nature), whereas industrial hydrogenation uses a metal catalyst
(Nickel, I think) which sticks H's on any old way.  I think
the consequence is that industrially hydrogenated oils are
not fully metabolized.
Can somebody shoot me down or back me up on any of this?

- Doug Salot	..!sdcsvax!sdccs5!ee161abe