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