transfats are created at 260 C, but frying oil is only 180 C

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by cguttman, Jan 18, 2006.

  1. cguttman

    cguttman Guest

    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
     
    Tags:


  2. MMu

    MMu Guest

    "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.
     
  3. cguttman

    cguttman Guest

    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:
    > "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.
    >
    >
     
  4. montygram

    montygram Guest

    "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.
     
  5. cguttman

    cguttman Guest

    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:
    > "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.
    >
     
  6. MMu

    MMu Guest

    "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
     
  7. cguttman

    cguttman Guest

    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:
    > "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
    >
    >
     
  8. MattLB

    MattLB Guest

    montygram wrote:
    > "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.

    > There is some ridiculous notion


    Explain why it's ridiculous.

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


    And require a fluid lipid environment to do it.

    > 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.

    > 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?

    > 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.

    > and a plastic-like substance is
    > formed.


    Plastic-like substance? In what way?

    > Boiling is okay, because there is little
    > oxygen exposure that way,


    So what's in the bubbles?

    > 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.

    > 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.

    > 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
     
  9. MattLB

    MattLB Guest

    cguttman wrote:
    > 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

    > 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
     

Share This Page

Loading...