↓ Skip to main content

Replacing Trans Fat: The Argument for Palm Oil with a Cautionary Note on Interesterification

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of the American College of Nutrition, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Replacing Trans Fat: The Argument for Palm Oil with a Cautionary Note on Interesterification
Published in
The Journal of the American College of Nutrition, June 2010
DOI 10.1080/07315724.2010.10719842
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To replace dietary trans fatty acids (TFA), two practical options exist: revert to a natural saturated fat without cholesterol (most likely palm oil or its fractions) or move to a newer model of modified fat hardened by interesterification (IE). This review summarizes the relative risks for cardiovascular disease inherent in these options. Interestingly, both types of fat have been the subject of nutritional scrutiny for approximately the last 40 years, and both have positive and negative attributes. Only during that period has palm oil production developed to the point where it has become the major edible oil in world markets, making clinical studies of it an important objective. On the other hand, approximately 25 human studies have fed interesterified fat in one form or another over this period, some for weeks, some as a single meal. Two types of diet designs exist. Several fed a small amount of interesterified fat, usually incorporated within a margarine, and stayed below the radar of biological detection of any abnormal metabolism. A few fed interesterified fat that incorporated stearic acid, as interesterified 18:0 (IE-18:0), even comparing it to trans fat and saturated fat, as a major part of total daily calories to assess its metabolic impact per se. These latter 5 to 6 studies clearly reveal negative biological effects on lipoproteins, blood glucose, insulin, immune function, or liver enzymes when relatively high intake of IE-18:0 or palmitic acid (IE-16:0) were fed in fats with sn2-saturated fatty acids. High intake of 18:0 in natural fats can depress total lipoproteins, while IE-18:0 and IE-16:0 at high levels adversely affect lipoprotein metabolism. Still other studies have supplied interesterified fat as a single meal or fed such fat daily only in a single snack, as opposed to incorporating the fat into the entire fat pool consumed at all meals in association with most foods (which is the more physiological approach and more apt to elicit effects). Even in meal studies, IE-18:0 typically delayed fat absorption postprandially, indicating its effect on fat metabolism originating, in part, in the intestine. Mainly 2 saturated fatty acids (18:0 or 16:0) have been interesterified to harden oils, using the 16:0 from fully hydrogenated palm oil or 18:0 from fully hydrogenated soybean oil as the source material. It is not clear that IE-16:0 is as problematic as IE-18:0, but IE-16:0 has been studied less. Levels between 8% energy (%E) and 12%E from 18:0 as interesterified fat (the typical diet provides about 2%E-4%E as 18:0 from natural fats) show the most effect. Detection of adverse effects would seem to start around 7%E-8%E as IE-18:0, but one can assume that effects are initiated, even if undetected, at a lower intake, similar to the situation with TFA. Thus, although an intake of 1%E to 4%E from IE-18:0 does not appear to influence lipoproteins, it is not necessarily the only system affected. The negative effects of IE-18:0 may be alleviated or masked by dilution with other fats, especially by adding 18:2-rich polyunsaturated oils to the diet. This is similar to the trans fat story, i.e., if a limited intake of TFA is heavily diluted with other oils, the consumption of TFA fails to be detected as an adverse effect. Accordingly, more research is warranted to determine the appropriateness of interesterified fat consumption, particularly before it becomes insidiously embedded in the food supply similar to TFA and intake levels are achieved that compromise long-term health.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 4 4%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 27 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 18%
Chemistry 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 29 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,193,304
of 34,363,559 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of the American College of Nutrition
#226
of 1,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,425
of 152,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of the American College of Nutrition
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,363,559 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 152,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.