Talk:Interesterified fat

Change

I changed Interesterified, Interesterified oil and Interesterification to redirect to this article, rather than to Transesterification. That article seems to describe a different chemical process, used to make bio-diesel for example.--Chrisbak 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Research

Why the citation to 1970s research saying interesterified fats are just fine, while there's no mention of research within the last several years suggesting interesterified fats present cardiovascular risks and increase blood glucose levels? Also, the "health effects" section is virtually unreadable. I'd attempt a fix myself but I'm not enough of an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.78.86 (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation required?

"However, research indicates that interesterified fats may pose health risks, some greater in magnitude than trans fats." Does this require a citation? Research is referred to, but not linked to. It seems strange, and slightly wrong, that someone would refer to research but not give anyone a chance to actually view the research that is referred to. jimbo 15:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Health risks of what, exactly?

The opening paragraph notes (uncited) health risks of interesterified fats, "some greater in magnitude than trans fats." without reference. The text body contains the fallacious argument: A) intersterified fats are bad B)stearic acid is used for interesterified fats, C)Stearic acid is bad; therefore interesterified fats are bad. The reference, a study by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (i.e. not an unbiased source) deals more with saturated (i.e. stearic) fats than interesterification itself, which does not require stearic acid, per se. It's rhetorical sleight of hand. István 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The risks for this kind of thing would be the same kind of risk associated with artificial elimination or alteration of calories and fats from foodstuffs; the concern stems from what we saw happen with margarine/shortening and trans-fats, as well as what we have seen happen with saccharine and aspartame and cyclamate... when traditional foods are modified industrially to attain performance-results, the price is sometimes health-impacts for consumers years down the road. 4.143.56.227 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's not an answer to the question. The response doesn't cite anything (at all), but rather uses fear and ignorance to state a very simplistic belief of one individual. It's not science. It's just one person's entirely unfounded and uneducated personal belief... about chemistry. Simply wretched. And I'm the only one calling this super-pseudo-scientist out in the year and a half the claim was posted here on Wikipedia? I'm just glad this individual doesn't work for NASA; after all rocket fuel is bad for the body and environment, and studies show that rockets that use petroleum based fumes are worse than ones that run on rainbows and thoughts about unicorns. What? Oh no, I don't have that study right in front of me... but trust me, I read things and know lots without ever needing to cite a source.--74.235.39.7 (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Commenting a few years later: The interesterified fats in widespread use are very high in stearic acid, so I don't see good evidence of the "rhetorical sleight of hand" Istvan alleges. (See the berry1 reference.) --Elvey (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Citations

Two of the citations are recaps of one of the others, yet the text refers to "Other, early research". Shouldn't the "Other" be removed? Gigemag76 (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Health effects section

The Health effects section only seems to have rather uninteresting studies. Is there anything good on effects on endothelial function and inflammation markers? So that some comparison could be made to trans fats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstard12 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the The Health effects section studies are problematic. Review: PMID 20823487 states that there are two kinds of studies. In a nutshell, I see the review as saying that studies suggest they're roughly as bad as trans fats. It notes that 4/5 studies add small amounts of these fats to diets and find no adverse impacts, as do similar studies of TFAs (trans fats), while 1/5 studies add larger amounts of these fats to diets and (like similar studies with TFAs) find adverse impacts ("negative biological effects on lipoproteins, blood glucose, insulin, immune function, or liver enzymes"). It's not stated, but I would wager that the former are designed to find no adverse effects, while the latter are designed to find adverse effects, and that therefore the claim in our article that "there are a number of good controlled human intervention studies" is untrue. (The italics are mine.) While the review is artfully phrased, the gist is that interesterified soybean oil shortenings (18:0 from fully hydrogenated soybean oil) are problematic; in quantity, they seem to adversely affect lipoprotein metabolism. IIRC, per MEDRS, we shouldn't be using primary sources, as secondary sources are available. The strategy of defining what good studies should look for, and then listing what the studies that have been done look for and found, while sensible, isn't wikipedia best practice. --Elvey (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The tack taken by the

Merge With Enzymatic Interesterification?

It seems like the content of this article is very similar to the page Enzymatic Interesterification. Both have a brief description of the effect of the process, why it would be done, and the chemistry behind it. This article then has a section on health effects, while the other has more details on the history and the process itself.

It doesn't seem like either article alone is long enough to justify keeping them denormalized. Thoughts? Crazy2be (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)