Palm and Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oils Adversely Alter Lipoprotein Profiles Compared with Soybean and Canola Oils in Moderately Hyperlipidemic Subjects

Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Impact Factor: 6.77). 08/2006; 84(1):54-62.
Source: PubMed


Partially hydrogenated fat has an unfavorable effect on cardiovascular disease risk. Palm oil is a potential substitute because of favorable physical characteristics.
We assessed the effect of palm oil on lipoprotein profiles compared with the effects of both partially hydrogenated fat and oils high in monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Fifteen volunteers aged > or =50 y with LDL cholesterol > or =130 mg/dL were provided with food for each of 4 diets (35 d/phase) varying in type of fat (partially hydrogenated soybean, soybean, palm, or canola; two-thirds fat, 20% of energy). Plasma fatty acid profiles, lipids, lipoproteins, apolipoprotein A-I, apolipoprotein B, lipoprotein(a), glucose, insulin, HDL subfractions, and indicators of lipoprotein metabolism (HDL-cholesterol fractional esterification rate, cholesteryl ester transfer protein, phospholipid transfer protein, and paraoxonase activities) were measured at the end of each phase.
Plasma fatty acid profiles reflected the main source of dietary fat. Partially hydrogenated soybean and palm oils resulted in higher LDL-cholesterol concentrations than did soybean (12% and 14%, respectively; P < 0.05) and canola (16% and 18%; P < 0.05) oils. Apolipoprotein B (P < 0.05) and A-I (P < 0.05) concentrations mirrored the pattern of LDL- and HDL-cholesterol concentrations, respectively. No significant effect on the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio was observed for palm oil compared with the other dietary fats. HDL3 cholesterol was higher after palm oil than after partially hydrogenated and soybean oils (P < 0.05). Differences in measures of glucose and HDL intravascular processing attributable to dietary fat were small.
Palm and partially hydrogenated soybean oils, compared with soybean and canola oils, adversely altered the lipoprotein profile in moderately hyperlipidemic subjects without significantly affecting HDL intravascular processing markers.

10 Reads
  • Source
    • "However, the effect of the high oleic safflower oil in cardiovascular health has not been widely studied. Similarly, the consumption of canola oil has been related to the decrease in LDL cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations, and to an increase in HDL cholesterol due to its MUFA and PUFA content (Asadi, Shahriari & Chahardah-Cheric, 2010; Barbosa Aguila, Cota Loureiro, da Rocha Pinheiro A & Mandarim-de-Lacerda, 2002; Vega-López et al., 2006). Some preliminary clinical or exploratory human studies show that eating avocado helps support cardiovascular health and promotes healthy blood lipid profiles. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The amount of lipids in a diet and their source are determining factors of the lipid profile. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the addition of six types of different commercial vegetable oils (avocado, canola, high oleic safflower, soybean, grape seed and partially hydrogenated vegetable oil) to the diet of Wistar rats at two different concentrations (14.4% and 25.6% of energy intake from each added oil) and check rats' tolerance and lipid profile effect following consumption for 5 weeks. Rats fed with soybean and avocado oils had significantly lower LDL (29.27 ±8.85 and 26.51±10.85 mg/dL, respectively) and total cholesterol values (48.10±11.41 and 45.83±5.78 mg/dL, respectively) vs. treatment with hydrogenated oil (p<0.05) (49.19±27.62 and 70.27±31.24 mg/dL, respectively). Rats' consumption and growth was satisfactory with both concentrations of added oils. Partially hydrogenated oil had a hypercholesterolaemic effect on rats; in contrast, avocado oil and especially soybean oil offered the best results.
    02/2015; 3(1):10-18. DOI:10.13189/ujfns.2015.030102
  • Source
    • "Due to the increased glucose levels often present among subjects with metabolic syndrome,33 subjects' conditions in this study from Iggman et al.38 may have impacted the regulation of glucose levels throughout the dietary treatment. Compared with partially hydrogenated soybean oil, canola oil showed a lower insulin concentration and lower homeostasis model assessment ratio41; however, there was no difference between these two oils with regard to their effects on plasma glucose concentrations, which suggests canola oil may have a potential effect on insulin sensitivity.41 In general, canola oil-based diets show positive results in modulating glucose and insulin levels compared with SFA-based diets. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Canola oil-based diets have been shown to reduce plasma cholesterol levels in comparison with diets containing higher levels of saturated fatty acids. Consumption of canola oil also influences biological functions that affect various other biomarkers of disease risk. Previous reviews have focused on the health effects of individual components of canola oil. Here, the objective is to address the health effects of intact canola oil, as this has immediate practical implications for consumers, nutritionists, and others deciding which oil to consume or recommend. A literature search was conducted to examine the effects of canola oil consumption on coronary heart disease, insulin sensitivity, lipid peroxidation, inflammation, energy metabolism, and cancer cell growth. Data reveal substantial reductions in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as other positive actions, including increased tocopherol levels and improved insulin sensitivity, compared with consumption of other dietary fat sources. In summary, growing scientific evidence supports the use of canola oil, beyond its beneficial actions on circulating lipid levels, as a health-promoting component of the diet.
    Nutrition Reviews 06/2013; 71(6):370-85. DOI:10.1111/nure.12033 · 6.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Studies comparing the effect of palm and sunflower oil (rich in oleic acid and PUFAs) showed increases in serum cholesterol (total-, LDL-and HDL-cholesterol) with palm oil (Cuesta et al. 1998; Truswell 2000; Sanchez-Muniz et al. 2002; Scholtz et al. 2004), but no real differences in the total cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol ratio (Cuesta et al. 1998; Truswell 2000). Studies comparing palm oil with canola oil (rich in MUFAs and with low content of SFAs) (Zhang et al. 1997; Truswell 2000; Vega-Lopez et al. 2006) also showed that intake of palm oil raised the plasma cholesterol (both HDL-and LDL-cholesterol), but the total/HDL-cholesterol ratio was not affected. . Studies comparing palm oil/palmitic acid with other SFAs generally showed lower cholesterol levels (total-, LDL-and HDL-cholesterol) with palm oil than with myristic or lauric acids or their combination (Ng et al. 1991; Sundram et al. 1994; Zock et al. 1994; Schwab et al. 1995; Temme et al. 1996; Snook et al. 1999). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We reviewed the scientific literature on the evidence of the relationship between palm oil and adverse effects on human health. Few studies have investigated the effects of palm oil per se, and the main reason why it has been associated with negative health effects is the relatively high content of saturated fatty acids (SFAs), particularly palmitic acid, which in turn have been associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease and some tumours. However, more recent investigations on the topic seem to have reconsidered the negative role of the dietary SFAs as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and show that not only the type of fat, but also that the triglyceride structure plays a role in cholesterolaemia. As regards to a role in cancer, specific studies on dietary palmitic acid or palm oil and the risk of cancer development are scanty, and the evidence is not convincing.
    International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 02/2013; 64(5). DOI:10.3109/09637486.2013.768213 · 1.21 Impact Factor
Show more