Palm and partially hydrogenated soybean oils adversely alter lipoprotein profiles compared with soybean and canola oils in moderately hyperlipidemic subjects.
ABSTRACT 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.
- SourceAvailable from: Roberto Fanelli[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 · 1.20 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The possible relationship between consumption of trans fatty acids (TFAs) and risk of insulin resistance or development of diabetes mellitus type II has been considered by a number of human and animal studies over the past decade. This review evaluates the evidence, and concludes that there is limited evidence for a weak association at high TFA intakes, but very little convincing evidence that habitual exposure as part of a standard western diet has a significant contribution to risk of diabetes or insulin resistance. The possibility of increased risk for individuals with particular genotypes (such as the FABP2 Thr54 allele) is of interest, but further work would be required to provide sufficient evidence of any association.European journal of clinical nutrition 10/2010; 65(5):553-64. DOI:10.1038/ejcn.2010.240 · 2.95 Impact Factor
- Plant physiology 08/2008; 147(3):962-8. DOI:10.1104/pp.108.121681 · 7.39 Impact Factor