Re: magnesium stearate = hydrogenated oils

[Guest guest]

Suze,

<<<somehow, i had a feeling you'd say that. LOL! maybe i'm not following, but

stearic acid is also a *product* of hydrogenation, according to mary enig, in

" know your fats " .>>>

Right... the purpose of hydrogenation is to saturate a hydrocarbon.

<<<<as i understand it, stearic acid is often produced from

vegetable oils, via hydrogenation.>>>>

....in which case it is chemically identical to stearic acid from animal fats.

<<<<<and stearates are esters of stearic

acid - and triglycerides are the result of complete esterification. so maybe

there are trans fats mixed in with the stearic acid on the triglycerides?>>>>

I have no idea, but magnesium stearate isn't a triglyceride.

<<<<or maybe the FDA allows stearates to be called such when they actually are

" flattened " trans fats,>>>>

I highly doubt it. All of the trans fats have their own names. Enig lists them

in _KYF_. I'm at school, so don't have it on me, but I'm sure you could check

_KYF_ for the trans fat that corresponds in carbon-number to stearic acid and

find it's name.

<<<<<but either that's the case, or both premiere research and ron have

incorrect information.>>>>>

I don't get it. You said that Ron said it was a hydrogenated oil. I'm not

disputing that. What does that have to do with trans fats if stearic acid can

also be produced by hydrogenation?

<<<<<mary writes that transfats are flat and straight just like

saturated fats, so again i'm wondering if the FDA allows stearates to be called

such when they are technically derived from a trans fat with similar chemical

structure to stearic acid but are not really stearic acid?>>>>

The stearic acid isn't derived from a trans fat, it's converted from a cis fat

via hydrogenation.

<<<<if you respond, please do so assuming you're talking to an utter layman. you

know i've had no chem education whatsoever so am struggling to understand this

:-)>>>>

Ok, some background knowledge if needed: hydrogenation is used to saturate

hydrocarbons, and is used industrially for all sorts of things besides fats, and

is an important and beneficial process, outside of food. Alkynes (hydrocarbons

with a triple bond) and alkenes (hydrocarbons with a double bond, such as an

unsaturated fatty acid) can both be hydrogenated.

What the products are depends on the catalyst. In all cases, some kind of metal

needs to be used as a catalyst, most commonly platinum. According to , food

oil hydrogenation usually employs nickel. Certain catalysts will hydrogenate an

alkyne (triple bond) into an alkene (double bond), but most catalysts produce

saturated hydrocarbons as a result. Of the very few catalysts that produce

alkenes from alkynes, some will produce trans alkenes, and some will produce cis

alkenes.

The only one I know of that produces cis alkenes is nickel boride, which is

confusing, because trans fats are a byproduct of hydrogenation using some sort

of nickel.

In any case, industrial processes that create different chemicals can almost

always isolate them. So it seems an incredibly remote chance that a

hydrogenation would lead to some stearic acid, some trans fats, and a bunch of

other fatty acids, and someone would label the entire mix " stearic acid " unless

they isolated the stearic acid from that mix, which would be entirely possible.

A note on isomers: cis and trans isomerization requires some sort of variability

between " sides " of a molecule. Trans and cis fats can be isomers of each other,

because one side can be missing hydrogen and another be saturated, or the

unsaturation can be divvied up between each side. Sautrated fats can NOT have

cis and trans isomers, because they are perfectly symetrical.

Thus, it is 100% impossible for stearic acid from hydrogenation to be any

different in any way at all from stearic acid from natural sources-- except, as

pointed out, there could be contaminants.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>In any case, industrial processes that create different chemicals can

>almost always isolate them. So it seems an incredibly remote chance that

>a hydrogenation would lead to some stearic acid, some trans fats, and a

>bunch of other fatty acids, and someone would label the entire mix

> " stearic acid " unless they isolated the stearic acid from that mix, which

>would be entirely possible.

Besides the concern that residual nickel might be in these

stearates-produced-by-hydrogenation, your faith in purity is probably

misplaced. It's not physically possible to achieve 100% purity in these

kinds of industrial processes, and food labeling laws have legions of

loopholes and gaps of exactly that sort. That's not to say there's not

some degree of isolation going on, but industry is going to go with the

cheapest (and therefore generally least effective) means of isolation they

can get away with, so it's almost a certainty that there will be

impurities, and that therefore there's a real danger of consuming PHO trans

fats and even metal catalysts when taking these vitamins.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/27/04 4:05:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> . It's not physically possible to achieve 100% purity in these

> kinds of industrial processes, and food labeling laws have legions of

> loopholes and gaps of exactly that sort.

Sure, but I find the idea that the impurity could be physiologically

significant completely unreasonable. Supplements generally come in 500 mg

tablets or

capsules, often less, occasionally more. Say a person is taking 5 500 mg

tablets a day, for a total of 2.5 grams of a product. 5% is magnesium stearate,

and lets be generous and grant it 10% impurity with trans fats. That would

make the product 0.5% trans fats, and 5 capsules would be 0.0125 grams of trans

fats.

There's 35 times more trans fat in one serving of butter! (70, by some

estimates).

Since 5% of the trans fats in animal fat are elaidic acid, according to

the worst of the trans fats and what makes up 50% of PHO trans fats, that

means that a serving of butter contains 1.75 times the amount of " harmful " trans

fat as the contaminated magnesium stearate.

Moreover, someone like or I, who eat a stick of butter a day, are

getting FOURTEEN times the amount of " harmful " trans fats as the contaminated

magnesim stearate!

Thus, the idea that the harm of magnesium stearate comes from contamination

with trans fats or hydrogenation not only has no basis, but is rather

preposterous.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> There's 35 times more trans fat in one serving of butter! (70, by

some

> estimates).

>

> Since 5% of the trans fats in animal fat are elaidic acid,

according to

> the worst of the trans fats and what makes up 50% of PHO trans

fats, that

> means that a serving of butter contains 1.75 times the amount

of " harmful " trans

> fat as the contaminated magnesium stearate.

>

Do you know if this is true of grass fed butter? I know some people

believe the trans fats in butter are mainly due to poor grain based

diets which cause putrification rather than proper fermentation in

the gut.

-joe

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/28/04 1:26:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

> I don't know about elaidic acid, but grass-fed butter is much higher

> in trans fats-- CLA is a trans fat.

I should have also pointed out that venison has a similar trans fat profile

to the other ruminants. While they might graze on some corn fields, I think

it's really going out on a limb to attribute the trans fats to grain feeding in

wild animals.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Do you know if this is true of grass fed butter? I know some

>people believe the trans fats in butter are mainly due to poor grain

>based diets which cause putrification rather than proper

>fermentation in the gut.

I don't know about elaidic acid, but grass-fed butter is much higher

in trans fats-- CLA is a trans fat.

Chris

[Guest guest]

><<<<<and stearates are esters of stearic

>acid - and triglycerides are the result of complete

>esterification. so maybe there are trans fats mixed in with the

>stearic acid on the triglycerides?>>>>

>

>I have no idea, but magnesium stearate isn't a triglyceride.

then i don't fully understand what a stearate is - would you be so kind as

to explain it in_layman's_terms?

><<<<<but either that's the case, or both premiere research and ron

>have incorrect information.>>>>>

>

>I don't get it. You said that Ron said it was a hydrogenated oil.

> I'm not disputing that.

ah, sorry - i thought you were disputing that.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/28/04 10:01:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> then i don't fully understand what a stearate is - would you be so kind as

> to explain it in_layman's_terms?

Stearic acid is a fatty acid, not a fat. Any " -ate " is the conjugate base of

an acid-- i.e., the acid, minus an H+ ion. The acid part of a fatty acid is

the carboxyl group, which contains the ionizable H+. This is also where the

ester linkage occurs, which is the replacement of the H on the OH of the

carboxyl with a functional group. That's the same H that could ionize to

contribute

to an acidic effect, and the same H that's lost when stearic acid becomes

stearate. So magneisum must be forming a bond at this site, so I don't think it

would be possible to have magnesium stearate in a triglyceride.

Chris