Image: Wikimedia Commons/Lobo
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Not all fats are created equal. Scientists have known since the 1950s that replacing saturated fats with unsaturated ones can have profound health benefits. Diets that are high in solid fats, such as butter and animal fat, lead to elevated risks of cardiovascular disease and high cholesterol. But it has been difficult to phase out saturated fats—not only are they are delicious, they are also important components of a food's structure. Without saturated fat, ice creams are just sugary liquids and a hot dog has the consistency of a pet’s chew toy.
Scientists learned that lesson the hard way in 2009, when they tried replacing frankfurters' saturated fats with oils, which are healthier than solid fats. "If you try it with just oil, the frankfurters have a very tough, leathery property," says Alejandro Marangoni, who studies food and soft materials science at the University of Guelph in Canada.
In a paper published March 1 in Food and Function, Marangoni and his colleagues found a way to make oils solid but still healthy. By mixing regular canola oil with molecules of ethyl cellulose, the researchers trapped the oil within a solid scaffolding. When used in hot dogs, this gel replaced saturated fats without sacrificing texture. "It behaves as if it were solid beef fat," Marangoni says.
Of course, we've heard similar promises before. Although artificial sweeteners were marketed as a way to eat sweets without gaining weight, subsequent studies found that these indigestible sugars may make it more difficult for a consumer to control his or her body weight. Similarly, the fat substitute olestra replaced shortening in some fast foods, potato chips and other products; because olestra is indigestible, consumers could eat the greasy food without any caloric comeuppance. Unfortunately, several side effects—including vitamin malabsorption and "anal leakage"—made olestra fall far short of the hype.
The makers of the ethyl cellulose gel say they do not anticipate such problems. Canola oil is widely used in food products, and ethyl cellulose is chemically similar to the cellulose fibers we eat in fruits, vegetables and wheat bran. Similar to regular cellulose, ethyl cellulose is an indigestible chain of repeating glucose molecules; the only difference is that the hydroxyl groups of ethyl cellulose are modified into ethyl ether groups. Although ethyl cellulose is not found naturally in plants, "it would be similar to eating a small bit of paper," explains Eckhard Flöter, a food scientist from the Technical University of Berlin. Ethyl cellulose is "generally recognized as safe" according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and is commonly used in pharmaceutical capsules and as a food additive in milk products and baked goods.
The researchers are not claiming to be able to turn hot dogs into a diet food. The modified frankfurters have a similar greasy feel and contain the same total grams of fat, but those fats are healthier unsaturated ones rather than the artery-clogging variety.
Although other scientists have attempted to gel oils to structurally replace saturated fats, "the beauty here is that they created a food application where the perceived properties for consumers are not significantly changed," Flöter says. Previous attempts could not replicate desired textures.
Marangoni's team discovered the gelling properties of ethyl cellulose by trial and error, and no one had expected ethyl cellulose to work so well. When fats solidify in nature, their molecules crystallize, forming spongelike structures that contain oils within the pores. In contrast, ethyl cellulose gels form spaghettilike, fibrous structures around the oil globules.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add CommentYour statement that butter leads to elevated risks of cardiovascular disease and high cholesterol is actually not really accurate. Particularly when the alternative to butter; that being margarine; is far worse for one's health in a multitude of ways. Although the main topic here is about hot dogs, I deemed it necessary to respond to your statement about butter, because as it stands, the statement is misleading; which is completely unacceptable for a professional journalist's standards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dietary villain in the development of coronary disease was presumed to be saturated fat that butter contains, but research proved that it is actually the
"trans fat" that is far more contributory towards the risk of hearts attacks, etc. - and Butter contains zero,(0) trans fats.
Years ago, when margarine was introduced as being the 'healthy alternative' to butter, it really wasn't healthier! Researchers at Harvard University reported that the "partially hydrogenated oils" in margarine products were very high in trans fat,and people who consumed margarine had nearly TWICE the risk of heart attacks!
Butter & margarine have the same amount of calories; butter is only slightly higher in saturated fats (Butter=8g; Margarine =5g); but the really shocking information is: eating margarine can increase heart disease in women by 53% over eating the same amount of butter! As well, butter is a natural food, and it increases the absorption of many other nutrients in other foods; butter has nutritional benefits; whereas margarine has only a few, and they are added and do not come naturally. Margarine increases LDL Cholesterol(the bad one),and lowers the HDL (the good
one);increases risk of cancers by five-fold, decreases immune response, and decreases insulin response. Butter does not have any of these negative effects on the body.
So, in conclusion, had your statement included the word "margarine" instead of the word "Butter", it would have been accurate.
"Hot dog" and "healthy" is an oxymoron.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm is going from low to low.
"Dietary fats: Know which types to choose"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002468.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fat/NU00262
What about Smart Balance butter/margarine that uses Omega 3 fatty acids? How healthy/how safe is it? Can it be used to make hot dogs instead of that gel that sounds like it will kill you if you eat too much of it; and you know Americans always over eat?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust in case anybody doesn't know:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHot dog is not healthy because of additives in a roll, and because minced meat in sausage is made from inferior parts of a cow.
Calling different hot dog "healthier" is like "healthier" cigarettes.
I learned something on SciAm site. Why many Americans don't believe scientists. Not because Americans are stupid, but because science reporting in USA is so poor (fragmentary, misleading, propagandist) that not believing it is a very good idea.
I respect Science. I respect mother nature. This article screams crimes against both.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever has saturated fat been proven to be the cause, or even _A_ cause of CVD. In fact, leading research shows most cases of CVD are caused by underlying information. *Side note - seed oils that replaced saturated fat are one of the greatest contributers to inflammation.
Here's a nice RECENT meta-analysis in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, absolving saturated fat from the crimes it has been accused of for year... Wonder why THIS spublication didn't make headlines? http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/3/535.abstract
I agree with Jerzy New. Science reporting in America is poor. If you want legit health information, check out Europe's research. America's health speaks for itself.
First. Don't eat hot dogs. Second, if you do, eat ones made with intestines, grassfed meat, and natural spices.
Stick to real food - you can't go wrong. (By real food, I mean without labels. Products come with labels, not food).
Dear SciAm,
I DO respect many of your publications.. but lately it seems that the articles published on your site are pro-vegetarian (even vegan), and promote ideas that are helping large cooperations make money at the cost of its citizens. Science is supposed to be unbaised...
Sarah, ask Melinda about this articl to see what the others are complaining about with the butter slander
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio
The idea that genetically modified canola oil bonded to cellulose is superior to non-hydrogenated, non-trans, saturated fat is a pipedream. First off, hot dogs are eaten hot. When fats are heated, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats break down or peroxidize, going rancid. The stable saturated fats are much less vulnerable, having much lower peroxidation ratios. So unless you are a raw hot-dogatarian, you are better off with the animal fats.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, our bodies have a better idea how to deal with the real foods we evolved with since the advent of fire than fake foods, especially genetically modified fake foods. Virtuially all canola oil is genetically modified. There are all kinds of problems emerging with both animals and people (autoimmune issues, leaky gut, possible epigenetic issues) from genetically modified and sprayed crops. Until more is known it is prudent to avoid GMO canola and to get fiber from natural sources like the sauerkraut and onion on the side and a better bun.
While getting hot dogs from pasture-raised cows and pigs would increase the nutritional value of hot dogs and nitrate-free versions would be healthier, it is unlikely that canola bonded to cellulose is any increase to health. Eat a large salad with lots of vegetables with your hot dog, take the live sauerkraut and sulfur-rich onion served on the side and stop worrying so much.
Real food, mostly vegetables, not too much.
I'm glad that a couple of commenters have pointed out the errors, regarding saturated fats. This reporter should check up on her facts before sounding off. I understand that the fallacy is based on one piece of research, decades ago that was misrepresented (apparently deliberately). It's amazing how one error can so permeate the consciousness of so many for so long.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author is clearly not aware that there has never been scientific proof that saturated fats cause heart disease, atherosclerosis nor stroke...none whatsoever. On the other hand, sugars and carbs are linked to them. Saturated fats when removed from one's diet has little or no affect upon blood lipid levels...That is a genetically related statistic and not food related. It is so extraordinary how a theory became religion and a presumption that never was shown to be direct correlation became Biblical in its faith based acceptance. As one doctor said to me recently, realise..medicine is an art..not a science. That is sadly the case and nutritional sciences are so fraught with non epidemiological statistical connexions that have all sorts of contols and double blinds missing from the conclusions that one must laugh at it all. The only way to really lower ones blood lipid level is with drugs. Does the lowering of blood lipids help prevent atherosclerosis? Well, maybe not. The drugs also act as a very powerful anti inflammatory drug and that might be what helps people live longer and have lower heart attack rates than those that do not take statins. That does not necessarily mean that the lower blood lipids are what is doing it. Taking fats from one's foods is harmless enough for most if you can stand the disgusting synthetic foods that is the result but after not eating eggs for most of my life and now finding to the contrary the latest scientific fad is to EAT BLOODY EGGS..I get the impression that there is a great deal of BS floating around that is not science, not factual, not protecting of one's health and the real conclusion is to eat good food and take vitamins and especially Vitamin D. Fats..just eat saturated or unsaturated but skip the transfats which like cellulose additives are not natural foods. Your body craves real food and not factory inventions. Grains came into our diet due to the lack of options not because they are a healthful choice. Carbs damage the arteries and lead to Diabetes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFats do not. Fats do not affect blood glucose and hardly affect blood lipid levels eithers. duh! true...Carbs do affect blood glucose and lipid levels...enough said...read on the internet physiological studies that support my statements here. Not opinion but real controlled scientific studies.
So essentially what they are doing is removing food and replacing it with the equivalent of wood pulp? So when we want a snack we could just go gnaw on a tree? I think I'll stick to the dead cow, thank you very much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne must remember that most of the talk about saturated fat is relative to carbohydrate. So, is there a benefit in replacing carbohydrate with saturated fat? The CLINICAL TRIALS of Keys in 1957, and many others thereafter, clearly show an increase in serum total cholesterol with replacement of carbohydrate with saturated fat. Moreover, it is very well known that substitution of saturates with polyunsaturates leads to a decrease in serum cholesterol (increase in HDL and decrease in LDL, even better!). Even the very popular epidemiological trials of today show this (Mensink et al. 2003)! So, I agree it is important not to demonize an isolated nutrient (saturated fat). The issue of HOW MUCH of such a nutrient one eats is very important, maybe even more so. So, it is OK to eat butter, but it is not OK to eat 50g of butter per day in 10 shortbread cookies! Same goes for tallow, lard, etc. It is OK to put some sugar in your coffee, but it is not OK to eat 200g of sugar per day! This work aims at reducing the total load of saturated fat one ingests per day. Imagine eating 2 - 100g breakfast sausages EVERY DAY. Each contains close to 50% fat, of which about 30% is saturated, so two sausages supply 60g of saturated fat. These oil gels allow food manufacturers to structure polyunsaturated oils into "hard fat" like materials that can now be used to make these types of products. Of course, it may be better not to eat these products, but people do. Unless we move towards a totalitarian state model, kids and many adults will continue eating hot dogs and sausages......A kid eating 3 hot dogs at a ballgame is ingesting close to 50g of saturated fat....is this OK? I must add that if we are going to make "hot dogs" more healthy, we should also decrease sodium, total calories, nitrites. The quality of protein in such products is good and affordable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcessive saturated fat ingestion has been correlated to increased triglyceride levels in the blood (depends on the type of saturated fat, so it is not a universal statement), increased risk of getting breast and colon cancer, etc. So, as for excessive consumption of any macronutrient, one has to eat in a balanced fashion. I could list horrible correlations for sugar and protein as well, so nobody is innocent.
Balance is the key. This work addresses the lack of balance in many people's diets......is this bad?
Last, but not least, it is my opinion that we need more clinical trials to address these issues rather than some sophisticated statistical analysis of surveys.
Wood pulp and fruits and vegetables. For the record, cellulose is the structural polymer in the primary cell walls of plants. Every time you have salad or fruit, you are ingesting a large amount of cellulose. This is called insoluble fiber by nutritionists. Is there anything wrong in consuming fiber? One thing we do not eat enough is fiber, hence contributing to the high incidence of colon cancer and constipation. Drink water, eat fiber and be happy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSA needs to find some competent science writers. The above article just repeats discredited theories about food from the previous century! What's next, bleeding patients to purge the bad humours?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomeone should start a website to counter such poor reporting-
http://foodnewswatch.com/?p=10
Where did that come from?
:)
That is hardly an appropriate reference to back any argument, and a strong statement of poor scientific writing. Good scientific writing and reporting require good referencing. Do you have any more scientific sources to back the statements? By the last century to do mean 1999, like 13 years ago, or do you mean the 19th century. Nutrition as a separate scientific discipline did exist in 1999, but did not in 1899.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting to read some of the science behind the food we eat, you can read more about cellulose gum here: http://www.whatsinthisstuff.com/ingredient/Cellulose-Gum
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this