FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - Fat Substitute, Once Praised, Is Pushed Out of the Kitchen

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:24:38 -0000,
(Alex Rast) wrote:

>>
>>No. Cis and trans refer to the molecular configuration at unsaturated
>>points. They have no meaning with saturation.
>
>Thanks for correcting me on this one. I thought these referred to the
>possible isomers in a saturated fat
>
> H
> |
> H H H H H H-C-H H
> | | | | | | |
>x-C-C-C-C-x vs. x-C---C---C-x
> | | | | | | |
> H H H H H H H
>
>as opposed to, in an unsaturated fat,
>
> H H H H H H H
> | | | | | | |
>x-C-C=C-C-x vs. x-C-C=C-C-x
> | | | | |
> H H H H H

trans cis

>
>based on what I'd read. What would you call the above saturated isomers and
>has there been any research on the differences?

The branched saturated fats are not very common, and I bet we consume
rather small amounts. The terms for them are not used much. One can
simply call them branched fatty acids. Or they can be called "iso". To
be picky, iso means that there is a branch on the last possible C, and
anteiso means the branch is on the C before that.

The following should look ok in fixed pitch. I have omitted H.

C-C-C-C-etc

C-C-C-C-etc
|
C = iso

C-C-C-C-etc
|
C = anteiso

The branched fatty acids will have slightly lower melting points than
the unbranched.

Offhand I do not know of nutritional implications. Might be worth a
check of PubMed for curiosity.

bob