4 ms·
2. Calories from mono-unsat. fat are better than: 3. Calories from sat. fat are better than: 4. Calories from poly-unsat. fat are better than: I'm wondering
by Evgeny 12y ago
2. Calories from mono-unsat. fat are better than:
3. Calories from sat. fat are better than:
4. Calories from poly-unsat. fat are better than:
I'm wondering about the reasoning for this particular order. There are different arguments, including the one that sat. fat is the best, as it is the least reactive: it is already fully saturated, while mono and poly have still potential to acquire more hydrogens. This is why some people prefer cooking with animal fat: they assume it is more "inert" under heating.
Anyway, wouldn't it make sense to order them in order of saturation, either sat > mono > poly, or in reverse, poly > mono > sat?
- voidlogic 12y agoMy understanding is monounsaturated fats are known to be cardiovascularly protective and polyunsaturated are less stable, hence the ordering.