Formation of<i>Trans</i>Fats: During Food Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: An investigation was completed to determine how typical cooking procedures used in food preparation, such as baking and stir-frying, affect trans fats formation. METHODS: Canola oil was used as the main fat ingredient. Zucchini cake and gingersnap cookies were baked at 180o C and 200o C, while stir-fried chicken was prepared at 200o C and 275o C. The lipids from the food were extracted following the Folch procedure, and analyzed for trans fatty acids according to ISO official method 15304. RESULTS: Minimal changes were observed in the amount of trans fats during baking. Application of extreme temperatures during baking, which caused carbonization of the outer layer of products, yielded an insignificant increase in the amount of trans isomers. As with baking, stir-frying did not result in significant isomerization of the fatty acids, even when the oil was heated to 275o C and smoking heavily before the food was placed in it. Irrespective of the cooking procedure, linolenic acid was the most prone to isomerization with the highest amount of trans isomers formation. CONCLUSIONS: Baking and stir-frying at normal and/or extreme temperatures do not significantly affect the amounts of trans fats. Likewise, heating oil to the smoking point during stir-frying may decrease the amount of polyunsaturated fatty acids because of oxidative degradation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".