Effects of Diets Enriched in Saturated (Palmitic), Monounsaturated (Oleic), or <i>trans</i> (Elaidic) Fatty Acids on Insulin Sensitivity and Substrate Oxidation in Healthy Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Diets high in total and saturated fat are associated with insulin resistance. This study examined the effects of feeding monounsaturated, saturated, and trans fatty acids on insulin action in healthy adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, crossover study was conducted comparing three controlled 4-week diets (57% carbohydrate, 28% fat, and 15% protein) enriched with different fatty acids in 25 healthy men and women. The monounsaturated fat diet (M) had 9% of energy as C18:1cis (oleic acid). The saturated fat diet (S) had 9% of energy as palmitic acid, and the trans fatty acid diet (T) had 9% as C18:1trans. Body weight was kept constant throughout the study. After each diet period, insulin pulsatile secretion, insulin sensitivity index (S(I)) by the minimal model method, serum lipids, and fat oxidation by indirect calorimetry were measured. RESULTS: Mean S(I) for the M, S, and T diets was 3.44 +/- 0.26, 3.20 +/- 0.26, and 3.40 +/- 0.26 x 10(-4) min(-1). microU(-1). ml(-1), respectively (NS). S(I) decreased by 24% on the S versus M diet in overweight subjects but was unchanged in lean subjects (NS). Insulin secretion was unaffected by diet, whereas total and HDL cholesterol increased significantly on the S diet. Subjects oxidized the least fat on the M diet (26.0 +/- 1.5 g/day) and the most fat on the T diet (31.4 +/- 1.5 g/day) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Dietary fatty acid composition significantly influenced fat oxidation but did not impact insulin sensitivity or secretion in lean individuals. Overweight individuals were more susceptible to developing insulin resistance on high-saturated fat diets.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".