Where are my zero-calorie butters, creams, lards, oils, and fats?
October 28, 2010 9:56 PM Subscribe
We have very effective artificial sweeteners that give the flavour of sugary foods without the calories. Why have we been so much less successful at creating the taste of fatty foods without the calories?
Where are my zero-calorie butters, creams, lards, oils, and fats?
(I realise this problem is fundamentally different and unrelated to making sweeteners, but it explains the concept - stuff that triggers the receptors in our mouths, but doesn't usefully digest and is non-toxic)
I guess what I'm looking for is a chemical or biological explanation of why the task is so difficult, and what, if any progress can/is being made.
Thanks!
(I realise this problem is fundamentally different and unrelated to making sweeteners, but it explains the concept - stuff that triggers the receptors in our mouths, but doesn't usefully digest and is non-toxic)
I guess what I'm looking for is a chemical or biological explanation of why the task is so difficult, and what, if any progress can/is being made.
Thanks!
I don't think this is precisely what you're looking for, but there's Molly McButter's fat free "butter flavored sprinkles." I remember my dad using it when I was a kid. It was pretty terrible back then.
posted by WowLookStars at 10:00 PM on October 28, 2010
posted by WowLookStars at 10:00 PM on October 28, 2010
Commonly, polydextrose is used in calorie-reduced foods to sort of replace fat (and some sweetness.)
Here's an interesting food-industry article about the history and difficulties of developing fat substitutes.
posted by Ouisch at 10:06 PM on October 28, 2010
Here's an interesting food-industry article about the history and difficulties of developing fat substitutes.
posted by Ouisch at 10:06 PM on October 28, 2010
Best answer: Olestra is a fat that the body doesn't digest, but which has the same taste and mouth feel as other fats. It is so good at being zero calorie, passing through the body undigested, that for some people, eating products made with it (such as potato chips) resulted in "anal leakage" or, in more, clinical terms, two or three days of explosively painful diarrhea. Additionally, fat-soluble nutrients get pulled out along with the TNT of poop, so there are nutritional consequences to undigestable fat taking the express route out of the body. In the case of the potato chips, Lays loaded up their product with extra doses of Vitamin A, D, E and K to offset the vitamin deficiency issue.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:06 PM on October 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:06 PM on October 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
The Wiki for Lipids is somewhat illuminating on this question. I'm no chemist, and I only somewhat followed the article, but the takeaway I had got was that in order for something to register as fatty, it has to be able to actually be absorbed into your tissue. No absorption, no pretense of fattiness (and perhaps a little anal leakage on top of that).
posted by Gilbert at 10:25 PM on October 28, 2010
posted by Gilbert at 10:25 PM on October 28, 2010
"Mouth feel," cooking and convenience. Fake butter has to do more than just taste like butter. It has to feel like butter in your mouth, it has to cook like butter (notice that there are no baked goods with aspartame), and fake butter needs to remain semi-solid at room temperature so it's spreadable, yet not turn rock hard when its refrigerated, so you can scoop it, measure it and spread it.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:26 PM on October 28, 2010
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:26 PM on October 28, 2010
Baking in particular is already a tricky process, the final product of which is highly dependent on the process, the equipment being used, and the ambient temperature and humidity. Integrating a fat substitute into an industrialized process for making baked goods is already complicated by the technical requirement that the substitute behave chemically like the real thing, when used as an ingredient in mass production.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:42 PM on October 28, 2010
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:42 PM on October 28, 2010
Best answer: Well, a sweetener basically just needs to have a functional group (chemically active site on the molecule) that registers on the sweet taste receptors of the tongue. The potent ones are active at very slight levels, so detrimental side effects of their presence is minimal. Bear in mind that none of them are perfect. Most of us would rather drink regular soda given the choice and if we drink diet it is purely to spare ourselves the empty calories.
With fat, on the other hand, you do not just need a chemical that triggers a taste receptor: fat is not one of the taste groups. We react to a more complex range of factors in fats, the mouth feel, how it serves as a carrier of flavor, its impact on the formulation of other ingredients (think of the difference between a croissant and a piece of wheat toast. Basically, that's butter, period. That is an impact of a compound with a relatively substantial volume represented as a fraction of the whole food. As a result one little active spot on a molecule mimicking some aspect of natural fats won't cut it - it has to have the same bulk physical properties as the equivalent fat. One of the characteristic features of fats are long hydrocarbon chains. These have a lot to do with their properties. What happens when you ingest a long hydrocarbon chain you can't digest? There's Olestra: congratulations, you just lubricated your colon. And as Gilbert notes, there is evidence that fat ingestion contributes directly to satiety in the gastrointestinal tract. This has actually led to some interesting research in working at the angle of formulating the fat delivery medium to meter its entry into the small intestine, potentially creating a food that satisfies hunger longer on the same number of calories.
I suspect anyway these are the major problems: 1) a broader range of qualities to mimic 2) much harder for the imitation to be effective at low volumes of the substitute - which exacerbates 3) the properties you want at ingestion have a tendency to be intrinsically problematical further along the digestive tract.
posted by nanojath at 10:52 PM on October 28, 2010 [7 favorites]
With fat, on the other hand, you do not just need a chemical that triggers a taste receptor: fat is not one of the taste groups. We react to a more complex range of factors in fats, the mouth feel, how it serves as a carrier of flavor, its impact on the formulation of other ingredients (think of the difference between a croissant and a piece of wheat toast. Basically, that's butter, period. That is an impact of a compound with a relatively substantial volume represented as a fraction of the whole food. As a result one little active spot on a molecule mimicking some aspect of natural fats won't cut it - it has to have the same bulk physical properties as the equivalent fat. One of the characteristic features of fats are long hydrocarbon chains. These have a lot to do with their properties. What happens when you ingest a long hydrocarbon chain you can't digest? There's Olestra: congratulations, you just lubricated your colon. And as Gilbert notes, there is evidence that fat ingestion contributes directly to satiety in the gastrointestinal tract. This has actually led to some interesting research in working at the angle of formulating the fat delivery medium to meter its entry into the small intestine, potentially creating a food that satisfies hunger longer on the same number of calories.
I suspect anyway these are the major problems: 1) a broader range of qualities to mimic 2) much harder for the imitation to be effective at low volumes of the substitute - which exacerbates 3) the properties you want at ingestion have a tendency to be intrinsically problematical further along the digestive tract.
posted by nanojath at 10:52 PM on October 28, 2010 [7 favorites]
CPB, there is fake butter: margarine.
But it's made with a different kind of fat, which is why it works in cooking the same way as butter.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:43 PM on October 28, 2010
But it's made with a different kind of fat, which is why it works in cooking the same way as butter.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:43 PM on October 28, 2010
Seconding everyone who's said, basically, "it's a matter of flavor vs. FEEL". A secondary, less-crucial observation: it's also a matter of volume. To register as "sweet", something just has to trip your "sweet" tastebuds". You can do that with a few dozen molecules of a substance. The sensation of "fatty" or "rich" or "creamy", however, generally requires a much higher volume of STUFF to do the job (so it can melt sexily all over your mouth-parts).
In other words: it probably takes well under a gram of concentrated aspartame to make a Diet Coke sweet. But to make a diet Danish as delicious as the REAL deal, you'd need at least a few tablespoons of faux fat... and mo' faux fat means mo' problems, as it were (as we learned with Olestra).
posted by julthumbscrew at 6:29 AM on October 29, 2010
In other words: it probably takes well under a gram of concentrated aspartame to make a Diet Coke sweet. But to make a diet Danish as delicious as the REAL deal, you'd need at least a few tablespoons of faux fat... and mo' faux fat means mo' problems, as it were (as we learned with Olestra).
posted by julthumbscrew at 6:29 AM on October 29, 2010
sugar = flavor, fat = texture
Eh, it's not that simple. A lot of molecules that convey flavor are fat-soluble, rather than water-soluble (you all remember that oil and water don't mix). So another valuable role that fat plays in the experience of eating is conveying flavor.
For fake fat to do that, it would have to be actually greasy/hydrophobic. Polydextrose is probably way too polar, too similar to water, do to that in the same way.
posted by Sublimity at 7:18 AM on October 29, 2010
Eh, it's not that simple. A lot of molecules that convey flavor are fat-soluble, rather than water-soluble (you all remember that oil and water don't mix). So another valuable role that fat plays in the experience of eating is conveying flavor.
For fake fat to do that, it would have to be actually greasy/hydrophobic. Polydextrose is probably way too polar, too similar to water, do to that in the same way.
posted by Sublimity at 7:18 AM on October 29, 2010
They have created fat-free I Can't Believe It's Not Butter spread. It's a lot, well, wetter than normal vegetable spread. But although it did taste reasonably like I Can't Believe It's Not Butter I could definitely believe it wasn't butter.
posted by amicamentis at 8:26 AM on October 29, 2010
posted by amicamentis at 8:26 AM on October 29, 2010
Margarine and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter are essentially the same thing -- processed oils, milk products and emulsifiers like lecithin. Neither is "non fat" at all.
But even the "fat-free" version of I Can't Believe It's Not Butter is made of emulsified oils (making it essentially, a kind of "stiff" mayonnaise ... probably with processed egg whites or soy proteins). And the "0 calories from fat" is largely due to FDA rules allowing you to round down on fractions, and tiny, unrealistic listed serving sizes. If one tablespoon is 5 calories, 0 from fat, I'll bet you'll find that 2 tablespoons = 10 calories and 1 from fat, not zero.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:00 PM on October 29, 2010
But even the "fat-free" version of I Can't Believe It's Not Butter is made of emulsified oils (making it essentially, a kind of "stiff" mayonnaise ... probably with processed egg whites or soy proteins). And the "0 calories from fat" is largely due to FDA rules allowing you to round down on fractions, and tiny, unrealistic listed serving sizes. If one tablespoon is 5 calories, 0 from fat, I'll bet you'll find that 2 tablespoons = 10 calories and 1 from fat, not zero.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:00 PM on October 29, 2010
Late to the party, but in terms of the drawbacks of artificial butter flavouring: Popcorn Lung
posted by Sys Rq at 3:08 PM on December 16, 2010
posted by Sys Rq at 3:08 PM on December 16, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Ouisch at 9:59 PM on October 28, 2010