Jump to content

Talk:Saturated fat/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Planned article

If you want to split off the information about heart disease, you might consider a substantial expansion and submitting it to WP:DYK for possible one-sentence mention on the Main Page. The size rules are a little complicated for splits, and there's a strict time limit of five days (time in userspace doesn't count), so I'd check the rules in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease

This section of the article does not read in a way consistent with the prevailing scientific opinion. While there are any number of conflicting and confounding studies, and notable authors supporting an opposing view, a point-counterpoint debate in the main article seems like undue weight WP:UNDUE considering the authorities supporting the view that saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The page history shows an editorial appetite for a detailed discussion (and the references have commonly been well-cited), hence the creation of a new page to expand the controversy. Eastsidehastings (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This is rather too bold, and also your revision includes a lot of poor sources - for example, for the "prevailing view" it has like 5 references to a bunch of organizational websites, which are not peer-reviewed. There's also a single reference to the WHO, which is a tertiary source. I can see trimming the previous section, but we shouldn't be intentionally dumbing Wikipedia down and using poor sources. I'm also going to go on record as opposing a new page. There are already way too many pages which discuss this topic (see, for example the lipid hypothesis) and we can't further spread out the efforts of limited numbers of contributors. Since you aren't a regular, you may not realize how big of a problem we have with spreading ourselves too thin. II | (t - c) 21:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind WP:NPOV. We have to be balanced. Maybe some of the new information needs to be trimmed and given less weight; however, your section ([1]) gave essentially zero weight to the modern evidence basis, which as expressed in the Mente et al's 2009 systematic review found "insufficient evidence of association" for saturated fats and coronary heart disease. Also, you included an unsupported sentence: Saturated fats negatively affect cholesterol profiles, predisposing individuals to heart disease, and avoiding saturated fats reduces the risk of a cardiovascular disease.[14][15]" The WHO posters referenced do not appear to support this statement. II | (t - c) 21:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
In this topic, the pertinent peer-reviewed articles number in the hundreds. Outlining the relative merits of each is beyond an encyclopedia entry. Fortunately, there are expert bodies which have the review of scientific literature as their mandate (heart foundations, medical associations, government health departments, etc). If all such bodies express the same view, secondary or not, is this not a more appropriate means of arriving at a reflection of the scientific consensus than attempting to deal with each scholarly article individually? The creation of a new page was to provide space for notable alternative viewpoints and article-by-article comparison. I take inspiration from the handling of controversy over in Global warming. The Lipid hypothesis is one step deeper in the Diet>Blood Lipids>CVD causal chain and warrants separate discussion for those interested. You might arrive on the Saturated fat page because you just read the nutrition label on the back of your chocolate bar and are wondering what the fuss is about. Readers of the Lipid hypothesis page are in a different audience. Eastsidehastings (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Point taken about the balance, and I've considered it at length. Despite the presence of conflicting evidence and some well-documented counter-arguments, there doesn't seem to be an expert body which holds the alternative perspective. New Zealand, for example, with their meat-and-dairy economic foundations, might be expected to try for a less negative tone on the topic of saturated fat, but nevertheless their heart foundation and national health department agree with the others. For the space appropriate, zero doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Zero would be unreasonable if you're trying to cover the debate, and hence the Controversy page. Eastsidehastings (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll go check that WHO reference - I did just copy-and-paste it from later in the article without reviewing. Eastsidehastings (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't discuss this at length right now, but I think your new article could be viewed as somewhat manufacturing a controversy. It's not clear to me that the research is that controversial: replacing saturated fat with simple carbs is not good for heart disease, and unsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated fats, tend to be better for heart disease.
Peer-reviewed articles do number in the hundreds, but journal articles summarizing these articles which have been published in the last 5 years number in the dozens. Any organization which is not publishing its information in a peer-reviewed journal with listed authors and a decent amount of references is not really worth looking at IMO. There are, as you're probably aware, dozens of these charity and public awareness organizations, with many of them piggybacking on each other. There are also hundreds of government public health organizations similarly piggybacking on each. If you want to look at the American Heart Association's statement, it publishes a journal (Circulation). Use something like its Diet and Lifestyle Recommendations Revision 2006). If you want to go to the Mayo Clinic, there is a statement in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings. For a more casual expert discussion of the recent saturated fat controversy, see Frank Hu's 2010 editorial. Anyway, Wikipedia is always known for its "surprising detail", and it should never just ignore controversy per WP:NPOV. Nor does it stick to outdated information, or simply repeat conventional wisdom which was refuted in order to wait for bureaucracies to admit they're wrong. Zero weight certainly will not work. II | (t - c) 23:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to present the current average-physician view as the current mainstream view. This is a developing area, and the view in five years may well be different, but we don't want to get ahead of the changes.
One thing I would like to see is a better description of the effects on cholesterol levels, e.g., on particle size. IMO this will go some way towards explaining how it is possible for "cholesterol" to increase without necessarily increasing heart disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've been delving into Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles). I need to pay more attention to sources that might come from primary periodicals but are actually meta-analysis or systematic review. So far, I hope not unreasonably, I've been looking at "position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies". I don't see the Saturated fat page as the place to pit Saturated fat versus Refined carbohydrate as the worst offender, health-wise. If the mainstream view is that Saturated fat has negative health consequences, that is sufficient - the relative dangers should be over in Healthy diet or similar. Nor do I see the CVD section the right place to point out that Obesity might be worse for your health - it's about CVD. But right now we can all agree we've got an WP:UNDUE weight issue to fix in the CVD section? Eastsidehastings (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Two WHO references are of poor quality being nothing more than captions on a fancy but not terribly informative graphic. The refs in question probably qualify as tertiary. I will remove them if there is no objection. Lambanog (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

The article does not explain what major studies are behind the current consensus so it is hard to evaluate independently what the rationale for the various health organizations' recommendations are based on. There is no history. When were saturated fats "discovered"? Were saturated fats always considered bad? When did it become important to differentiate saturated fats from other fats? What caused the change in perception? Is there a social impact? An economic impact? Are there any controversies? The chemical composition section is underdeveloped and there is no explanation about how saturated fats are formed or thought to chemically react with other compounds or in the body. There is no discussion for example of the mixed-fat theories of K.C. Hayes or a comparison with monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats, trans fats, carbohydrates, and proteins. Hydrogenation isn't brought up. Physical properties aren't mentioned either like how saturated fats tend to be solid at room temperature. How about the perennial butter vs. margarine comparison? There is no clear differentiation among the types of saturated fats and the unique properties of each; they are just lumped together. The current article is superficial and seems more like dietary propaganda than a full encyclopedic discussion of the topic. Lambanog (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have you expand the article to include more history and chemistry.
However, on your first complaint, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to present the fact that the current consensus is the current consensus, rather than evaluating the evidence (or lack thereof) behind the current consensus. 19:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that is true for an adequate encyclopedic article but I would argue not for a superior one. I'm coming at this from a layman's view trying to untangle all the often contradictory views and the more I look the more I feel as if I'm plumbing the depths of a rabbit hole. WhatamIdoing, do you really understand the issue? Then great! But why does the current article provide so little edification? For example It does not explain why there have been so many flip-flops in the science. Why not? First it was saturated fats (SFA) worse than trans fats (TFA). Then saturated fats = trans fats and SFA and TFA worse than < carbohydrates. Then it became saturated fats better than > trans fats but SFA still worse than < monounsaturated fats (MUFA). Now it is saturated fats better than > carbohydrates and unclear ~ in relation to MUFA. The early critics have a better record than the establishment which for the past 30 years has basically stated the equivalent of "don't worry trust us" and here we are relying more on press releases rather than their scientific studies. Can you explain all that? Because if you can, then that would make for an interesting and useful article. Lambanog (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Lambanog and I have been very cordially working on the CVD controversy page together. I think we've reached the bottom of systematic reviews which directly consider a relationship between SFA and CVD. There's no doubt we've seen a very united front from the mainstream authorities. The mainstream view is obviously "Saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease." or perhaps even "Saturated fat causes cardiovascular disease." That's stronger than the sum of the systematic reviews, which might be reflected something like "The majority of systematic reviews find an increased risk of cardiovascular disease associated with intake of SFA, particularly if replaced with PUFA." I suspect part of the missing strength comes from consideration of the effect on serum lipids, and their relation to CVD. But as I've griped before, that seems like a big chunk of work to untangle. Eastsidehastings (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Confounding factors

Wouldn't body weight be a confounding factor? Some saturated fats actually encourage weight loss which would lower CVD risk. Lambanog (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

More recent study and scientific opinion

Lambanog (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed one I place here already found in article. Lambanog (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Parking

Moved Stamler's comments here since they were misplaced in the text and commented on the wrong study. They are also commentary and not the result of a meta-analysis but a reaction to one.

A majority of original studies combined in this meta-analysis found no independent relationship between saturated fat intake and coronary heart disease, which suggests that cholesterol levels that are elevated due to saturated fat intake may be less dangerous than cholesterol levels that are elevated for other reasons.[1] However, saturated fat intake may be associated with fatal outcomes from coronary heart disease.[1]


The instability bit is specific to polyunsaturated fats, according to the reference - stability is asserted for both saturated fat and monounsaturated fat. Parking here for review before moving over to the PUFA talk page.

Stable deepfry and baking medium

Merge to Polyunsaturated fat

Deepfry oils and baking fats that are high in saturated fats, like palm oil, tallow or lard, can withstand extreme heat (of 180-200 degrees Celsius) and are resistant to oxidation.[2]

Eastsidehastings (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it belongs on both pages. One reason food manufacturers like saturated fats is that they are more stable and keep longer without going rancid. Hydrogenated oils from what I understand are even more stable. It's a significant thing to keep in mind contributing to their functionality and continued presence of such fats and oils in the marketplace.
Perhaps there's a better source? The statement about extreme heat seems inaccurate (see smoke point), and the listed source isn't part of Web of Science nor freely available. 154.5.34.29 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection, I agree with the criticism. Better sources should be found or the comments reworded. Lambanog (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste

A recent edit introduced material, a significant chunk of which appears to have been cut and pasted from the cited sources. Will remove them for now. Maybe after some rewording some of the comments can be reintroduced into the article. Primary source test results also debatable on a topic this well-covered. Lambanog (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Material moved from other talk page

  • Material moved from talk page of Mary G. Enig that was more appropriate here. Yobol (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2011

Saw the following but didn't know where to put it so will park it here for now. Lambanog (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Study/research common sense

Hello. In the lead it says, "In general, serum saturated fatty acid is higher in smokers, alcohol drinkers and obese people." Now, ask any relevant scientist or doctor, smoke and drink for a million years. It will not affect your fat levels. The person who smokes and drinks alcohol, and has a raised fat content in their system, is not experiencing side effects of smoking and drinking. There is no saturated fat in either cigarette smoke or alcohol. They are experiencing side effects of multiple addiction. Tell people that those addicted to one thing are likely to be addicted to other things as well, and you've educated them. Tell people that smokers are fat and all you've got is a load of uneducated fat smokers drinking to why this stuff doesn't seem to make any sense. So, if the idea is to tell people that addictive behaviour in one area may be indicative of addiction in other areas is fine. To tell people that smokers are fat, or that drinking gives you cooties... Wikipedia really isn't the place so I am going to remove the bit from the lead. It doesn't seem to have a correlation to anything in the main part of the article, which all things in the lead should anyway, but if someone comes along to write it into the article I'd appreciate that they try to write about addiction rather than just, "Smokers are fat". Thank you. ~ R.T.G 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Advanced glycation endproducts

I've removed the paragraph on advanced glycation endproducts. It is sourced to a single study of 43 subjects in two separate groups. This is highly preliminary research from 1997, in a high-level article about fairly well-established science. A search on pubmed for advanced glycation endproducts and saturated fat produced no hits. If this is genuinely a serious concern, then a secondary source from a recent medically reliable source should be trivial to find and include. We do not include primary sources for the most part, with exceptions being made for extremely new, highly reliable, highly generalizable studies that reach firm conclusions based on methodologically sound, high-n research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that studies from 30 years ago, whose results have not been replicated elsewhere in other studies, would not be valid for inclusion. But a mere 14 years is hardly grounds for exclusion. Anyway, a simple google quickly found mention of this other meta-analysis of studies, from 2010, on pubmed etc., so the paragraph should now merit inclusion:-

http://www.rejuvenation-science.com/n_fat_heart-disease.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648 Loki0115 (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS recommends five years for reviews. I can see doubling that for individual studies.
Regardless, it doesn't deserve a paragraph. Maybe a sentence or a footnote. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
That study doesn't mention advanced glycation endproducts so I'm not sure why it was brought up in this section. The website that mentions the study itself is not a reliable source. Please familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS. If a meta-analysis genuinely discusses AGE then it is possible to integrate it, but this "mentioned on a webpage" nonsense is not adequate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the relevant wikipedia guide does state 5 years, after all(2 to 3 years is ridiculous, though), but it also states that this rule can be relaxed if it covers a mini-subject that is highly likely to be studied only very rarely. In this case, the observation(re blaming negative effects on glycotoxins rather than saturated fat) is merely tentative, anyway, not meant as a final statement/conclusion, and is highly unlikely to be reviewed in another study for several more years, given the rarity of the topic.

This does cause me misgivings, all in all. This means that, if these recent-study rules are adhered to strictly, only extremely popular scientific theories will be given any airing on wikipedia, the ones that have studies published about them once every 2-3 years or less(5 years max), with most studies on more minor subjects that are only rarely ever studied being excluded not because of the strength or lack thereof of those studies but simply because they are not as prolific, nothing more. In other words, the size of research funds will determine what appears on wikipedia. Even worse, I can think of one or two seriously dodgy scientists who have published very questionable studies every few years, but who would get away with it on wikipedia, since most colleagues in their particular field openly ridicule them for their lack of credentials/expertise and so rarely even deign to review their "studies", let alone publish studies refuting their dodgy colleague's utterings.Loki0115 (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"only extremely popular scientific theories will be given any airing on wikipedia" "who would get away with it on wikipedia" Not at all. We focus on reviews and by doing so eliminate both of your concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-neutral

Earlier comment on lack of neutrality [2]. The chart also seems to have inconsistent criteria changing focus with each study generally to focus on the most damning material. Criticism of current dietary recommendations from within medical establishment not mentioned.

More recent view:

The above interprets

  • Zelman Kathleen, Willett Walter C., Kuller Lewis H., Mozaffarian Dariush, Lichtenstein Alice H. (2011). "The Great Fat Debate". Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 111 (5): 655–677.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).
The news article is worthless as it's not a MEDRS. The overall conclusion of the Great Fat Debate articles (which represents dieticians, and can't claim to be the be-all and end-all of the scientific consensus) can be found in the summary of agreements in the first article of the set. The conclusion was not "saturated fat is healthy", it was "substituting refined carbohydrates for saturated fat may nulify the health benefits of reducing saturated fat while substituting mono and poly unsaturated fats is indeed healthy". There is one statement about how saturated fat might not be as bad for you as thought, but M/PUF are actually good for you. It also contains statements like:
The agreements from the debates (and this was merely a transcripted debate, it was not a scientific consensus statement) were:
The advice to dieticians was:
The "Great Fat Debate" articles are not a reason to tag the article because a) it's not a comprehensive scientific consensus statemenet and b) it's not clearly stating that saturated fats are good for you - at best it states that saturated fats may not be as bad as they said in the past. The NPOV talk page section linked to contains not a single source - and sources determine weight, not editor opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
From the text of this article can one tell in what order from least to most harmful to list the following: butyric acid, lauric acid, myristic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid, trans fat, omega 6 fatty acids, carbohydrates, and omega 3 fatty acids? How about eggs vs. milk vs. butter vs. dark chocolate vs. coconut oil vs. meat fat vs. fish oil vs. white bread? I don't think so, which is surprising since it spends an inordinate amount of space going over the dietary implications. There is nothing here about the changing perception towards saturated fats over the years. There is little here saying what the result on obesity or CVD has been with society changing its intake of saturated fats or what has been taken in its place and the implications of that change. The focus of this article is on dietary propaganda— compare it with something like the article on protein and the difference is obvious—and within its focus it is not neutral, compare with the article on sugar. Lambanog (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there a clear scientific consensus that any one is better or worse than the others? You appear to be asking this article to give the definitive answers to "what is a healthy diet" when the answer is clearly still being researched and subject to revision, not to mention being essentially irrelevant (see healthy diet, fat is only one component as a low carbohydrate or low protein diet is also unhealthy; should we discuss which is less healthy in this article? I would say no). Saturated fats used to be considered bad for your health; the current consensus according to the article above is that it's clearly now seen as less settled but reduced consumption is still warranted, so why would we even try to give definitive answers? And again, neutrality is demonstrated through sources, not asserted by editors - where are the articles that substantiate your points? The article can't be neutral because it doesn't adhere to your arbitrary standard, you need to demonstrate that there are ideas missing from the article through reference to sources.
Also, what do omega fatty acids, carbohydrates, eggs and white bread have to do with the main article on saturated fats? Comparisons to protein and sugar are clearly inappropriate, particularly for the former - this is the saturated fat article, which would be akin to the article on fructose, not sugar. Both sugar and fats are macronutrients who primarily act as fuels; "protein" is a basic chemical concept that undertakes essentially every biological function on the planet and are structurally far, far more complex. Comparing fat to protein is like comparing gasoline to metal; one is a fuel, with its own complications. The other essentially undergirds the entire acquisition, use and processing of the other, in addition to a thousand other tasks, making a difference between even fat and protein a bad comparison, let alone between a subtype of fat with a main article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems you misapprehend (compare to the article protein and the article sugar). In any event if that is your stand, then would you support the removal of the comparisons to polyunsaturated fat? The current portrayal is akin to a B student being accused of being the most horrible student ever because there happens to be an A student. A comparison to carbohydrates and trans fat would be appropriate because they were substituted for saturated fat. As for proteins having functions, saturated fat also has functions in the body aside from being fuel—but then again that simply highlights how unsatisfactory this article is since it doesn't mention them. Lambanog (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Protein and sugar, both as articles and as biological molecules, are not comparable to saturated fats. The current mainstream scholarly consensus is that saturated fat is a health risk, as verifiable by numerous citations to health and dietary organizations. There are journal articles that state that saturated fat may be less harmful than previously thought. There is heavy emphasis that this is a tentative conclusion. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and does not predict the future or promote a viewpoint. If the scholarly consensus is that saturated fats are a health risk, this is what we report. If the scholarly consensus changes, we document that change after it happens.
If the article lacks information, that does not mean it is not neutral. It simply means it needs expansion. Please feel free to include the functions of saturated fats in the body aside from as a mere fuel. "Neutral" means "fairly represents all significant opinions without promoting any one side". This article does that - numerous citations to respected scientific organizations that state saturated fats are considered a health risk. Further, in the cardiovascular disease section, it states "While many studies have found that including polyunsaturated fats in the diet in place of saturated fats produces more beneficial CVD outcomes, the effects of substituting monounsaturated fats or carbohydrates are unclear" which is the minority opinion that Zelman expresses. If anything, it is inappropriately "pro" saturated fat since the Zelman article doesn't portray it as healthy and takes pains to portray it as a known risk for at least markers of cardiovascular disease. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong, Wikipedia does not have to wait until after everyone agrees, it can report on a current controversy and state both sides. Also there is nothing saying the degree of health risk should be obscured. Perhaps cars should be outfitted with an automatic message saying driving heightens your chances of being in an accident, there are probably scientific statistics to back that up, but unless really significant at some point it becomes ridiculous. The mechanism of why and how saturated fats are supposedly bad isn't even clearly explained in this article. Instead it is the same mantra: this organizations says it's bad over and over again. Compare this article to the one on smoking—a risk factor that has has far more pronounced negative effects—one might be forgiven for thinking saturated fats will kill you outright instead of being only vaguely and tentatively associated with CVD incidence. Of the large studies conducted about the foods generally associated with saturated fats I cannot think of a recent instance where they have not been cleared. Eggs are healthy again—and so is chocolate! The record of the health advice and its consequences should be included. The rate of saturated fat intake has fallen; people are as obese as ever and having as many CVD episodes as ever. As for what you portray as the minority position, it may well be that carbohydrates are now considered more dangerous than saturated fats, if you know of any studies that say otherwise feel free to share. Lambanog (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Certainly the minority opinion should be represented as such. So what are your sources justifying that there is a missing minority viewpoint? And, naturally, not primary sources as that would be inappropriate - what reliable, secondary sources do you have to justify a missing minority viewpoint? Smoking isn't an appropriate comparison since the risk of smoking is well-established and recognized world-wide.
Sources matter. Opinions do not. Where are your sources? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Source for what? Saturated fats vs. carbohydrates? Look here, here, and here [Link fixed]. Now do you have sources of your own to contradict them? Produce them.
Smoking isn't an appropriate comparison because its risk are well-established? So you are admitting that the risks associated with saturated fats aren't? Then in comparison with the the smoking article this article's warnings towards its subject are overblown. Lambanog (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Conclusion of Jakobsen et al:
This is a conclusion about carbohydrates.
Accurso et al is also about replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates.
This is a webpage published by the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, their journal does not appear to be pubmed indexed. This doesn't appear to be a WP:MEDRS. Struck my comment, now commenting on your updated link [3]. Hu states in his conclusion "Clearly, diets high in either saturated fats or refined carbohydrates are not suitable for IHD prevention. However, refined carbohydrates are likely to cause even greater metabolic damage than saturated fat in a predominantly sedentary and overweight population. Although intake of saturated fat should remain at a relatively low amount and partially hydrogenated fats should be eliminated, a singular focus on reduction of total and saturated fat can be counterproductive because dietary fat is typically replaced by refined carbohydrate, as has been seen over the past several decades. In this era of widespread obesity and insulin resistance, the time has come to shift the focus of the diet-heart paradigm away from restricted fat intake and toward reduced consumption of refined carbohydrates." Once again, the author is not saying "saturated fat is healthy", the focus is on carbohydrate substitution.
The first two articles merely underscore points already summarized in the article - the risks of saturated fat are less clear than once thought, and replacing SF with carbohydrates doesn't change the risk while UFA does. How does this support the {{NPOV}} tag?
I've been supporting, and pointing out, that the risks of SFA are less certain than they were before. That's not the same thing as "SFA now considered health food". The emphasis and agreement of the medical community is that SFA is still something to be replaced with UFA - not that SFA carries zero risks or is in fact cardioprotective. Again, you have failed to justify an NPOV tag since the page already gives attention to the minority opinion that SFA may not be as risky as once thought. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Well the site where Accurso et al. is hosted claims an impact factor of 2.35 and Google lists Accurso et al. as being cited 51 times. Also what are you talking about it not being indexed on Pubmed? There it is. Lambanog (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The journal page says it's not indexed, but that could be an error or something else weird; I've left a question at the RSN. If you're not citing the webpage I'm not concerned about it.
I'm not saying Accurso et al. isn't a reliable source. I'm saying it doesn't support your assertion that there's a neutrality problem with the page because the page already incorporates the article's point about saturated fats. The section titled "The role of saturated fat" states "In our view, inconsistencies in the experimental results with dietary saturated fat arise from a failure to distinguish between replacement by unsaturated fat or by carbohydrate. In the former case, there is usually improvement in CVD risk or outcome (although it is not excluded that this is due to the effect of the unsaturated fat rather than reduction in the risk from the saturated fat). Replacement of saturated fat with carbohydrate, however, is almost always deleterious". UFA improves health, while replacing SF with carbohydrates worsens (or at least doesn't change overall risk) - the "sea change" in opinion seems to be not "saturated fat is health neutral or good for you", it's "refined carbohydrates are as bad for you as saturated fats". Again, this is already in the article, in the section on cardiovascular disease. Based on these sources, I will expand the point but this still doesn't support the NPOV tag as it is a relatively minor point that needs expansion. Nobody is arguing for exclusion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Lambanog, what material, cited to what WP:MEDRS compliant source, with special attention to due weight given the consensus in the medical community, are you wanting to add or remove from the article? It might be more productive to actually edit the article rather than continually tagging articles you personally disagree with. Yobol (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Particularly given a) I've integrated the sources you've presented into the article (Hu and Accurso; Zelman/Great Fat Debate) b) the {{POV}} template is not meant to be a badge of shame to "warn" readers and c) I've continually reviewed your suggestions on the talk page and addressed them either through adding to the main page, or commenting on why they are, on a policy or source basis, not appropriate. Per WP:UNDUE, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." We have to demonstrate that scholars consider the saturated fat = healthy hypothesis is a serious contender, not that editors do. And as I've said repeatedly, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOAP clearly indicate that until the scholarly consensus changes, wikipedia should not. We follow opinion, we do not lead it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This article takes only one perspective: a medical propaganda perspective and even in that perspective it is not neutral; the focus on saturated fats vs. unsaturated fats is unnatural. There is no detailed comparison with other macronutrients except to portray saturated fats in the worst possible light. There is no mention of the role saturated fats play in the body. There is no history. I've already tried to address my concerns a little, but there's so much bias in the article at present it will take significantly more changes to bring it up to shape. You are of course free to make improvements to reduce the POV issues yourself. Lambanog (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I asked for specifics, not generalities. I see no POV problem here, so would like what specific text from specific sources you think is missing or overweighted in this article. Yobol (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately POV and UNDUE problems cannot be remedied solely referring to specific sources in or not in the article. But to give an idea review articles of specific foods high in saturated fats might be a start. Also the attitude towards saturated fats over the years would be relevant as would the role saturated fats play in the body. Lambanog (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
"Medical propaganda" is what I like to call the medical consensus on an unresolved, complicated scientific issue. Your opinion isn't sufficient. The thing is, a focus of saturated vs. unsaturated is completely appropriate, and suggests that saturated fat is a threat to cardiovascular health - that at least is clear. If you don't have sources to support your point, you don't have a point on wikipedia. If you can't support your point with specific sources, you are in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MEDRS. I will be removing the tag again. A lack of discussion of the history of saturated fat is a lack of content, not a lack of balance. If a "history of saturated fat" section is little more than a lengthy discussion of how the opinion of saturated fat started off neutral, then became unjustly maligned until some brave maverick doctors began to question the scientific orthodoxy, you better have excellent sources that aren't already included on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I also think the "controversy" or varying points of view more recently in the medical (cardiovascular) and dietary community should be included in the article. Saturated fats are NOT unhealthy in most cases, and do not increase risk of heart disease. Too much sugar and carbs are the main concern. The idea that you should avoid sat fats has been debunked in recent years. See this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller33.1.html for more information (if it hasn't been posted yet). Dan428 (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs Controversy Section

I know this has been discussed in the past. But this article is consiberably one-sided, especially seeing as there is a huge, yet well-hidden, controversy behind this. In fact, there isn't one scientific VALID study that links heart disease with the consumption of saturated fat; however, most studies, and medical literature, point to only benefits from saturated fats. These studies are numerous, and not just by Mary Enig (who is a very good source). There's even a meta-analysis out there involving more than 350,000 people that shows no correlation between fat and disease. My point is that there are tons of studies to be cited in support of the controversy. There's no reason not to include this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shicoco (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The verifiable information and medical consensus seem to be what is one-sided. Per WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, the result is that we get an article that is very appropriately "one-sided" to this overwhelming viewpoint.
We've a link to the controversy article. That seems more than enough. Otherwise we risk coatracking and giving undue weight to fringe theories. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a good point; however, there is a LOT more documentation to back up the "fringe" theory than the medical consensus. It seems here that Wikipedia editors are sticking to the consensus and not the facts. The majority of medical literature shows no link between the consumption of saturated fat and heart disease. I will add these to the page.
Also, that sentence I keep removing is irrelevant to the article. Wikipedia should use science to discuss what saturated fat is and its possible effects, not what other entities think about it. Shicoco (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe we're using science and basing the article on scientific consensus. The amount of documentation has absolutely no sway when it comes to presenting scientific or medical consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Saturated fat is a risk factor for CVD

Keep it. It is well-sourced, inherently encyclopedic and relevant. Removing it violates WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOT, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Error in table

The third row (Danaei 2009) contains erroneous information. From my reading, the study showed a significant RR when SFA were replaced by PUFAs. However, the text in the right column does suggest the opposite (if it makes any sense at all - it seems corrupted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.195.93 (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Culinary usage

Although this article seems to be covering the scientific information on saturated fat. It does not appear to include any information on why sat fat is used in the first place. Like for example it's my understanding that saturated fats are far more stable meaning that they can be used to make foods have far longer shelf lives. In particular coconut oil is prized as a saturated fat that remains liquid at room temperature and is thus used to make things like protein bars soft a chewy yet prevent them from going rancid. I'm sure there are other uses for sat fat including flavors it imparts and other culinary chemistry.Drewder (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Added Opposing viewpoint

I added an opposing viewpoint and sourced it well. One of the sources is Gary Taubes, and while not a doctor, he is very well-known, and his article aggregates public knowledge into one place to analyze nutrition from a less medical nature. He was referenced by Harvard in some of their nutrition articles, and if he's good enough for Harvard Medicine, he's good enough for Wikipedia.

However, I did not go into detail, because there is a link to the main article that covers the controversy. But mentioning only one viewpoint is quite one-sided, and the opposing viewpoint, though hidden by health and political consensus, is rather large and has the majority of medical literature to back it up. Shicoco (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that the new content violates all the policies/guidelines mentioned above, as does the rationale above. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how. There exists opposing viewpoints, I added a quick bit in to keep the article neutral. This is not a fringe theory (as in the "earth is flat" theory); this is a huge controversy in the medical world. From WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I have represented a significant view that has been published by very reliable sources.
Also, all the sources are studies published in medical journals or articles by medical doctors, with an exception to the source by Gary Taubes, who is a well-known science and nutrition writer and is an authority in this area, and whose article reflects the controversy and the fact that one exists. Shicoco (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
While there are opposing viewpoints, and we present them with due weight. When presenting medical information, we follow MEDRS. We don't cherry-pick sources and give them undue weight to criticize a majority viewpoint, especially medical consensus.
It would be much easier to continue this discussion by sourcing information rather than simply presenting it as what appear to be simply personal opinions.
WP:FRINGE covers a great deal more than ideas like Flat Earth. See Wikipedia:Fringe#Identifying_fringe_theories. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Ronz, multiple problems including sourcing and WP:WEIGHT issues. Yobol (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not a fringe theory, this is a REAL controversy that has been raging for decades, and I have put in the HUGE opposing viewpoint and have sourced it with VERY reliable information. From WP:Fringe "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources." (they are very well sourced) and "For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." the opposing viewpoint has A TON of scientific support from independent doctors, meta-analyses, Harvard, etc. There is actually very little data to support the link between SFA and CVHD. Do not remove valid information that is heavily sourced.
Also from WP:Fringe "Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics." Shicoco (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This single sentence is also not undue weight. It is a single sentence that presents the opposition, which is enough, as further commentary on the controversy can be found on the main article (it's funny that the main article link to the controversy page is presented yet the controversy isn't introduced at all, until now). Also, that controversy page is extremely one-sided, considering the fact that the best evidence supports saturated-fat-is-healthy view. More importantly though, that article needs better organization. Shicoco (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be selectively reading our policies. From WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." As is documented, multiple medical organizaitons recognize the adverse health effects from saturated fat. Adding material to suggest parity between the opinions of individuals and the broad consensus in the scientific community violates multiple policies, including WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia works on consensus, please do not edit war. Yobol (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You are selectively reading the policies. You didn't even read the next line: fringe theories "...have little or no scientific support". More: "...and for a fringe theory to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter.", "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources...."
However, this is not a fringe theory; it has verifiable EVIDENCE from RELIABLE sources. A fringe theory does not. So, from WP:FRINGE:"In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources...." "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article." The only thing left to discuss is undue weight. The opposing viewpoint cannot be omitted, as this gives the mainstream theory undue weight. For this reason, the alternate theory is given only one sentence, and comes after the mainstream view is presented. The opposing theory is quite large enough to be presented (think Fat Head, Atkins, Gary Taubes, Sally Fallon and her books, Mary Enig and her work, etc). Shicoco (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, there is a Wikipedia article dealing with this controversy (i.e. it's not a fringe theory). If the opposing view is large enough to warrant a separate article, it must, according to the rules quoted above, be mentioned in the main article along with the mainstream view. Shicoco (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The controversy is already discussed, under the table of reviews. You are equating the work of individual with the assessments of large independent medical bodies. This is a clear WP:WEIGHT violation and needs to stop. Yobol (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You are changing your argument each time. First it was the sourcing, then it was fringe theory issues, now it's weight issues. It is clear that you are letting your bias make your decisions.
This controversy is so prominent that it has its own article--but it's not a fringe theory article such as Flat Earth. Yet, the main article doesn't even mention the opposing viewpoint until after the table, and that allusion is a single, unsourced statement. This gives undue weight to the mainstream view; the link at the top of the controversy shows the fact that there is a dispute, yet the opposing viewpoint is not mentioned anywhere nearby. Wikipedia requires that all significant viewpoints are represented. Here's what policy says: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description' as more popular views...." Notice the keyword is description; there is no description at all. Here's more, from the policy article on neutrality: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It's fair to represent this significant minority viewpoint; representing in the way I have done is in a proportionate manner: it comes after the mainstream viewpoint, is a single sentence, and the rest of the article follows the mainstream view; and it has been published by reliable sources. Did you read that? Reliable sources. The one sentence after the table is not sourced. It doesn't matter that the the mainstream view follows the "assessments of large independent medical bodies", the minority view is significant and has reliable sources, and therefore will be represented in a proportionate way, which is a single sentence. Shicoco (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
My argument was that it violates WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOT, and WP:FRINGE - so the argument is unchanged. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
After reading through this, I think the article as it is now is one sided and needs to include a significant section on the alternate theory. 108.242.239.177 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems that the "one sided" impression you're getting is properly justified per the policies and guidelines mentioned. --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid I have to concur with Shicoco here. I am normally satisfied with the balanced nature of Wikipedia, even on articles where I disagree with the main viewpoint presented. There is no question of bias in this article. Where is even a sentence on the work of Uffe Ravnskov? Rboudwin (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Evaluation of proposed sources

  • Mozzafarian, et al.: Appropriate per WP:MEDRS, however is already noted in the large table so is redundant; therefore text not appropriate as proposed.
  • DrBriffa.com: Clearly not an appropriate source per WP:MEDRS
  • Siri-Tarino, et al.: Appropriate per WP:MEDRS, however is already noted in the large table so is redundant; therefore text not appropriate as proposed.
  • Gary Taubes column in NYTimes: not an appropriate source per WP:MERS
  • Mozzafarian, et al., in AJCN: Primary source, so not appropriate per WP:MEDRS
  • Mary Enig/Sally Fallon on Mercola.com: Clearly not an appropriate source per WP:MEDRS
  • Book chapter written by known skeptic of the lipid hypothesis Uffe Ravsnakov
    So his criticism of the lipid hypothesis is invalid because he is a known skeptic of the lipid hypothesis? Paul Magnussen (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    I think the point was that it is clearly not a MEDRS source. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Article published on spiked-online.com: Clearly not an appropriate source per WP:MEDRS
  • Jakobsen, et al.:Appropriate per WP:MEDRS, however is already noted in the large table so is redundant; therefore text not appropriate as proposed.

You are proposing to use redundant information, or mostly non-MEDRS sources. Clear violations of MEDRS, weight, etc. Yobol (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Who is the audience for this article?

Do I need a science degree to understand this article?

I find it to be full of specialist terminolgy punctuated by hyperlinks.

Here is my journey:-

Saturated fat: Saturated fat is fat that consists of triglycerides

Triglyceride: A triglyceride (TG, triacylglycerol, TAG, or triacylglyceride) is an ester derived from glycerol and three fatty acids.

Ester: Esters are chemical compounds consisting of a carbonyl adjacent to an ether linkage

Carbonyl: In organic chemistry, a carbonyl group is a functional group composed of a carbon atom double-bonded to an oxygen atom

Functional groups: In organic chemistry, functional groups are lexicon-specific groups of atoms or bonds within molecules that are responsible for the characteristic chemical reactions of those molecules.

Lexicon: In most theories of linguistics, human languages are thought to consist of two parts: a lexicon, essentially a catalogue of a given language's words (its wordstock), and a grammar, a system of rules which allow for the combination of those words into meaningful sentences.

The only meaningful sentence that I have found on this journey is the one describing lexicon.

I suggest that an overweight member of the general public would find your saturated fat article difficult to digest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.154.66 (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting information on SFA-CHD relationship

I feel like I'm reading the mind of a schizophrenic. At one point in the article...

"There are strong, consistent, and graded relationships between saturated fat intake, blood cholesterol levels, and the mass occurrence of cardiovascular disease. The relationships are accepted as causal."

... IMMEDIATELY after an extensive list of actual studies showing THE EXACT OPPOSITE -- inconsistent ("no reduction in mortality" in 2011 vs. "strongly reduced CHD mortality" in 2010 vs. "inconclusive evidence on mortality" in 2001, etc.) and contrary ("many studies show no effects on vascular function" in 2010, "no significant evidence that SFA is associated with CHD" in 2010) results.

WTF? Where exactly is this "strong" and "consistent" relationship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.207.59 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite correct. This article is at best one-sided... at worst determinedly following the party line. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22208554 Rboudwin (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal article on saturated fat

Is this article biased or does it contain important info for improving this article? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources for medical information need to conform to WP:MEDRS, our guideline for medical sourcing. Opinion pieces in newspapers are not good sources for health claims, and would not be useful to include here. We generally want high quality reviews published in the peer reviewed literature instead. Yobol (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yobol, you missed that the WSJ article refers to the following published, peer-reviewed meta-analysis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24723079 This research absolutely DOES merit inclusion here. The truth of the matter is that, going all the way back to the original 'cooked' research of Ancel Keyes back in the 1950's, the evidence against Saturated Fats is either (a) blatantly falsified, or (b) not statistically significant. Meanwhile, virtually every commercially produced, synthesized 'substitute' (beginning with Crisco, and margarine) have been shown to be deadlier. The key takeaway from all of this is that more research is needed -- and not the kind that is funded by the synthetic foods industry. 98.240.207.138 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The "Association with diseases" section is self-contradicting

While it is true that a majority of major medical organizations, as well as governmental organizations concerned with public health, hold the opinion that increased consumption of saturated fat is a contributing factor in the development of cardiovascular disease, that opinion is neither universally held nor, in most cases, unqualified. And the section in question does (to the credit of previous editors) contain examples of studies that have produced conflicting results, clearly demonstrating that the relationship between dietary saturated fat and disease is not unequivocal. Unfortunately, quite a few statements within the article do not reflect the uncertainty that exists within the medical community about the relationship. Consider, for example, the following statement: "There are strong, consistent, and graded relationships between saturated fat intake, blood cholesterol levels, and the mass occurrence of cardiovascular disease. The relationships are accepted as causal." It is unambiguously stating that saturated fat causes cardiovascular disease. But this is a logical leap (see correlation does not imply causation), and there are many studies, including a few listed within the article, that contradict it. Given the contradictory evidence, I recommend this section of the article be cleaned up, with absolute statements being removed and replaced with verbiage that reflects the consensus opinion (that high consumption of saturated fat raises the risk of CV disease), but acknowledges that it is opinion. DoctorEric (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC) I agree with avoiding absolute statements about fat consumption and human disease. I've not reviewed the edits here, but think the article of 18 Feb, 2015 is acceptable. DStowens (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

extremely fuzzy categorization for meat products

Meat products are understood as muscle tissue plus fat tissue, not including bone material. In the context of fat distribution, it would be of extreme importance to distinguish how much of the fat is derived from pure muscle tissue, and from pure fat tissue, to make sense at all. Just listing "beef" or "pork" doesn't tell much of anything. Also I looked at the data source and it seems that it isn't even clear further processed meats, e.g. marinated meats, are included in this category. A quick look at http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/pork-products/10293/2 and http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/pork-products/10301/2 reveals that the difference here is quite large. Another comparison of muscle vs muscle fat:http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/pork-products/2119/2 vs. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/pork-products/2123/2 .109.91.32.80 (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Saturated fat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Source 82

I just wanted to point out that source 82 which is a supposed link to a PDF is now broken. Is it possible for a new host for the original source to be found?

2601:248:500:32D0:4585:9635:7F4:6863 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Completed in article and here. --Zefr (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Info that I will add when I have more time to win the revert war

More info that the old-fashioned types who are allergic to recent research will just revert so I put it here for others to use as they wish:

August 2017 comprehensive Lancet study found "Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings."[3]

References

  1. ^ a b Stamler J (2010). "Diet-heart: a problematic revisit" (PDF). The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 91 (3): 497–99. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2010.29216. PMID 20130097. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Grootveld, Martin; Silwood, Christopher J. L.; Addis, Paul; Claxson, Andrew; Serra, Bartolome Bonet; Viana, Marta (2001). "Health Effects of Oxidized Heated Oils". Foodservice Research International. 13 (1): 41–55. doi:10.1111/j.1745-4506.2001.tb00028.x.
  3. ^ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext
While that study involved > 135,000 people, it is one prospective cohort study, which is not the strongest of clinical trial designs as, in this case, it is founded in a dietary intake questionnaire susceptible to errors of memory and recording. Before changing content in the article, we need meta-analysis evidence or a systematic review which are stronger sources per WP:MEDASSESS. Note: new discussions go at the bottom of the page, and the reference needs to be tagged for reflist-talk (done). --Zefr (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Confusing lede.

The opening statement in the lede and the lines starting "Double bonds..." and the following sentance starting "They..." are confusing and appear contradictory. The word "They" should refer to the subject of the previous sentance (i.e. Double bonds). Instead it seems to refer to single bonds (as per the logic of the lede opening statement). Confusing... 92.237.196.75 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Further cardiovascular studies

This edit was reverted because it's unclear what new information is provided and how it's different from the content and sources already in the cardiovascular section. The edit also used too many references with no clear content provided about their findings; WP:CITEKILL. --Zefr (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

2018-20 expert positions on dietary saturated fat

Geoserver16 has been trying with this edit to delete a mass of well-sourced current content that supports limited dietary intake of saturated fat products, like butter, cheese, palm or coconut oil, and fatty meats. 2018-20 guidelines by major health organizations and review literature are holding the line that saturated fat intake above about 5% of daily calories is a risk factor for cardiovascular and various other diseases. Nearly all of the guidelines and high-quality reviews indicate that saturated fat foods should be replaced by those containing unsaturated plant-based oils. A few examples among many:

The few disputes from some sources about the effect of consuming saturated fats are already discussed in the Association with diseases section. If there are recent Cochrane reviews or national guideline revisions to change the position on dietary saturated fat intake, then those sources should be discussed here before adding to the article. --Zefr (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there exists even a single, good recent review supporting high dietary intake of saturated fats. Anyway, Geoserver16 seems prone to edit warring, as in [4], and does not engage in talk pages. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The American Heart Association is notorious for corruption in the best interest of corporate food industries and should never be cited as a source for health information. There are definitely good recent reviews supporting the claim that saturated fats do not contribute to cardiovascular diseases. One instance is Mark Hyman's 2018 book Food: What the Heck Should I Eat?. Please regard these portions of his book. Geoserver16 (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The American Heart Association is 96 years old, one of the largest contributors to cardiovascular research in the US, and a globally-respected charity. It is also the type of medical organization that we source under WP:MEDSCI. As for Hyman, his literature is considered nonsense, an example of what the WP medical community regards as quackery - as is the field of functional medicine Hyman practices. See here. --Zefr (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that Hyman's literature is nonsense.Geoserver16 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I apologize to Zefr and BernardoSulzbach for any perceived edit warring. I at first interpreted Zefr's edit as an attempt to preserve dishonest media in food industries' capital interest.Geoserver16 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
See Mark Hyman (doctor) to start.
With respect to WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS, Hyman's opinions and self-promotion are irrelevant at best. --Ronz (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you are acting in bad faith, as you engaged in the talk page. However, I have to agree with Zefr that the American Heart Association is not "notorious for corruption" and a single author is not enough weight on the other side of the scale. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Very biased article

This page seems to be pretty biased towards saturated fats being a major contributor to cardiovascular disease. The most reputable/recent review article was published by Cochrane in 2020, which showed no association with CV mortality or overall mortality. There are dozens of review articles on this topic, with about half arguing each way, but I see a lot of cherrypicking in the sources for this article so as to present the information as though it were not controversial and overwhelmingly one-sided.

Perhaps the most egregious example is the prominence of the AHA as a source in this article. The AHA is a private corporation that was pretty obscure until 1940 when it received major funding from Procter & Gamble to promote the use of Crisco over butter. It continues to receive the majority of its revenue from commercial funding to this day, promoting high-sugar cereal as "Heart Healthy" rather than more traditional breakfast foods that are higher in saturated fat. They are a very biased source for this topic and should generally not be cited any more than the US Dairy Group. They also own/edit a number of scientific journals, which makes their influence on published research more spread out and less obvious, so sources should be cross-checked to see if they were published/edited by AHA-owned journals.

The simplest fix is to add a section on the controversy and remove the overly biased sources from other sections. This section used to be on this page a decade ago, and I'm not sure why it was removed. It's still appropriate to take the overall position of the major national dietary recommendations, but disingenuous to present the data so lopsidedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.23.176 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

"This page seems to be pretty biased towards saturated fats being a major contributor to cardiovascular disease", this is because this is the mainstream scientific consensus shared by pretty much all in the medical community, every professional health agency and health organization around the world etc. They are telling people to cut down on saturated fat, not increase it. This has been discussed many times already on this talk-page and banned accounts, drive by IPs and sock-puppets have said the same thing as you promoting conspiracy theories from low-carb blogs. There are no good reliable sources telling us saturated fat decreases the risk of heart disease, all the sources describe an increase. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the ratio between studies that show beneficial effects vs those that show detrimental effects? That ratio should at least guide the amount of information contained in the article for each point of view. 45.73.113.69 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

New reviews and studies on saturated fats and CVD

A 2020 Cochrane review https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub3/full concludes with the following Main Results:

"reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 17%" "greater reductions in saturated fat (reflected in greater reductions in serum cholesterol) resulted in greater reductions in risk of CVD events" "We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality." "There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non‐fatal myocardial infarction or CHD mortality." "There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI. There was no evidence of harmful effects of reducing saturated fat intakes." "we found that replacing saturated fat with PUFAs (a modified‐fat diet) appeared more protective of cardiovascular events than replacement with carbohydrates. This was similar to results within our closely allied systematic review assessing health effects of total fat reduction, where modified‐fat diets were protective and low‐fat diets were not"

An AHA study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34796724/

"There is controversy about associations between total dietary fatty acids, their classes (saturated fatty acids [SFAs], monounsaturated fatty acids, and polyunsaturated fatty acids), and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Specifically, the relevance of food sources of SFAs to CHD associations is uncertain."

"This observational study found no strong associations of total fatty acids, SFAs, monounsaturated fatty acids, and polyunsaturated fatty acids, with incident CHD. By contrast, we found associations of SFAs with CHD in opposite directions dependent on the food source. These findings should be further confirmed, but support public health recommendations to consider food sources alongside the macronutrients they contain, and suggest the importance of the overall food matrix."

Another: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8454979/

"Higher circulating pentadecanoic acid (15:0), a biomarker of dairy fat intake, was associated with lower risk of CVD in this large population-based cohort study in Sweden. Our meta-analysis supports this finding, showing that higher levels of both odd-chain dairy fat biomarkers 15:0 and 17:0 were associated with lower CVD risk"

Another: https://heart.bmj.com/content/early/2021/09/11/heartjnl-2021-319654

"In middle-aged Australian women, moderate carbohydrate intake (41.0%–44.3% of TEI) was associated with the lowest risk of CVD, without an effect on total mortality. Increasing saturated fat intake was not associated with CVD or mortality and instead correlated with lower rates of diabetes, hypertension and obesity."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antisoapbox (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We do not cite primary sources on Wikipedia for biomedical content so the individual cohort studies you cited are weak evidence and cannot be cited per WP:MEDRS policy. The Cochrane review is already cited on the article and it is a good source. The other recent meta-analysis you cited [5] hardly discusses saturated fat and did not investigate that topic so it is original research to include it here. Such a review would better off be placed on the dairy Wikipedia article, not this one. Unfortunately a limitation of the review is that it did not distinguish between the different types of dairy foods. It does not mention anywhere what specific dairy products were being consumed, they could have been low-fat. When you lump all that data together and not distinguish it - the results can be very misleading. The review acknowledges this "Despite several advantages of evaluating fatty acid biomarkers, the results cannot distinguish between different types of dairy foods (e.g., cheese, milk, butter, and yoghurt), which could have differential effects on health. For example, butter intake increases total and LDL cholesterol when compared to cheese [56], and while cheese intake has been linked to lower risk of CVD outcomes, similar associations have not been reported for butter [57–59], which instead was recently linked to increased cardiovascular mortality in a large US cohort". In conclusion, this review does not tell us anything about saturated fat per se and its very unlikely that it will be used on the article but you can always ask at WikiProject Medicine [6] if you need good advice. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The AHA is in automatic state of conflict of interest, so their primary references cannot be used here. Such references are equivalent to original research. WP:OR 45.73.113.69 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Steven Hamley

I have deleted the study by Steven Hamley. WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here. Hamley excluded a lot of RCTs to yield the result he was looking for. He is active on social media posting pro meat and anti vegetarian polemic. He seems ideologically motivated. This is a flawed study, it is not neutral and exceptional. We already have the statements by all big nutritional societies so there is no need for this. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

False. Hamley considers all the RCTs that were available at the time of the meta-analysis. He presents these results in his article. He also applies criteria to distinguish adequately-controlled RCTs from inadequately controlled RCTs. Remarkably, analysis of the adequately-controlled trials does not yield an efficacy signal for the PUFA intervention while analysis of the inadequately-controlled trials does yield a signal. The criteria used by Hamley is stated in the methods section of his paper. This article is published in a peer-reviewed journal. It has about 250 citations in the medical scientific literature. Each of the primary source articles is available. Anybody can replicate this meta-analysis. There is nothing exceptional here. Regarding health and medicine, wikipedia editors rely mostly on secondary literature, such as structured reviews and meta-analyses. Consideration is due for clinical practice guidelines, policy statements, society position papers, etc. However, we rely on the secondary medical scientific literature on wikipedia. There appears to be a serious problem with suppression and distortion of high-quality secondary sources on articles related to nutrition and health on wikipedia. I've found more than 20 wikipedia articles (so far) that reflect this problem. There appears to be a systematic effort to promote veganism on wikipedia, with edits extending back for more than a decade. Such motivated reasoning and editing is inconsistent with the core principles of wikipedia.sbelknap (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a dispute on this saturated fat article regarding WP:NPOV. I tagged the article with the POV tag and this was deleted. Please explain why the POV tag was deleted. sbelknap (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
There is no WP:MEDRS or talk page consensus to justify it, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Please review the WP:NPOV guidelines. There is no requirement that there be a consensus to justify a POV tag. Instead, the point of the POV tag is to *attract* the attention of other editors who can engage and address the dispute. I have restored the POV tag. Please stop abusing the editing process. sbelknap (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Adding WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims with low-quality sources like Hamley does not make an article NPOV, but creates a false balance. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hamley is a high-quality source. It has been cited >130 times in the literature. It continues to be cited as an authoritative source to this day. You provide no support for your claim that Hamley is a low-quality source. You are repeatedly using your own original research to trump the medical literature. Your removal of the WP:POV tag is contrary to wikipedia's policies. sbelknap (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Schwingshackl

Schwingshackl is about secondary prevention of CVD events in patients with CHD. We do not haven any discussion of secondary prevention in this article. I think, that's because this discussion belongs into the article on CHD. I also found a review on omega-6 for the secondary prevention of CVD that may also belong there. It seems the message is that swapping fats when it's too late is too late. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Secondary prevention is distinct from primary prevention of CHD but it is not distinct from prevention of CHD. Instead, secondary prevention of CHD is a subset of prevention of CHD. There exists in this article a discussion of prevention of CHD. In my view it belongs in this article's section on health effects. sbelknap (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Primary prevention addresses everyone to reduce saturated fat intake. A reader would look for the health effects of saturated fat in this article. Secondary prevention may differ between different types of CVD. A reader will most probably look for information on secondary prevention of a certain type of CVD in the corresponding article but not in an article on fat. CarlFromVienna (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This article shows that reducing saturated fat does not reduce risk of harm. That is relevant here. Notably, it contradicts the rest of the information presented here.
I trust that those engaged editors who are 7DAs, ideological vegans, and with other COI are disclosing their COI. sbelknap (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes people see studies in their Twitter timeline that are presented with a summary created by the spin doctors of their Twitter bubble. It is always a good idea to read the actual study oneself. For primary prevention Schwingshackl concludes based on his sensitivity analysis: „However, recommending higher intakes of PUFA in general instead of SFA might not be appropriate. Sensitivity analysis indicates that it seems reasonable to modify this general recommendation by promoting higher dietary n−3 PUFA as a substitute for SFA.“ CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
The Results section of the abstract states, "The findings from (systematic reviews) of prospective cohort studies, which frequently compare the highest versus lowest intake categories, found mainly no as- sociation of total fat, monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), and saturated fatty acid (SFA) with risk of chronic diseases." sbelknap (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain why this isn‘t the conclusion, but instead the authors conclude to swap SFA for O3? CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Above Steven Belknap is accusing Wikipedia as having a veganism bias, he's also accusing specific editors of being vegan or being seventh-day Adventists but if you check his Twitter account he is a well known figure from the carnivore diet community who says all plants are "candy". Here are just two of his comedy posts - "Plant-based foods are unnecessary for human health. Eat fatty meat, offal, eggs, cheese. That is what a healthy diet looks like. Plants are candy." [7], "Plant-based foods are unnecessary candy. All of them. There is no strong research result supporting the assertion that plant-based foods are necessary for human health during pregnancy, infancy, childhood, adulthood, or old age" [8]. Unbelievable this user is accusing others of a POV, when his life is to promote carnivore diet pseudoscience. He believes humans should not be eating any plants and only animals, so of course he will have a massive agenda on these articles. 90.241.67.238 (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Let us focus on wikipedia content when editing wikipedia.
One challenge is the wiki-amnesia that occurs when wikipedia talk pages are inappropriately archived after an editor calls out the vegan bias evident in wikipedia. Interested editors may find it useful to review the archived talk pages regarding similar complaints about pro-vegan bias on wikipedia. sbelknap (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Why do you suppose that there are two separate sections, one titled, "Results" and the other titled "Conclusions"? Could it be that Results ≠ Conclusions? sbelknap (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits by sbelknap

Sbelknap [9] has added an editorial to make the statement "Higher saturated fat intake has a relatively small effect on LDL cholesterol and moderate red meat consumption is not harmful" and has positioned that at the top of the section "Cardiovascular disease". The editorial was written by Salim Yusuf who holds non-mainstream views on nutrition and Andrew Mente a low-carb spokesperson [10], [11], [12]. This tiny minority position should not be put onto the article. The editorial challenges the guidelines of governmental and medical bodies and I am not seeing any influence from this editorial, it has been cited 4 times.

I would have to agree with PsychologistGuy that Sbelknap is using Wikipedia to promote low-carbohydrate authors, not just Nina Teicholz but Steven Hamley and many others. 90.241.67.238 (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

My goal is to present accurate information in this article about saturated fat. It is undeniable that there is high-quality secondary source medical scientific literature that contradicts the view presented in this article that saturated fats are harmful. I am proposing that this article reflect the important views that exist in the medical literature and that is all. Please focus on the content here. sbelknap (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The Riemara Valk paper with bogeyman in the title you added is clearly not a good paper [13]. Valk works as some sort of business manager and is not a physician [14], so you are adding papers written by non-specialists. You also added that paper before the line that mentions "Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the British Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, the World Heart Federation, the British National Health Service". It seems anything will do in your world if it says saturated fat is good. Valk knows more about nutrition than the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the British Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, the World Heart Federation, the British National Health Service? She is correct and the entire medical community is wrong? Clearly not. Nice try though! 90.241.67.238 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I am guessing you will be adding this one to Wikipedia next? [15] 90.241.67.238 (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
This article by Valk et al is a peer-reviewed paper published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. The European Journal of Preventive Cardiology is a prestigious journal with an h-index of 106.[16]
The information considered by these authors is accessible, as all the peer-reviewed articles in their review are part of the published literature. sbelknap (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saturated_fat/Archive_2&oldid=1146786433"