Talk:Saturated fat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject
MCB Portal
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within molecular and cellular biology.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is a current candidate for the MCB Collaboration of the Month.
Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
To-do list for Saturated fat: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] "Controversy" section

    As has been repeatedly noted here, this article gave undue weight to the views of Mary Enig and The Weston A. Price Foundation which are contrary to the recommendations of mainstream scientific community as well world-wide and governmental agencies. I edited the section in parcels, explaining each edit as it was made. I then then moved the remainder to a subsection of of the "Dietary recommendatons" section.

    Because the source documents don't meet wiki's guideline for reliable sources, I'm not sure if these views should even be presented in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. However, I left them in until the matter is further discussed. OccamzRazor 23:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    I just restored the entire controversy section because I completely disagree with you that the cited material doesn't meet the guidelines for reliable sources. Just because the AHA or the AMA hasn't signed off on these controversial findings- hence the name of the section in question- does NOT warrant their deletion. Not all citations are equal in their magnitude, acceptance and credibility. This is a given in any work that makes use of references to buttress its statements and conclusions. Some people, such as you, presumably, believe that the only "valid" references are those which are supposedly backed by extensive scientific studies. Yet, when such studies were analyzed in depth by the likes of Mary Enig, Udo Erasmus, Bruce Fife, Diana Schwarzbein and many others, scores of inconsistencies, distortions and failures of controls were found and documented. That illustrates the controversial nature of this section, don't you think? The bottom line is this: references to controversial statements made by credible people (such as, but not limited to, those above) should most definitely be included in this section. After all, the contrary statements and studies referenced in this section are going against a HYPOTHESIS, of which there is no established link, or explanation, of causation- just a correlation- between saturated fat and its supposed malignant effects. Honestly, if you feel I am in error for restoring this section in its entirety, please feel free to ask a few moderators to weigh in with their views. I would be quite shocked if they agreed with you that this section should be squelched.
    -Sloth Loves Chunk 03:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Problems with some references

    The references cited at "Additionally, controlled experimental studies have found that people consuming high saturated fat diets experience negative cholesterol profile changes. [3] [11] [12] [13]" probably aren't the best to use. The first cites a study that not only limited saturated fats but also dietary cholesterol, thus that's a confounding factor that doesn't exactly limit its results to saturated fat. Not to mention its a little misleading to use a study on 7 month old infants with the implication that the results apply to humans of all ages. The second actually states in its conclusion that a reduction in saturated fats had no positive, meaningful reduction in cholesterol related risk, but in fact it was a replacement of polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats that found a positive effect. This could easily be interpreted as simply saying that polyunsaturated fats might have some heart healthy benefit, rather than what the entry currently uses it for, i.e., support that a reduction in saturated fats has a positive effect on someone's cholesterol profile. The third, [12] is a broken link. The fourth simply states that a diet rich in nuts, which are low in saturated fats, lowers LDL cholesterol. This doesn't isolate saturated fats as the cause of high LDL, confounds the study in that some nuts are high in essential fatty acids that have been shown in other studies to positively effect cholesterol levels in absense of saturated fat modification, and finally doesn't mention the overall cholesterol profile; this is important in that, upon reading the other studies, one finds that many saturated fat modifications do lower LDL cholesterol, but also lower HDL cholesterol, such that the overall cholesterol risk profile remains relatively unchanged. To leave out HDL cholesterol in the second study makes it a bad study to cite in a paragraph trying to show that lowered saturated fat intake positively effects cholesterol profiles. I don't want to delete these references for fear of being branded a heart-diet denier, however, better studies probably exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.27.25.131 (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Saturated Fats

    I'm afraid that blandly repeating the mainstream belief that certain fats are "bad" is not very useful. In general, sedentary individuals, those eating high quantities of refined carbohydrates, and those who are not eating a healthy diet are prone to have adverse reactions to dietary fats. However, it is very true that fats are a vital part of our metabolism, cells, and play a role in our endocrine system. One must be very careful trumpeting decades old dogma which does not at all get deep enough into the issue to do it justice.

    [edit] Article is confused about what it wants to be when it grows up

    I came looking for information on saturated fat. I got some, but a large section about a specific advocate/researcher. Shouldn't that chunk about Dr. Lady whatever be its own article? I'm a user not an editor so my perspective is that of someone looking for information. When looking up a "general" subject like "saturated fat" I'm not expecting to find a summary of the opinions of one doctor. I found confusion until reading through the Talk. I learned the 7% factor was a generally recognized recommendation. As to the role played by saturated fat, the fact that most of that information was buried in the opinions of that one doctor, I'm still not sure I have an accurate view. So off to Britannica. But honestly folks, it shouldn't require an editorial board to recognized that a single voice does not belong -- at least not in extended fashion -- in an article detailing a general subject. The subject of Dr SoAndSo's Research certainly can have its own article. 128.241.105.173 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Martin Shortpants

    [edit] Dr. Mary Enig

    Sorry, but I just don't feel Dr. Enig's really cutting it for the controversy- at least how the article's worded now. "Dr. Enig says this, blah blah" and citing the page that has her saying that isn't working. Cite her studies, or what they say. Also, the article isn't really clear here for a "controversy" section. "Mary says saturated fat plays a role in the body, they have a physiological use". Ok. No one said they didn't. Sure we're demonizing saturated fat, but only because we're consuming far too much. Unlike trans, which has been stated as completely unneeded and could essentially be eliminated, health bodies suggest limiting trans to less than 7% of caloric intake to reduce the risk of heart attack and CVD. It's impossible to consume fat without consuming at least a small percent of saturated- no one is in dispute about that. Controversy section needs more evidence showing not that saturated fat is needed to some extent, but that it's needed MORE than currently recommended. The menopausal women study does that beautifully- admittedly in limited circumstances, but still, more of what should be in the section.152.3.85.176 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] New page for Controversy?

    No matter what your view on the controversy, the current article spends too many words on views which are outside of the mainstream. It would be better to briefly summarize the "controversial" view and split the details off into another page like Saturated fat controversy. (That's not a very good title. Can anyone come up with anything better?) -Wiwa 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support: Nearly all this talk page seems dedicated to the controversy! I'd support the idea of a new page but perhaps call it Fats controversy as, if I understand Enig and co. correctly, it extends beyond saturated fats. They seem to dislike polyunsaturated fats from temperate plants (or, at least, the extent to which they now feature in a North American diet). Nunquam Dormio 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support: I agree with the above, including a general fats/oils controversy page. Frankg 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Non-Support: I strongly disagree. Look at the page for the 9/11 Commission Report. The criticism section is about twice as long as the findings section, yet a separate page devoted to criticisms of the report does not currently exist. A criticism page actually did exist at one time, but it eventually came to be merged with the current page and now they are one and the same. Until a time comes when the controversy section significantly dwarfs the rest of the article in size and scope, no separate page for controversy should exist. It's simply not warranted at this time. -Sloth Loves Chunk 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Dietary Recommendations

    I decided to split health into "health impacts" and then "dietary recommendations". People can now read the saturated fat article (from top to bottom) as "What are saturated fats", "What do they do?" "What should I do about them?" "What do others mention". I'm very tempted to shuck out that crazy biochemist and her "essential lauric acid" talk. Someone needs a REAL citation. It's very fair that the article mention certain saturated fats appear to be more dangerous, but avoid endorsing such fats as "essential" simply because they don't increase heart disease risk AS much. Even if steric acid has absolutely no effect on lipid profiles, it still doesn't make since to endorse it over monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fats.Tymothy 01:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    I commend whoever put up the studies noting higher saturated fat consumption appeared linked to slower progression of atherosclerosis in post-menopausal women. This is real science, and while far from conclusive, is certainly valid findings that merit further investigation. I think the fact that the women studied were post-menopausal might have something to do with it, the liver uses saturated fat to synthesize cholesterol- estrogen has a similiar structure to cholesterol...does estrogen reduce cholesterol levels? The article points out the major hypotheses for these explanations:

    it's possible that women--especially postmenopausal women--differ from men in how they respond to saturated fat. Another possibility is that some unknown factor that the investigators failed to control for, and not saturated fat, actually influenced the progression of atherosclerosis in these women. A third possibility is based on the fact that these women were already eating an especially low-fat diet because they had been diagnosed with heart disease."

    Perhaps total caloric consumption also played a role here. Possibly those who consumed more saturated fat were consuming more foods altogether, and were consuming more fruits, vegetables and whole grains, which positively affected coronary health. Again, I'm simply speculating on the causality here, not trying to invalidate the findings of the study. Having post-menopausal women on a controlled diet, one with high saturated fat, another with low saturated fat would help to answer this question. Articles like this is what the controversy section should consist of.Tymothy 19:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks. I found these studies after looking around for a few minutes one day. However, I know that there are dozens more out there. I'll have to take the time to dig them up and post them in the controversy section. Eventually they'll all be listed there. That's what Wikipedia is all about- especially with a science that is based almost entirely upon hypothesis, conjecture and marketing. All of the arguments surrounding climate change seem outright trivial compared to their fatty analogs. We all have our own points of view, but so long as both sides of the saturated fat argument are presented, referenced and sequestered in a non-POV manner, everyone wins.
    By the way, I just took out that last alteration you made in the controversy section. In fact, I took out the entire sentence. It ended up being convoluted, confusing and even slightly POV in the end. People have two separate references from which to draw their own conclusions upon, including the study, itself. No need to put in anything right after. My mistake in the first place.
    -Sloth Loves Chunk 08:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] POV Pushing

    You can see the heavy hand of THINCS, Mercola, and the Weston A. Price Foundation on this page. The "controversy" regarding saturated fats is a manufactured controversy, designed to sell products like coconut oil. This article is so distorted as to present a health hazard. --69.49.165.74 23:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

    I wouldn't say that "evil corporations" are behind this, but there is a load of mis-information in the old version of the article. 152.3.61.244 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Health Controversy

    Stop using alternative medicine sites as primary sources! "Alternative medicine" does not mean "valid alternate opinion". If the place links to a convincing study, great, post that as a reference. Otherwise, keep it out. That lauric acid information is really speculation without studies to back it up. Just because crazy-kooks PhD says it's critical doesn't make it so- where's the study to back it up? 152.3.62.113 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    Check out the graph in this blog post...the original data are referenced if you want to look into it further. More fuel for the fire! Frankg 02:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    As a followup, check out this review and this document (which is a biased industry piece, but, again, the pertinent studies are referenced). I am not surprised this issue is controversial, as it appears the true physiological effect of different types of fats, in synergy with other chemical constituents, is difficult to quantify based on the available data. Just my two cents. Frankg 02:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    OK, I am geeking out reading studies on pubmed, but I want to highlight a statement in this study: "The failure of palm oil to elevate blood cholesterol as predicted by the regression equations developed by Keys et al. and Hegsted et al. might be due to the dominant alpha-position location of its constituent saturated fatty acids." It's discussing an issue that is rarely talked about; namely, triglyceride structure may play a role in the health effects of fatty acids. I could speculate endlessly on physiological mechanisms that this would affect, but needless to say, few studies controls for this particular factor, one of many that could be ignored in general epidemiological surveys. Frankg 03:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


    Something else to add to the health controversy?

    "Myth: Saturated fat clogs arteries.

    Truth: The fatty acids found in artery clogs are mostly unsaturated (74%), of which 41% are polyunsaturated. (Lancet 1994 344:1195)"

    Myths and Truths About Nutrition TheRedFall 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Just because artery clogs are mostly unsaturated does not mean that high consumption of unsaturated fats increases one's risk of heart disease! While such observations surmise, at best, the possibility of causation, numerous epidemiological studies have found that high saturated fat consumption is a predictor of both poor cholesterol profiles and coronary heart disease. If diets high in polyunsaturated fats were truly dangerous, and saturated fats were beneficial, large studies would find a link between positive correlation between polyunsaturated fat consumption and heart disease and a negative correlation between saturated fat consumption and heart disease- they don't! I suggest you stick to studies from peer-edited scientific journals instead of "alternative-doctor.com". Until you have some very compelling evidence to suggest that humans have some physiological benefit from consuming more than 7% of their daily calories from saturated fat, which would overturn recommendations based on reviews of dozens of experiments and studies reviewed by the American Heart Association, the World Health Organization and the FDA- there is no controversy that diets high in saturated fat increase the risk of heart disease. Suggest some physiological benefit of a small amount of saturated fats- alright. Suggest that people would benefit from consuming more than 7% of their diets from saturated fat? You're going need a mountainload of evidence- not just speculation. Additionally, the studies I've cited have distinguished from hydrogenated fat consumption- the diets have either been free of trans fats in controlled experiments, or studies have examined both saturated fat and trans-fat consumption seperately. Possibly older studies did not separate trans-fats from saturated in analysis, but the fact that they didn't again doesn't mean that saturated fat is beneficial!152.3.61.244 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    My A Level chemistry teacher used to mention how not having enough Saturated fat in your diet was as bad/worse as having too much. If anyone can find a link for this I think it is important to the health issues section. ~ Unregistered user

    I have yet to find a single study demonstrating that it's even possible to have a deficiency of saturated fats. Whether this is simply because every diet containing fat has a proportion of which that are saturated, I don't know. But I have never found an epidemiological study demonstrating a negative impact of decreased saturated fat consumption- even to near-zero. 152.3.61.244 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    Here's an interesting discussion of the matter. It references several scientific sources if anyone wanted to investigate further. Frankg 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    It doesn't really seem too conclusive at all. While it's possible saturated fat could influence testosterone levels, none of the studies eliminate confounding factors- total fats and cholesterol. The final study was the only one to specifically look at saturated fat alone in relation to testosterone, but there's a big problem in just looking at the modest correlation and concluding "Well, men who ate more saturated fat had higher testosterone levels. Therefore eating more saturated fat causes high testosterone levels." The men who ate saturated fat (only 12 of them, mind you) likely consumed most of it from animal sources- which are rich in cholesterol. Cholesterol is a steroid with a structure very similiar to testosterone, and it's possible that this was responsible for increasing testosterone. This confound cannot be ruled out from the limitiations of the study. A double-blind crossover study with controlled meal plans in which one has oils derived from coconut (high sat) and another plan has canola (low sat) would be very good at ruling this out. Additionally, high testosterone levels are not necessarily a good thing. It's been implicated as a possible antagonist in prostate cancer amongst other things. Still though, if more conclusive studies are published about testosterone and saturated fat, include them in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.61.244 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

    Are all plant-based saturated fats beneficial, or are there some which are not ? Can I also suggest the need to make the appropriate distinction between animal derived saturated fats and plant derived saturated fats (eg peanuts). Whilst plant based saturated fats may be health beneficial, the same may not necessarily apply to all saturated animal fats. My sense is that saturated fat derived from grain/lot fed animals is not health beneficial because it contains a low level of beneficial (antinflammatory) Omega 3 fats, and high level of pro-inflammatory Omega 6 fats. However, saturated fats from game meat and organic, grass-fed beef and dairy animals is the reverse. Is anyone clued up on this subject ?

    Pete

    ??

    Saturated fat can not be high/low in omega 3 fats these are a type of polyunsaturated fat not saturated fat (the omega (or n) number describes where the first double bond on the fatty acid, and saturated fatty acids contain do double bonds by definition)? if you mean in terms of the relative amounts of saturated/polyunsaturated fats from the total fat in animal vs plant based it is not really appicable here as this article is about saturated fat, not total fat.

    a point about the composition of atheromatous plaques you have to remember that the the composition or the effect does not always indicate the cause or pathology of the disease.

    Ian...

    of course it doesn't always indicate it. However, the claim in question is that saturated fat in the diet contributes to the formation of these plaques, more than unsaturated fats. Frequently in this, the fact that saturated fat is relatively solid at room temperature is cited. The image created is of this stuff gunking up your arteries. "Artery-clogging fat" is a term which has often been used. But what is clogging the arteries isn't saturated fat, mostly. Sure, you could assert that somehow the fat has become unsaturated in the process, but why, then, would unsaturated fats be, allegedly, not so likely to have this effect. Further, the body makes saturated fats, and it makes them from carbohydrates. What is the evidence that saturated fat in the diet contributes to clogging arteries? It's been inferred from some studies, but confounding factors abound, and other studies have different implications. Has butter consumption been shown to be correlated with heart disease? It appears there is no real consensus on all this. But there are certainly a lot of people willing to argue it to the bitter end! Abd 14:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Bad Article Scope

    This article is very inhomogeneous in its scope. In my opinion (I am biochemist), its various aspects to be moved to other places.

    • The chemical composition of fats belong to biochemistry and is already discussed there: see triglyceride.
    • The benefits and risks of nutrients is a separate issue. It has to be acknowledged that this area is highly controversial.
    • Trans fats are a completely different issue and have nothing to do in this article. I would suggest that the articles on saturated fat and trans fat are merged and made into a section of the fat or, better still, the nutrition article that would present the various scientific studies and popular opinions regarding the health benefits and risks of the various kinds of fats. Andreas 16:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    This article has some POV and style issues. Nutritionists are not agreed as to the health significance of saturated fats, and in particular, it is impossible for saturated fats to be trans. The older version (before edits by 128.218.39.139) was pretty well balanced. I encourage everyone to mess with the info as needed. Molybdenumblue 01:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    These are some good criticisms, some synonamous with concerns I had in reading the article. Let's discuss it. While the chemical components definately belong to biochem, the implications of such chemical components can be described here, under the label of saturated fats. While triglycerides are frequently composed of saturated fats, this is not always the case, and it is a collective and deserves a separate descriptor than the saturated fatty acid chain itself. The benefits of nutrients definately belongs in this article, at least until a separate one is written on the issue 'fat controversies in the diet' for example which can then be linked to from here. I agree that trans-fats are a separate issue. It is very relevant to mention them here, but it seems to get excessively extensive considering the lack of info on the saturated fats article. I'd like to see the article talk about how trans-fats were originally introduced with the idea that they were healthier, and how now this is changing back. Tyciol 08:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Copyediting

    it says it needs "copyediting", well I don't have time to do that, somebody else should step up and do that copy editing, ok? just don't mess with the information,its very accurate, it just needs grammar check,english check,etc someone else must do that -Unknown

    OK - I went from the old version merging in changes from the above person. I commented out the POV stuff as I'm not an expert on the issue. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    I had edited the old version, but I listen to the changes made the last week, however as it says the article IS in need of an "expert", I feel that I should try to improve article. I'll be back later in the week with my improvements.
    thanks for your sugestions. and to that biology college student, thank you, hope you be back frequently with good information, we all need scientific information user:128.218.39.139 04 october 2005

    [edit] Unsaturated fats

    I removed the line that read, "Other foods such as olive oil contain a high proportion of monounsaturated fat, while others such as sunflower oil and corn oil contain mainly polyunsaturated fat" because this article is about saturated fat not unsaturated fats. If a majority wants to keep this line in then feel free to change back. --Evmore 12:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Added for flavour?

    I'm glad that's removed, it's a silly statement. While fats are added for flavour (and to help carry the flavour of the food), bad fats (transfats and stuff in fast food) don't enhance it very well at all compared to good fats. They're used because they stay stable better for storage and are thus cheaper and easier to stockpile, simple. Tyciol 08:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] "Controversy" not NPV

    The Controversy section is not NPV. It is an editorial endorsing nutritional claims not accepted by "mainstream" medicine or dietetics. Italic textPresentingItalic text such theories is of course exactly what a "Controversy" section is for, but (a) the material takes a persuasive, not an expository, tone; and (b) there is no mention of mainstream reaction to these claims, or even a note of the fact that they do indeed fail to accept it. Perhaps, though, the POV problem with this article is really just about the fact that the Health Issues section consists of one short sentence describing the widely accepted view, followed by a disclaimer directing the reader to the Controversy section (needless to say, the view presented there contains no disclaimers about what "hypothesis" its argument is dependent on). What we need most of all, then, is simply an expansion of the Health Issues section, so that the Controversy section doesn't completely dominate.

    These concerns hould be remedied--without, of course, endorsing the "mainstream" view or suppressing the existence of the "alternative" one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.212.73.195 (talk • contribs) November 21 2006

    [edit] Calculation for working out saturated fat

    Does anyone know how to calculate saturated fat from fat?

    80.177.245.4 11:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    This is not exactly the place to put this kind of question (you should go to the reference desk).

    I suppose that you wanted to ask: how to determine the content of saturated fat of a dietary fat. This topic is treated in the article about Iodine number.  Andreas  (T) 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Evidence by the Journal of American Phycians and Surgeons

    The idea that saturated fat, and, in fact, elevated serum cholesterol, causes CHD (coronary heart disease) is not entirely accepted by the 'mainstream' of Western Medicine. In the Fall 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, an article outlining the poor research link Saturated Fat, serum cholesterol and CHD was published, entitled, "LDL Cholesterol: 'Bad' Cholesterol or Bad Science?” This article, along with the entirety of the Weston A. Price Foundation's collected research shows that there is a huge amount of evidence that saturated fat is not to be avoided, but rather, a nutrient-rich essential fat for the human body. This can be seen simply and anecdotally in so far as the heavy use of saturated fats throughout human existence, but the low incidences of CHD in any unaffected indigenous society, or (for that matter) the relatively low rate of CHD in Western culture before the introduction of Hydrogenated oils. This being said, the controversy section of this page is apropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.169.24.72 (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

    What do you mean by "mainstream"? The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a fringe group. Their journal isn't even listed in the mainstream journal databases like PubMed and Web of Science. This article has severe POV problems. There's far more text devoted to the minority viewpoint that saturated fats are good for you than to the mainstream viewpoint that saturated fats are bad for you and saturated fat intake should be as low as possible.[1] MrRedact 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    I imagine that the purpose of wikipedia is that of a standard encyclopedia - to document. It is not a vehicle for propelling one viewpoint on an issue. Nor is it a forum for debate. The debate exists in the research community and the community as a whole. The role of wikipedia is to document this debate neutrally. To the unsigned contributor above - your views on the role of saturated fats in diet are valid and may be correct, but the wikipedia entry must present the reality of the debate - that is, that the public view of the vast majority of health professionals is that the lipid hypothesis is basically sound. Your opposition to this idea is acceptable, however wikipedia is the wrong place for your advocacy. Zeroin147 06:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    While the comment about the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons being a fringe group is justified, it's important to note that a few key critics of the lipid hypothesis (most notably Uffe Ravnskov and Mary Enig) have contributed to top-drawer medical periodicals and, particularly in the case of Ravnskov, have taken the authors of sloppily-written articles in these publications to task point-by-point over everything from faulty experimental design to illegitimate citation of references to gross errors in the logic by which the authors have arrived at their conclusions. This is simply science in the making: established theories are constantly at risk of being gored by contradictory evidence and being replaced by more enlightened theories that then must stand the same risk of challange. In the case of saturated fat, the mainstream view, if it can be called that, seems to have arisen through a notoriously dubious sequence of events. First, there was Ancel Keys' clearly fraudulent Seven Countries study that graphed a nearly perfect linear correlation between the subject nations' consumption of saturated fat and their populations' mortality from cardiovascular disease. Keys simply omitted from consideration the 15 or so countries whose data didn't support his hypothesis! With their data added in, his striking correlation degrades to a scatter diagram with a pitiful r-squared of around 0.3 . Then came the 11th hour, afterthought charter of the U.S. Senate's McGovern committee: "Here's a big pot of money, DO something about the heart disease epidemic!" The experimental evidence of that age never hinted at any mortality or morbidity benefit from dietary intervention aimed at fats, but when the science advanced to the point where serum cholesterol could be divided into LDL and HDL fractions, positive correlations were found (today, we know that they only hold up for young- and middle-aged males in certain countries) between serum LDL and cardiovascular disease. At about this same time, reduction of dietary saturated fats was sometimes found to reduce serum LDL modestly. Filling the need for a battle cry for the coming crusade, a group within the McGovern-linked scientists took a heroic leap of faith and assumed that reducing LDL by dietary means would reduce the cardiovascular disease they assumed was being caused by elevated LDL. Saturated fat was indicted as a villain, and its "guilt" was soon confirmed, though not by any clinical trial of dietary saturated fat reduction, but instead by a trial of LDL reduction using an early statin-type drug (a category of drugs now widely suspected of acting through an anti-inflammatory mechanism rather than via reduction of serum LDL). Despite two decades of subsequent research, this is still about where things stand today. The "mainstream" is the din of countless organizations in the medical world reciting a somewhat slimmer descendant of the low-fat, low-cholesterol dogma of yore. It is hawked without any real proof of its efficacy, and occasionally, parts of it that succumb to scientific scrutiny are lopped off (most recently, low total fat consumption). Some of the abandoned advice sounds ludicrous today: Don't eat fish - too much cholesterol; cut all fats to the bone and tank up on healthy, slimming carbohydrates; replace artery-clogging saturated fats with heart-healthy partially-hydrogenated oils - never mind the probably-innocuous trans fats. The vilification of dietary saturated fat and serum LDL are the crazed and possibly unsound central pillars of the dietary advice- and statin industries, respectively. If they collapse under the weight of scientific evidence, it will be at the considerable embarassment of the first group and at the considerable economic expense of the second. There is massive inertia resisting any change in the status quo. To be fair to those of the opposing view, there is evidence that dietary saturated fat, particularly in the near-absence of alpha linolenic acid that's known to be grossly deficient in typical Western diets, may contribute to inflammatory processes that promote atherosclerosis. Also, some who criticize the conventional lipid hypothesis for lack of solid evidence turn right around and start peddling their own alternative hypotheses (e.g., that omega-6 fats are intrisically atherogenic) with no evidence in hand at all. In this very controversial arena, it's important that medical orthodoxy keep its door open to contradictory evidence and new theories, but it's no less important that the critics, in studying the body of existing research, learn to distinguish baby from bath water before throwing the whole lot out the window.87.52.109.112 03:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Neutrality

    Darn tooting! Wikipedians had better submit some pretty compelling evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals to support a case that saturated fat should be increased in a diet! I've put in a number of solid sources here. We have epidemiological evidence finding high sat diets correlate with poor cholesterol profiles and heart disease, we have controlled experiments over a few months with subjects finding that high sat diets negatively affect cholesterol profiles, we have the recommendations of reliable organizations based on reviews of dozens upon dozens of such studies recommending that saturated fats be limited for heart health. You're going to need more than speculatory evidence from fringe alternative medicine sites to support such a case. While correlation may not indicate causation, absence of correlation indicates absence of causation- without epidemiological data showing that high saturated fat diets correlate with good health, you really can't at all make a case that saturated fat is beneficial. I've done some pretty major cleanup, the page before was simply ridiculous and an utter disgrace to Wikipedia given the prevalence of the topic.

    The whole "controversy" section, I realize, contains nothing. We have studies that do differentiate from saturated and trans- fats. The "peanuts have saturated fat, peanuts lower LDL cholesterol, therefore saturated fat is good for you" is absolute crud, since peanuts are very low in saturated fat and contain much more monounsaturated fat. Heck, the name of the article cited was "High-monounsaturated fatty acid diets lower both plasma cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations."- not saturated.

    152.3.61.244 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    @152.3.61.244 - "Darn tootin?" That is stupid, illogical and non-NPOV. Like many food-fanatics you may not like it but food is an absolute requirement for life. Your complacency reveals your narrow and complacent Western viewpoint for the rest of the world. For huge sections of the world's population the staple includes large amounts of saturated fat from various sources including meat; and a case for the reduction of the same would certainly not aid the situation of the undernourished areas around the globe. This would do nothing but leave a void to be filled by Western bio-agriculture. The intolerant, popular and ignorant axioms of the West will be foisted on poorer nations tomorrow by those who imagine themselves to be "doing good". No case EVER needs to be made to denigrate food which is not man-made regardless of extremely popular Western diet fads. The case should instead be proven for it's removal beyond all reasonable doubt TOGETHER with benefits clearly demonstrated in excess of the cost of it's abololition - (life-cost+benefit-analysis not a wholly precautionary and one-sided risk-based analysis). Since there is clear and undisputed debate in this area this is something which is neither "proven" nor an "accepted mainstream view" other than in the minds of large numbers of quite ignorant Westerners who follow the uninformed consensus. Thus to advocate the need for "peer reviewed" evidence from journals is utterly irresponsible and, quite frankly stupid. Furthermore to recommend omitting a useful source of nourishment with non-proven risks is to merely to support the vegetarian and anti-fat propaganda bandwagon and is in itself both non-NPOV and an outright politcal act in itself. - Record and thoroughly document ALL points of view in detail here in Wikipedia, but don't suggest that it's the job of Wikipedia to act as some kind of "peer-review advocate" for yours or any other POV. Let's see both views covered in full detail so Wikipedia can act as a true source of information for those wanting to make up their minds for THEMSELVES. - Deny it or not there is no bigger political issue than food and this is one with global scope. One where there are large commercial interests such as Monsanto financially vested in reducing meat eating in order to expand the sale of patented agrotechnology. This is no "theory" but absolute everyday and commercial reality. Recent expansion in India (2007/2008) even leading to secondary political issues and new political concepts such as "seed piracy" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2998150.stm (India's GM Seed Piracy) These comments apply equally to those making the same comments as 152.3.61.244. Moreover, I'd be interested to know if Duke Unversity NC,USA (res-152-3-61-244.dorm.duke.edu) holds these views officially or if this is simply the views of an misinformed undergraduate who has yet to finish reading the textbooks. 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    I agree that this article does not present a NPV. The POV is so skewed that I'm inclined to think that a committed opponent of the lipid hypothesis has written the article and deliberately under-represented the mainstream view. As noted above there is a need for both sides of the debate to be aired in a non-argumentative fashion. Zeroin147 07:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

    How can you be "biased" against fats? It's not like a political issue. I'm going to read the article more and maybe remove the tag. --Lophoole 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Lophoole

    I left the part on the section where the dispute was; however it didn't seem right to tag the whole article. --Lophoole 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    -- -- -- --

    This article is plain irresponsible. It is widely accepted and widely documented that saturated fat increases LDL blood cholesterol, which increases risk of heart disease, stroke, obesity and other major problems. You can find these conclusions everywhere from the National Institutes of Health(http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002468.htm) to WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/tc/High-Cholesterol-Cause). The idea that saturated fat is good for you is a fringe view, and if mentioned at all, should be mentioned as such. The article as it stands is absolutely misleading, and in fact dangerous if people come to believe saturated fat isn't so bad for you when it actually is.

    To the people who tout peanuts and peanut butter as an example of saturated fat being good for you, that argument is ridiculous. 85% of the fat in peanuts (and thus natural, peanuts-only peanut butter) is unsaturated fat. Look at the facts on http://www.nutritiondata.com or any Nutrition Facts panel on peanuts or peanuts-only PB. The one I have here shows for a 2Tbsp serving, 16g Total Fat, of which 2g are Saturated and 13g are Poly- or Monounsaturated (doesn't add up to 16 due to rounding, I guess). Anyway the point is that peanuts are a terrible example to make any kind of point about saturated fat, unless your point is that a LOW saturated to unsaturated fat ratio in the diet is beneficial. The article needs to be changed.

    --Jefs 17:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

    The scientific picture is unclear. Much of the early research into possible links between dietary fat consumption and cardiovascular disease involved young- and middle-aged American men. For this group, there is a positive corrleation between serum LDL levels and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. For elderly men, the correlation is actually negative, i.e., those with lower LDL levels tend to have higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. For women, there is no correlation. In some studies outside the U.S., the correlations seen in American males don't hold up. Since nondietary factors such as stress can affect both serum cholesterol levels and susceptibility to cardiovascular disease, a cause-and-effect relationship between saturated fat consumption and disease outcomes isn't easily established.

    The effect of saturated fat consumption on LDL cholesterol levels has been studied extensively, with mixed results. It seems that a rise in serum LDL can be reliably produced in some specific test subjects by feeding them increased amounts of specific saturated fatty acid sources (e.g., coconut oil, which is high in lauric and myristic acids). The broad picture points in the direction of a link, but when the numerous studies are evaluated comparatively, generalizations are hard to make.

    Some observational evidence, most notably Willett's Nurses Health Study at Harvard, supports the theory that saturated fat is atherogenic, though it appears to be much less so than trans fat. Arriving at such conclusions requires adjusting for a number of lifestyle-related confounders such as smoking, exercise habits, and vegetable consumption, leaving the disease implication of trans fat quite clear-cut but that of saturated fat much less so.

    No dietary intervention (feeding) trial has ever produced a decrease in cardiovascular disease outcomes through dietary reduction of saturated fat and, thereby, reduction of serum LDL levels. The Lyon trial, which compared an artificially-constructed Mediterranean-type diet (intervention group) against a lowfat diet (control group), is sometimes cited in this regard, as it called for, among other things, replacing butter with olive oil. The experiment was terminated early by its ethics committee due to much higher mortality in the control group than in the intervention group. Two factors make it incorrect to conclude that a reduction in saturated fat was responsible for the improvement in outcomes. First, average serum LDL levels remained virtually identical between the two groups throughout the course of the experiment. Second, due to culinary considerations, the intervention group was supplied free of charge with a specially-formulated margarine as an alternative to olive oil. The margarine was made with a low-erucic acid rapeseed oil (similar to canola oil) in an attempt to mimic olive oil's high content of monounsaturated fat. Some researchers believe that the experimental outcome may have been primarily the result of introducing a substantial source of the essential omega-3 fat alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), in which Western diets are typically deficient and in which rapeseed oil is rich.

    The notion of ALA's importance was bolstered by a study published in October, 2006 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It found that walnuts, a rich source of ALA, reduce the typical postprandial rise in inflammatory markers that normally follows consumption of a meal high in saturated fat. This suggests that saturated fat may be dangerous primarily when consumed in a diet deficient in ALA.

    Cardiovascular events have been reduced in clinical studies of LDL-lowering statin drugs, but this is now widely considered to be at least in part due to these drugs' antiinflammatory properties. Notably, at least one study has produced favorable outcomes with a statin chemically modified to make it incapable of lowering LDL.

    Finally, within the past three years or so, advanced imaging techniques have made it possible to directly study the growth of arterial lesions over time. While this mode of investigation is still in its infancy, one such study has already implicated polyunsaturates in the growth of arterial plaque and cleared saturates and monounsaturates.

    In short, while it is true that saturated fat is widely characterized as "artery-clogging" by health authorities and in the popular press, the scientific picture is unresolved. If saturated fat is ultimately given a clean bill of health, this will be the most embarassing dietary advice reversal in the history of medicine, so it seems likely that a mountain of contradictory evidence will have to accumulate before the medical community budges.

    No informed person would cite peanuts as being a rich source of saturated fat; the saturated fat content is about 17% of total fats. Peanut oil is mostly the monounsaturate oleic acid (ca. 45%) and the omega-6 polyunsaturate linoleic acid (ca. 32%).83.95.117.36 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

    This is an amazingly comprehensive review of the issues; I commend the author for the summary. Frankg 20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    What shall we do with this? Incorporate into the atricle? There are no sources. Until sources are cited, this essay is useless.  Andreas  (T) 22:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    It is a shame that the author of the above content did not log in. Because then we could persuade him to find some sources and update this entry.Ian Lewis 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I'll critique this as much as I can given that nothing has been cited. Firstly, the fact that saturated doesn't affect cholesterol as much as trans doesn't mean saturated is "good" "better" or "essential".

    Most of the claims you make such as "correlations don't apply to women" doesn't seem to be correct- I believe the main article sites a large study consisting only of females. True, most of the dietary experiments (15 people eat olive oil, 15 on coconut) have been on middle aged men, but some have been done on females, with similiar results. The fact that one study's conclusions can be disputed doesn't reduce the strength of the relationship between saturated fats and cholesterol profile, especially since the article does not use that study as a source. If a study shows that saturated fats are harmful, but was poorly constructed, it doesn't suggest that saturated fats are beneficial or neutral- the results can only be seen as inconclusive. I don't know where you're going with the ALA argument. ALA is a polyunsaturated fat. Consuming it prior to a saturated fat meal reduces inflamation...so you're going to speculate that saturated fat is not harmful (despite the evidence) and instead everyone is deficient in a polyunsaturated fat? Would it perhaps be more likely that ALA is anti-inflamatory and negates the inflamatory effects of saturated fats? Consuming ALA prior to a meal low in saturated fats would probably show even less inflamation than the ALA+sat diet- I'm speculating on this point, but either way, the results cannot be construed as showing SFs as beneficial, essential, better than UFs or MFs, a need to include more SFs in one's diet. To make any arguments for saturated fats as beneficial, you would need to:

    1. Point out possible confounds that account for increased CVD mortality in high saturated fat consumption. 2. Suggest why controlled dietary studies have observed negative cholesterol profile changes in high SF vs. high UF or MF diets. 3. Provide evidence that modest or high saturated fat consumption offers health benefits and decreased mortality compared to low saturated fat diets high in poly or mono unsaturated fat.

    Number 3 is the toughest and most important. Even if saturated fat consumption had no correlation to heart disease, it would still be inferior and less desireable than monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat diets- which have negative consumption/risk correlations. If you can't do that, the sub 7% rec still hold, and there isn't a controversy.

    The controversy I observe is the strong recommendation to reduce saturated fat intake, when the magnitude of the positive effects one receives from complying with that recommendation are in dispute. This is especially pertinent in a society where confusion about dietary choices abounds. You could see someone choosing potato chips over a steak, for example and believing that's a positive health choice, just because the chips have less saturated fat. Perhaps take a look at the links I posted above (a few lines under the "health controversy" heading). They're an interesting read. Frankg 02:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    A very interesting read is the Wikipedia article on "The French Paradox" which, in a nutshell is:

    "According to FAO data[1], the average French person consumed 108 grams per day of fat from animal sources in 2002 while the average American consumed only 72. The French eat four times as much butter, 60 percent more cheese and nearly three times as much pork. Although the French consume only slightly more total fat (171 g/d vs 157), they consume much more saturated fat because Americans consume a much larger proportion of fat in the form of vegetable oil, with most of that being soybean oil[2]. However, according to data from the British Heart foundation [3], in 1999, rates of death from coronary heart disease among males aged 35–74 years was 230 per 100,000 people in the US but only 83 per 100,000 in France."

    With Americans (and Australians, where I live) abandoning fats such as lard and butter in favour of margarines and vegetable oils, we should be magnificently healthy and the French should be dropping like flies. Quite the opposite.

    Well, most margarine contains huge amounts of trans fats, which have an immensely negative effect on cholesterol profiles. Considering the large amounts of hydrogenated oils consumed by Americans in lieu of butter alone would resolve the "French "Paradox/"" Throw in the low activity levels of Americans, low fiber consumption, lack of fruits and vegetables, and you're oven the "paradox". Clearly no single factor alone is an absolute determinant of whether one will have a heart attack, but saturated and trans fat consumption clearly plays a role. Tymothy 20:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    The healthiest people in the world used animal fats - the japanese and chinese used lard in cooking not soycrap oil or easily squeezable corn oil. Many people abandoned margarines a long time ago - transfats have been warned against for a long time by many health practicioners - way before the "medical community" validated the idea. Yet people are still very sick. The western diet is loaded with vegetable oils - and we have not just epidemic levels of heart disease but also insulin resistance, diabetes, cancer - we are sick as dogs. Why? Because we are eating oils that should be used in paint and varnish not fed to life forms.

    Hydrogenated oils are still very much a major presence in the food supply, especially in fast-food restaurants. In addition, margarine is also still popular; otherwise we wouldn't see it in significant quantities on store shelves. I share your concerns with degradation/peroxidation of polyunsaturated oils, although the magnitude to which this is a substantial public health issue is still uncertain, much like the rest of the picture in nutrition. Frankg 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    On a purely anecdotal theme: I have been following a 'paleolithic' diet for several years with my fats almost entirely coming from animal sources and my cholesterol levels are fine. --MichaelGG 05:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    This whole section is wacky! How could anyone think oils extracted from seeds and grains could be healthy? This was never eaten in the past. We ate animal fats. Butter and lard and fish not corn oil - lol.

    That Enig woman was one of a few lone voices speaking out against trans-fats back in the day. Back then everyone said nonsense - saturated fats, which has been used for milenia by healthy people, are bad - this artificial margaine stuff made by science is "heart healthy" - lol. Now everyone and their sisters friend agrees transfats are not so heart healthy. Enig was ridiculed back then. And now we still have to listen to dummies go on about how "vegetable oils" and polyunsaturates are healthy - its insane.

    I hate this "something is good for you if and only if it's 'natural'" hogwash. Yes, sure, our western diet is terrible and largely artificial, but this doesn't mean EVERYTHING we used to be doing millenia past was good for us or that EVERYTHING artificial today is harmful. The average human had a life span of about 28 years right up to the rise of the Roman Empire. Not saying that our ancient diets caused us to live such a sort time, it's likely that rampant disease and absence of real medical understanding killed us off so early, but I am saying that we did not evolve a perfect diet to exist on. If members of your species die off around 28 on average, consuming a high-meat, minimal vegetable diet that provides enough vitamins and minerals to avoid a deficiency but gives you a heart attack around 50 isn't going to hurt your evolutionary fitness. Given the lack of real food abundance, it's no surprise that we didn't evolve a shutoff mechanism for additional fat storage. Being able to store extra energy as fat is a great survival technique for when food runs scarce- it's not such a great survival technique when you're carrying around an additional 100 pounds of lard. Anyways, my point is that things were not Zippity-do-da millenia past, that evolution is only going to favor development of a diet if it increases the number of viable offspring, not you living well past your reproductive age, and that something being "natural" does not automatically make it good. We'll use real scientific evidence as reasoning (which, I agree, supports many aspects of a less-processed foods diet) on this and any other nutritional article. 152.3.85.176 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    Learn about polyunsaturates:

    http://www.thescreamonline.com/essays/essays5-1/vegoil.html

    If you want to be healthy - eat what traditionally healthy people eat. Hint : it will include animal meat and fats and not much soybean oil or vioxx.

    [edit] Citations Needed for these statements?

    I don't understand why citations are being requested for these two statements: No well-controlled study has ever demonstrated hazardous effects in near-total replacement of saturated fat with mono- or polyunsaturated fats in humans.[citation needed] Similarly, no controlled clinical study has ever demonstrated an improvement in cholesterol profile as a result of increased saturated fat consumption or replacement of unsaturated and monunsaturated fats with saturated.[citation needed]

    Usually citations are requested for positive statements that have no evidence to back them up. Here we are dealing with two statements that do the opposite. They state that there is no research to back up the Saturated/Trans Fat problem. How would that be documented? Ian Lewis 14:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. When I cleaned up the controversy section, I left the citation tags in there- but I've never understood how one can prove a negative statement. Both tags should definitely be removed.
    -Sloth Loves Chunk 04:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    I think the point is, you can't prove a negative. The statements are unverifiable and should be removed. I'll take care of that. Frankg 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Multple References of the same study

    I was doing a little bit of reading the other day and I started going through some of the references. Specifically, numbers 3-10. And it appears that many of these references simply reference one particular study: The Seven Countries Study by Ancel Keys. What makes that interesting is that study is one of the most debated studies in the Saturated Fat/CHD/Cholesterol circle.

    So, my point is this: It seems like a section of the article is using multiple references when only one or two would be needed and that one in particular is somewhat debatable.

    Any thoughts?

    Here are those references:

    ^ a b Lapinleimu H, Viikari J, Jokinen E, Salo P, Routi T, Leino A, Ronnemaa T, Seppanen R, Valimaki I, Simell O. Prospective randomised trial in 1062 infants of diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol Lancet 1995 Feb 25;345(8948):471-6

    ^ Francisco Fuentes; José López-Miranda; Elias Sánchez; Francisco Sánchez; José Paez; Elier Paz-Rojas; Carmen Marín; Purificación Gómez; José Jimenez-Perepérez; José M. Ordovás,; and Francisco Pérez-Jiménez Mediterranean and Low-Fat Diets Improve Endothelial Function in Hypercholesterolemic Men Annals of Internal Medicine 19 June 2001, Volume 134, Issue 12,Pages 1115-1119

    ^ Rivellese AA, Maffettone A, Vessby B, Uusitupa M, Hermansen K, Berglund L, Louheranta A, Meyer BJ, Riccardi G Effects of dietary saturated, monounsaturated and n-3 fatty acids on fasting lipoproteins, LDL size and post-prandial lipid metabolism in healthy subjects Atherosclerosis 2003 Mar;167(1):149-58

    ^ Frank B. Hu, M.D., Meir J. Stampfer, M.D., JoAnn E. Manson, M.D., Eric Rimm, Sc.D., Graham A. Colditz, M.D., Bernard A. Rosner, Ph.D., Charles H. Hennekens, M.D., and Walter C. Willett, M.D. Dietary Fat Intake and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women N Engl J Med 1998 Volume 337:1491-1499 November 20, 1997

    ^ Kromhout D, Menotti A, Bloemberg B, Aravanis C, Blackburn H, Buzina R, Dontas AS, Fidanza F, Giampaoli S, Jansen A, et al Dietary saturated and trans fatty acids and cholesterol and 25-year mortality from coronary heart disease: the Seven Countries Study Prev Med 1995 May;24(3):308-15

    ^ Frank B Hu, Meir J Stampfer, JoAnn E Manson, Alberto Ascherio, Graham A Colditz, Frank E Speizer, Charles H Hennekens, and Walter C Willett Dietary saturated fats and their food sources in relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women Am J Clin Nutr 1999;70:1001–8

    ^ Coronary heart disease in seven countries

    ^ Beegom R, Singh RB. Association of higher saturated fat intake with higher risk of hypertension in an urban population of Trivandrum in south India Int J Cardiol 1997 Jan 3;58(1):63-70

    Ian Lewis 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


    [edit] Question:

    Who is responsible for the three-dimensional representation of the saturated fatty acid myristic acid? I would be very interested in being contacted relative to the modeling of other FFAs common in edible oil and shortening applications. My thanks in advance,

    J.N. Anderson JNA@MSN.COM

    Oh, and a short P.S. if you don't mind. I have been a marketing & sales professional in the edible oil industry for more than 28 years. A simple truth, and a complex "Catch 22" surrounding this issue, is if U.S. consumers demand the removal of trans (TFAs) and the reduction of saturated fat in the food products produced for their consumption while they also expect these food products to be tasty enough to be purchased more than once while also having the kind of shelf life performance they have come to expect from the industry, then palm oil and other palm derived alternatives are here to stay. You simply can not have it both ways, unless of course consumption habits can be modified to such a degree as to make some amount of daily food shopping an acceptable part of home meal preperation.

    [edit] Health benefits

    I removed the secton because it was misleading and an unjustified generalization. Quote from the editorial given as a source:

    • the diet described by Mozaffarian et al was low in fat, averaging 25% of energy

    The original journal article itself (that should be quoted in addition to the editorial) summarizes its results as follows:

    • In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression

    In other words, eating a larger amount of saturated fat does not have beneficial effects per se. However, if the total fat intake is kept low, then p higher proporton of saturated fat is beneficial[2].

    In general, coming up with the newest studies in a well-studied field when these studies have not yet been critically evaluated within the scinetifice community is nat appropriate for an encyclopedic article. One should wait until the results are established enough to be quoted in a review article.  Andreas  (T) 16:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

    Doesn't publication in a peer-reviewed journal constitute sufficient critical evaluation by the scientific community? Or do you mean something else? Likewise, is nutrition a "well-studied field"? I get the impression that unlike, for example, mechanics, inorganic chemistry, geology, electromagnetics, etc., that nutrition as a field of academic interest has a disproportionate number of "unknowns" vs. "knowns." Frankg 20:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    No, publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not constitute sufficient critical evaluation by the scientific community. Articles are reviewed by a few peers and not by the scientific community as a whole. See Peer review failure, Wikipedia:Reliable sources#ScholarshipWikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources#Using primary sources to "debunk" the conclusions of secondary sources.  Andreas  (T) 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Nutrient Database

    There was "citation needed" for lauric acid content in breast milk. Search for "milk, human". Search the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference I do not see the point in requiring reference about every food. But those who care, can lookup the data at USDA database. --Bork (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Saturated fat study and women

    Why was that study removed by OccamzRazor? This page is "Saturated fat", not "Saturated fat for general population". Additionally, last I checked, around 50% of humans are women, and in U.S.A. metabolic syndrome is epidemic. --Bork (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    The majority of medical research on high consumption of saturated fats has demonstrated that it is hazaedous to health. The contrary research section is intended for research that contradicts the prevailing research. If this section were to include individual research studies on saturated fat comsumption by people with specific medical conditions, this list would be enormous, yet not add anything to information about saturated fat consumption for the general population that does not have these conditions.
    The study I removed included only women who have metabolic syndrome, a condition which predisposes them to CHD. Although it would be appropriate to include this study in the metabolic syndrome article, it does not belong in a general article about saturated fats. OccamzRazor (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    You still did not tell which Wikipedia policy disallows including studies about non-general population.
    Everybody belongs to the "general population", and everybody has their own medical conditions.
    Actually, it would be fun to get more contradicting research added. Can you add some? You seem to have an enermous list.
    --Bork (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Bork, you won't be able to find such a policy on Wikipedia because it does not exist. Mr. Razor makes up stuff like this all the time to justify his most highly POV deletions and distortions.
    -Sloth Loves Chunk (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Study removed again by OccamzRazor. Try reading the editorial. It says, in clear English: "See corresponding article on page 1175."
    --Bork (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    To OccamzRazor: first of all, most of the research conducted which "concluded" that saturated fat is harmful to human health, was not sound. I don't have all the spare time you do- and you've gone to great lengths to delete all my previous references- but one of these days I'll relist them when I have the time. For starters, you never replied to what I wrote right up at the top of this page under the "Controversy" section heading. No surprise there.
    You call metabolic syndrome- a conditions shared by tens of millions of Americans, and countless more around the world- a "specific medical condition"?? And you imply that the general population somehow doesn't have this problem when the vast majority of the general population is overweight or obese?? Are you kidding?!
    Your take on this subject is highly biased and your bias is overwhelmingly reflected in how you conduct yourself on Wikipedia. Again, I don't have nearly as much spare time as you do, but I fully intend to thwart every one of your highly POV deletions and distortions, at every opportunity. Consider yourself on notice.
    -Sloth Loves Chunk (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Replacing just 2-5% of calories from saturated fat slashes cardiac risk

    The news that this 80,000+-woman observational study found such huge effects from small dietary changes merits a headline, not a footnote. It is highly salient to any interested in gauging saturated fat's effects on themselves, their family, or the public.

    We estimated that the replacement of 5 percent of energy from saturated fat with energy from unsaturated fats would reduce risk by 42 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 23 to 56; P<0.001) and that the replacement of 2 percent of energy from trans fat with energy from unhydrogenated, unsaturated fats would reduce risk by 53 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 34 to 67; P<0.001).

    Willett et al.

    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/21/1491


    Ocdnctx (talk