Talk:Saturated fat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	MCB Portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Contents 1 Health Controversy 2 Bad Article Scope 3 Copyediting 4 Unsaturated fats 5 Added for flavour? 6 "Controversy" not NPV 7 Calculation for working out saturated fat 8 Evidence by the Journal of American Phycians and Surgeons 9 Neutrality

[edit] Health Controversy

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)

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

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...

[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.

[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)

[edit] Neutrality

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)