Talk:Saturated fat/Archive 1

Saturated fats sn-2 position determines cholesterol impact

Sorry guys, I was lazy. I just copy and paste from palm oil page. The differing research results can be explained. Dairy products and palm oil are high in saturated fats but they have different cholesterol impact. It all depends on which type of fatty acids dominates the sn-2 position in the fat molecule. Why does palm oil, high in saturates like lard and tallow, behaves like olive oil? It is because most of palm oil's saturates are spread out in sn-1 and sn-3 position of the molucule and is therefore poorly absorb by the human body. Palm oil's sn-2 position, which is mostly concentrated with manounsaturated fats, is highly absorbed into the blood system. BT119991 (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It used to be eating high amounts of fat is bad. Then, scientists say there are good fats (unsaturated fats) and bad fats (saturated fats). Now, latest studies indicate that not all "bad" saturated fats raise cholesterol. The type of fat that dominate the sn-2 position in the fat molecule determines whether it raises or lowers blood cholesterol. WHO's guidelines has yet to keep up with the latest and comprehensive scientific findings. BT119991 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If anything further is known about trans fats in relation to "bad" saturated fats, this and related articles may need updating to compare the sn-2 position issue with the trans fats morphology. David spector (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Any talk of sn position needs an accompanying detailed explanation of what that means Gregwebs (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Palm Oil Promotion

I did like one review article that was brought to this page. However, it is clear that edits on the palm oil page are not being properly reviewed, and that now this information is being copied over as if it had importance or credibility. Please stop promoting palm oil on this page- it is a minor point than should have a NPOV. Gregwebs (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

Non-Support this article is still of a start-class and it is not long enough to warrent a split. It would also split users how how the article develops. Wait until the article has grown a bit more, and I'd be happy to reconsider. Disco (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

When most people think of unsaturated fatty acid they think of cis-unsaturated fatty acids. It is possible that those 74% of unsaturated fatty acids were trans-polyunsaturated and trans-monounsaturated fatty acids that clogged the artries instead.98.71.17.181 (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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

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)

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)

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)

Peanuts are low in saturated fat as compared with the other types of fats, but still very high when compared with fat-free foods and low-saturated-fat oils (it is their saturated fat content which makes peanuts and peanut butter prone to rancidity), containing 2-3 grams in a 2-tablespoon serving, and similarly for true nuts and nut butters, such as almonds. I believe it is not known whether eating peanuts, peanut butter, or almonds is good for circulatory health or not, since I believe that no comparative studies (with a control group) have been performed. And the relative "danger" of saturated fats vs. trans fats is important to know, yet I believe no one knows that, either. David spector (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2009 (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.

The controversy surrounding this topic is enormous and unfortunately not at all partisan. The general problem with this topic lies at its genesis, for a number of years now (1970’s) the general consensus of authorities pertaining to health regard saturated fats (SFA) as ‘the bad fats’, and ultimately causal to elevation in serum LDL and thus heart disease (general term).

Today, to challenge this theory according to the scientific process , it must have support from the literature this is what everyone keeps asking for. However the problem manifest as the studies done in the 50’s (Keys, A) and the subsequent mass-population studies (Framingham Heart Study and MRFIT – both US) were hypothesised to prove that fats were responsible for all forms of heart disease and then later that the reason for this was that dietary fats affected and increased serum cholesterol and that elevated levels of cholesterol were highly correlated with plaques in the tunica intima (artery wall).

The researchers named: Enig, Mercola, Ravnskov, are excellent examples of challenging this hypothesis as are price and pottenger. In their own right are over-qualified individuals at their respective times. Unfortunately, today challenging such a hypothesis is almost ‘sacrilege’ and met with a brick wall, take Dr Atkins as a prime example, a cardiologist by trade. What is apparent is that the research stated in the articles above can be found with relative ease and therefore challenging this information should be done by the challenger finding these references directly and reporting their criticisms, not for the individual making the references to constantly defend themselves. They are critiquing the literature which they feel is wrong, they should not have to defend their criticisms as well.

While it is impossible to prove that a number of these studies were done with either malice or ulterior motive, it should be entertained in the overall analysis of the topic. To help develop this topic – the following information needs to be acknowledged:

Who backed/supported (financially) the initial studies mentioned above (ex: six and seven countries studies, the Framingham heart study, MRFIT etc)? How was the cholesterol hypothesis created and how did it evolve? Is high/altered cholesterol causal to heart disease (and associated terms), and has this been proven beyond all doubt? And which types of fats are associated with which diseases/problems. When was the food-pyramid guide created, which studies provided its reasoning and who funded this research?

I must add to this note that i completely disagree with the ‘natural-hogwash’ comment, as this is the basis of our study, as if it were not for our ancestors survival techniques we would not be here today, so it has its place solidly at the foundation of this type of discussion. Secondly, the argument that the average human life span of 28years is used out of context. To consider that you must consider every potential variable that could possibly affect this topic, today we have centrally heated homes and do not have to survive cold and periods of hunger. Perhaps there is a perfect study, subject humans to historic times of famine and extreme winters and see what happens, the ethics board at an academic institute would love that one.

I have tried not added my bias on this topic as it will not be beneficial to this as a discussion as i cannot proved beyond doubt through any statistical two-tailed test, or double blind study anything that i would like to hypothesize. A few final points i would like to add to this discussion are as follows:

At the time of the cholesterol-heart hypothesis, the researcher Kilmer S McCully reported in 1969 that Homocystiene levels were causal to heart disease (general term), yet his next research was some-what put on hold until the 90’s and only more recently is it being accepted as a better indicator of heart disease. The relevance to SFA is that if it could be proven that dietary fat elevated serum cholesterol which subsequently was to blame for heart disease, the final nail would firmly be put in the coffin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lysworld (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is a very important point. Just as Enig should not be cited as the only reference for one side of the controversy, neither should Keys, especially considering the debate regarding the validity of several of his studies, notably the Seven Countries Study. --WayneMokane (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

This is an interesting study - thanks for linking it. Unfortunately it makes no mention of incidence of deaths from all causes between the two diet variants. So for the purposes of assessing actual risk of death from increased saturated fat consumption, as opposed to the risk of contracting or dying from myocardial infarction, this study is worthless. --WayneMokane (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The very same guy, Willett, co-authored another article in 2005 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15781956?dopt=Abstract) that found that saturated fat has a statistically insignificant INVERSE relation to heart disease (the top quintile of saturated fat consumers, adjusted for relative risk, had the incidence of cardiovascular disease of only 97% of the bottom quintile). Using EXACTLY THE SAME nurses' study of 80,000. The problem is with multi-variate relative risk adjustment, which, if only slightly manipulated, can throw the numbers any way you want.

And that is the problem with all those massive studies: multivariate relative risk adjustments can make you prove ANYTHING YOU WANT with data, with ever so slight manipulations, and nutritionists adore data mining to prove their preconceptions (and thus there will be always an ocean of studies "proving" the evils of saturated fats, and a smaller, but equally well (or poorly) designed studies proving exactly the opposite thing. Using the same data sets. To the confusion of the general public, which needs to understand only one thing: the entire existence of nutritionism as a "science" is vitally dependent upon its anti- (or pseudo) scientific reliance on data mining.

So, a bit of wisdom. Stop listening to that particularly American breed of quacks, nutritionists and dieticians, and start listening to old-worldy grandmothers and good chefs. They know far better what we should eat. And yes, that means plenty of butter and pork fat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.145.220 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Highly saturated vegetable fatty acids and their effect on seizures

Do vegetable highly saturated fatty acids (e.g., Palm or Coconut oil, or nuts) cause seizures in some people?

Do children under the age of 12 (puberty) that have seizures react differently to fatty acids than do children over the age of 12?

These are two questions I would like to see answered.

I know for a fact that my wife, Ellen P. Engle from Sandy Utah suffers a Grand Maul seizure about 24 hours later after eating Palm oil, Coconut oil, Peanut oil, Olive oil and possibly Sunflower oil, or nuts, (e.g., peanuts, cashews, pecans) or avocadoes; whereas Soybean oil, Canola oil, Cottonseed, or Corn oil are safe oils that do not cause any seizures. Even Polyglycerol Esters of Fatty Acids (made from Palm oil) causes her a seizure. This is very unfortunate because many snack foods (e.g., cakes, frostings, cookies, donuts, pies) and some vitamin pills now use this ingredient as an emulsifier or egg substitute. However, highly saturated animal fatty acids (e.g., lard, butter) do not cause her any seizures either.

Eldean Roy Engle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.234.238 (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What good is it?

Why do organisms keep saturated fat? Is there any benefit to its consumption? Imagine Reason (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Saturated fat is found in almost every cell of your body and is a basic building block for cell membranes, brain tissue (human brain, by dry weight, is over 40% fat, of which saturated fat is a substantial chunk), and many, many other things inside your body. It is not an 'essential' fat in the diet (your body constantly makes its own, which, of course, makes it essential inside the body). Consumption of saturated fat simply permits the body to lower its own production - or use it as fuel.

Almost all natural fats and oils are to a degree saturated and to a degree unsaturated. There are no "pure" saturated fats in nature. Olive oil is around 15% saturated, pork fat is around 35-40% saturated. Unlike vegetarian oils, however, animal fats from grazing animals contain all the essential unsaturated fatty acids (including EPA, DHA, etc.). A vegan diet would be lacking in them without industrially processed, usually algae-based, supplements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.145.220 (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for the nutritional connotations of the chemical properties (which could use additional clarity) of saturated fats to be objectively stated with the introductory molecular description. The article could later refer to both positive and negative arguments as subsections of a single section devoted to effects on health. Rather than placement in and interaction with organisms, the science in this article deals with appearance. Things like "this property of saturated fats causes this change in usable energy production" would be helpful.DearthOfMateriel (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Undoing Recent edits by OccamzRazor

OccamzRazor is heavily editing the nutritional studies section with the stated intent "reduce the undue amount of this article's text devoted to a very small minority view". One of his deletions said "Unable to verify". When questioned about this, OccamzRazor stated "I could not find the actual study". I was easily able to find this study on pubmed, by looking up its pubmed id! I don't see how someone who doesn't know how to use pubmed can be judging the merits of studies. I am open to the idea of slimming the article, but it needs to be done carefully by those people with a minimal amount of knowledge on the subject and how to analyze studies, instead of by bias. Gregwebs (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The PubMed info is summary only, not a link to the full study. I will restore a reference to that study, but I (as well as multiple other editors who have opined on this discussion page, believe that the amount of text devoted to minor studies on very limited populations shows undue weight on this article. OccamzRazor (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You cannot delete text for the reason that a reference is a link to a summary or an abstract. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no rule that prohibits references to papers that one must pay to view, especially if those papers are published in "generally respected" peer-reviewed journals. Any text deleted for this reason must be restored. David spector (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the majority of the wikipedia articles with healt effects sections need to be cleaned up. But it needs to be done with careful consideration. It is ridiculous to say that you should remove a study because you only have access to its abstract- that has nothing to do with its scientific value. Before removing studies, we should probably look for review articles to put in their place. If you don't want to do that, and want to pare things down, it would be better to make the study explanations as concise as possible (for the both sides of the issue).

As for undue text to a minority view, there are 20+ citations and multiple sections on problems associated with saturated fat, and 1 section with 5 citations devoted to contrary research. Personally, I would like to see the sections merged together.

Removing Clarke and Mysink papers

The text of this article said "Meta-studies conducted by scientists in 1997[22] and 2003[23] found high corelation between excessive amounts of saturated fats and coronary heart disease." However, if you look at the references (both free full text), you can see that they measured the effects of dietary intervention on serum cholesterol and HDL:LDL ratio, respectively, not CHD. The 2003 paper specifically says "The effects of fats on these risk markers should not in themselves be considered to reflect changes in risk but should be confirmed by prospective observational studies or clinical trials." The 1997 paper says "The effect on vascular disease of a prolonged difference of 0.8 mmol/l in blood cholesterol concentration depends on the relative importance at different ages of the benefits of reducing low density lipoprotein cholesterol and the hazards of reducing high density lipoprotein cholesterol, which require further study." Neither actually makes any claims about CHD. Rsheridan6 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Saturated fats linked to Alzheimer's

Is this true, or can anyone tear this apart?

Read it here. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/09/08/2679589.htm

Can't find the study but i'm probably not looking right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.47.159 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

ABC

Now the statement goes something like this: A increases B and B is correlated with C. This might give a misleading impression that A has been correlated with C as well. I think we should mention that the observational studies have found no significant direct correlation between A and C. We should be clear and make our best that the statement won't be misunderstood.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the problem -- and the fact that the state of knowledge is changing in exactly the direction you note -- but this is exactly what most of our sources say. They're often very carefully saying, "A increases B, and B is correlated with C -- and so we recommend that people don't eat much saturated fat, because we have assumed for three decades that eating less saturated fat (A) will reduce heart attacks (C)." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have also noticed that the sources linked before are very careful in not saying that SFA consumption is directly correlated with CHD risk. If you don't read the sentences very carefully and with full attention, you almost get the idea that they do. That's why I think we should be as clear as we can in Wikipedia and mention that the studies/reviews talking about the direct correlation have found none. The main problem with ABC is that while B might be correlated with C and A increases B, it is an oversimplification. B isn't the only thing A does, SFAs also increase HDL, may shift the size pattern of large LDL, might make the LDL less susceptible to oxidation etc, all of these can potentially have an effect on CHD. All I am saying is that we shouldn't only say A increases B, B is correlated with C and possible leave the reader with the wrong impression. We should add a clarifying sentence about the direct correlation between A and C. Do you agree?--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree in practice -- meaning that I don't believe that eating butter will cause me (a low-risk person) to develop heart disease.

But it's really our job here to reflect the sources, rather than our personal impressions of the science, and a lot of sources published in the last three decades have sought to mislead readers in exactly this fashion.

I also believe that we should include the well-established details (e.g., change in particle size), but I think that we should get into the details after we've presented the simplistic story that the sources are pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Those other details are all interesting and well worth mentioning in my opinion, but right now I am going through a lot of trouble just to get one sentence replaced to something that is fairly consistent in the literature, so I am not sure how adding the more complicated and not that straightforward yet also controversial stuff will work out. Asking if I have a consensus, do you (and everyone else) agree that we should add a sentence talking about the direct correlation between SFA consumption and CHD risk determined by observational studies?--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's consensus that the present wording is better than the unsupported text it replaced, so the first paragraph problem seems to be solved. I would personally prefer to follow it by noting that major health organisations recommend eating less saturated fats in general, because I think that's a notable observation for the layman. If you want to add a statement saying that paradoxically, no significant direct correlation between SFA consumption and CHD risk has been found (or something similar), I wouldn't object as that's what the sources say. I just don't think it's a very important issue for a lay reader - although I guess it's an interesting question for an expert to ponder over. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, the first paragraph isn't incorrect anymore and I think I won't be adding a sentence about the direct correlation to the first paragraph, but I think we should probably undo the reversion that removed the sentences talking about the 2010 Krauss review. Those statements were somewhere in the second paragraph and I think there was no reason to remove them.

There is a sentence in the second paragraph right now that says "Some studies have suggested that diets high in saturated fat increase the risk of heart disease and stroke. Epidemiological studies have found that those whose diets are high in saturated fats, including lauric, myristic, palmitic, and stearic acid, had a higher prevalence of coronary heart disease.[11][12][13][14]". Two of those references cite the seven countries study. That study has been thoroughly discredited, for example here, mainly because the countries were cherry-picked and if you include the rest of the countries for which information was available the association was weak. That paper with the criticism isn't free, but you can get the rough idea of it from this blog post. One of the references cites the Nurses Health study, which found no significant correlation between any SFA and CHD once they adjusted for dietary variables. Check table 5 of the study. The fourth study, from as much as I can gather, doesn't seem to talk about CHD, only hypertension. Not sure about the last one, because I can't get the full text of it. In summary, I propose that statement should be removed, because the sources do not support it and there are many studies saying directly the opposite.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the changes. If someone wants to discuss them I'd be happy to do so.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientific American just published an article that basically argues that saturated fats are not unhealthy, but carbohydrates are. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio I think there is no excuse any more to have the article say the opposite. 193.77.126.73 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Opposing statements about the effect on cardiovascular diseases

In the section Association with diseases, subsection Cardiovascular diseases, there are statements that claim opposing effects, but they are not clearly separated. E.g. the statement "Additionally, controlled experimental studies have found that people consuming high saturated fat diets experience negative cholesterol profile changes." is followed directly by "In 2010 a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies found no statistically significant relationship between cardiovascular disease and dietary saturated fat."

Furthermore, the sections begins by a statement claiming that "The vast majority of observational studies have found no connection between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk.", but the section Contrary Research then goes on to list studies that likewise claim that increased saturated fat intake has no effect on the occurrence of coronary diseases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.126.73 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

One aspect is the association of saturated fat and CHD risk studied by observational studies, the other aspect is what the experimental studies showed the effect of saturated fat to be on cholesterol levels. I felt it is necessary to note under the Cardiovascular diseases subsection that saturated fat intake is not correlated with CHD or heart attack risk, because that is what the majority of observational studies found and therefore the previous claim was incorrect.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a randomized controlled trial and an observational study. The difference is very important. The latter is much more rigorous. Randomized controlled trials have found negative effects from saturated fat, while observational trials have found less of an effect. One of the likely reasons, as noted in that 2010 metaanalysis, is that the differences in saturated fat intake in the observational trials were not replaced with polyunsaturated fats, but instead with carbohydrates, which have a similarly negative effect. Please slow down and stop doing a barrage of edits; the observational study effect is already noted in the article. II | (t - c) 06:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, perhaps my wording wasn't the best. I understand the difference between an observational study and a randomized controlled trial. I was trying to explain to the person above that the opposing statements are because one statement talks about observational studies, the other about controlled trials. Nutriveg has again reverted my edtis, now the first sentence in the section "Cardiovascular diseases" says "Diets high in saturated fat have been correlated with an increased incidence of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease.". Please take notice that this sentence talks about correlation, which is determined by observational studies. This sentence is flat out incorrect, I have provided 10 refs demonstrating no correlation between saturated fat consumption and CHD, also 3 review papers which have arrived at the same conclusion. I ask Nutriveg, why did you revert my changes? I have to recognize that there are perhaps 3-4 studies showing a correlation between saturated fat consumption and CHD, while there are around 20 that show no association. Here at Wikipedia we should keep an objective point of view, not cherry-pick studies. If you think I am making this up, read the 3 review papers published in peer-review journals, they analyzed over 20 studies and found no significant correlation between saturated fat consumption and CHD. The fact that replacing SFA with PUFA might reduce risk does not imply that SFA increases risk, because all the studies have looked at SFA and CHD risk and found no association. PUFA is a separate issue and the fact that PUFA might reduce risk does not mean anything about the risk factor of SFA, which I must stress again, has not been shown to be correlated with CHD.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your references are outdate, and your're advancing a position by making a conclusion (based on that your selection of sources): "The vast majority of observational studies have found no connection between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk"

Beyond that the position of respectable organizations is preferred [3].--Nutriveg (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I cited 10 studies during the last 5 decades that are all consistent with each other. I also cited three reviews. One of them was published in 2010, one in 2009. They all show no correlation between saturated fat consumption and CHD. The current claim back to which you reverted is incorrect. I keep on repeating, saturated fat has not been correlated with CHD. Please show me the studies, reviews or anything of the sort. Right now the sources go to very general pages of the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Here's what one source says: "Foods that are high in saturated and trans fats, cholesterol, sodium (salt), and sugar can worsen other atherosclerosis risk factors.". Now, to me, it is not apparent whether it talks about the correlation between SFA and CHD or just says SFA can worsen CHD. To me it seems that it says foods high in saturated and trans fats, notice the and part "Foods that are high in saturated AND trans fats", can worsen risk factors, eg cholesterol. It doesn't seem to talk about the correlation. It is also not apparent whether it talks about some dietary pattern that is high in "saturated and trans fats" among other things and not saturated fat itself, it is also not apparent whether is lumps saturated fat and trans fats together. I am talking strictly about the correlation between SFA and CHD, which does not exist. Behind the claim that "Diets high in saturated fat have been correlated with an increased incidence of ... coronary heart disease." is a source to NHL that says only, I repeat, says ONLY that "For example, foods that are high in saturated and trans fats and cholesterol raise LDL cholesterol." It does not even talk about correlation between SFA and CHD, therefore that source is irrelevant to the claim which precedes it.

So in summary, the sources cited right now are very general, one is irrelevant and in the other it is not clear whether is talks about a correlation at all, and whether it lumps saturated fat together with trans fat. Therefore I say the sources do not support the claim. Previously I cited 13 studies which show no correlation between SFA and CHD, spanning 50 years, all consistent with exactly the opposite of what it says now. My edit got reverted and replaced with the opposite claim and very poor references. Someone please look into it and comment so we can have it corrected.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

OK: I did recently look into it, and I was surprised to find that the basic evidential situation is as you describe it. The persuasive evidence is, of course, not observational studies ("A type of nonrandomized study in which the investigators do not seek to intervene, instead simply observing the course of events." [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi NIH]), but controlled, randomized intervention trials that look at outcomes. This the only kind of study that can unambiguously determine causality, and as you have said, the recent meta-analyses of these gold-standard trials[4] [5] are unambiguous and contradict the conventional wisdom.

I also searched for recent statements that endorse the conventional wisdom, and found none that offered evidence for that position. The continued production of unsubstantiated statements that support the conventional wisdom is inevitable in a situation like this. Including the substance of what you say, perhaps with some rewording, easily passes the test of being NPOV. Excluding it would be far from neutral. Eric Drexler (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those references are outdated so useless, beyond that you made original research summarizing scientific knowledge based solely on those sources that supported your views.

The two reviews you cite don't make such conclusion "no connection between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk", they qualify as insufficient or not significant. I qualify those reviews as unreliable since the authors are related to the industry, they don't exclude confounding factors (in their conclusion at least) and put a lot of small print in the article "The problem with increased restrictions in dietary saturated fat is that energy usually is replaced by carbohydrate", "the relative effect of dietary saturated fat on CVD risk requires reevaluation".

They are also heavily criticized in the same journal: "The authors seem to be dissociating themselves from prevailing national and international dietary recommendations"(...)"a vast array of concordant multidisciplinary research evidence is the sound foundation for these recommendations."

The WHO and alike supersedes these unreliable reviews. The reference is explicit about it being a risk factor: "Unhealthy dietary practices include the high consumption of saturated fats, (...). These risk factors tend to cluster."--Nutriveg (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish it were true that trusted source of information promptly updated their recommendations to keep them in line with current scientific information. If they did, however, then the dietitians at Stanford University Hospital would not have approved serving packaged cakes containing trans fats to cardiovascular patients in 2003 (personal observation). Statements by the WHO, etc., may be worth reporting, perhaps as anomalous, but they by no means supersede current scientific studies, much less justify excluding mention of those studies.

It is hard for me to reconcile your position with common sense or with Wikipedia policies on references. Eric Drexler (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me how can such studies be outdated. Does the effect of saturated fat on the human body change over time? Does it follow some sort of a fashion trend? And please, I ask you again and again, show me the newer studies which demonstrate the correlation between saturated fat consumption and CHD. Show the studies which outdated the ones I referenced.

Saying there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis is a scientifically rigorous way of speaking, what it means is that there is no evidence SFA consumption is correlated with CHD. You can never prove a null hypothesis.

You say the reviews are unreliable, please provide better reviews, please provide studies which support your assertion. Most of the studies found that SFA consumption is correlated with increased prevalence of smoking and other unhealthy patterns like exercising less etc. The data usually shows correlation between SFA and CHD due to confounding factors, which disappear when adjusted for. For what study specifically do you say they do not exclude confounding factors?

I am not sure how the small print affects my argument. The quote you provided is irrelevant to the current discussion. I am not discussing the motives of the authors, I am not discussing what the NHLBI or AHA is suggesting, I am currently not challenging the claims that reducing saturated fat is a good idea, I am not saying anything about its effects on cholesterol levels. I am ONLY saying that observational (!) studies, which determine correlation, have surprisingly consistently found no correlation between SFA consumption and CHD risk. That is all I am saying. Currently there is a claim that SFA intake is correlated with CHD, the first sentence under the cardiovascular diseases subsection. That is incorrect. The vast majority of observational studies have found no correlation, thats why I wrote it in the article. You reference the WHO which only says high SFA consumption is unhealthy. It does not say ANYTHING about the correlation between SFA consumption and CHD risk. There is exactly the same problem with the references currently cited in the main article.

I feel the need to say it again. The current references cited after the claim that SFA is correlated with CHD do not, absolutely not, even say that. The ONLY thing they say is SFA can worsen some CHD risk factors, meaning it can raise cholesterol levels. But that is a different issue and has nothing to do with the claim. I have provided 10 studies and 3 reviews, stating explicitly that SFA consumption is not correlated with CHD risk.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Nutriveg, please explain why you removed the 2010 review by Dr. Krauss. You claim it is unbalanced and unreliable, which you say is based on "Diet-heart: a problematic revisit". I have read the paper. They ask for many clarifying questions, eg what are the findings from randomized controlled trials on SFA-CHD and in univariate analyses of population-based observational data, are there direct relations of dietary SFAs to CHD. They criticize the paper for not talking about randomized controlled trials, for not spending enough attention on dietary cholesterol etc. That criticism is just to make the paper more clear and covering a wider picture, eg RCT. This means absolutely nothing to the finding the Krauss review found, SFA consumption is not correlated with CHD risk when adjusted for confounding factors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdidyoudo (talk • contribs) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't like to repeat myself so read now what I've already written : you should not cherry pick a bunch of articles that support your POV and make a conclusion over it, that's original research.

Those articles are outdated because methods change, scientists became aware of confounding factors and mistakes made by others.

Those two reviews are unreliable and break WP:NPOV as already stated:

They are also heavily criticized in the same journal: "The authors seem to be dissociating themselves from prevailing national and international dietary recommendations"(...)"a vast array of concordant multidisciplinary research evidence is the sound foundation for these recommendations."

The authors also skip making clear conclusions. Those are the reasons they were removed and are useless in this article.

This is a statement by a internationally reputable expert body:

"The relationship between dietary fats and CVD, especially coronary heart disease, has been extensively investigated, with strong and consistent associations emerging from a wide body of evidence accrued from animal experiments, as well as observational studies, clinical trials and metabolic studies conducted in diverse human populations"(...) "Unhealthy dietary practices include the high consumption of saturated fats"(...)"there is convincing evidence that myristic and palmitic acids contribute to an increase in risk"

Now go home until you find something better. --Nutriveg (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you even read the criticism? It does nothing to change the fact that the vast majority of observational have found no association between SFA consumption and CHD. Absolutely nothing. And please, you again bring up a new source that is totally irrelevant. Please take very high notice, these expert bodies are very careful not to say SFA is correlated with CHD, because it is not. This one says "dietary fats" are associated CHD, not SFA. They then say SFA's are unhealthy. Absolutely irrelevant to the correlation between SFA and CHD. Do you understand you need a source that says SFA is correlated with CHD? You cannot make up any claim and reference something that just says SFA is unhealthy. Please, somebody look into this. He has put up a claim with no evidence whatsoever! I have 13 references saying strictly and explicitly the opposite. He just kept on reverting my edits. And please, Nutriveg, how many times do I have to ask, show me the studies I left out, show me how I cherry-picked, show me the reviews, show me anything. I recognize there are perhaps 3-4 that found an association, while around 20 did not. Right now you have only provided irrelevant sources. Is there a place I can report it so someone would look into this?--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The criticism reinforces the low quality of the study conclusions and its insignificance compared to other sources. "the vast majority of observational have found no association" is just the POV you're supporting, the sources I provide say something totally different.

The source explicitly talks about that risk factor, as exposed above. That's exactly the kind of preferable source for health issues (statement from a internationally reputable expert body), we don't make original research (based on primary research) here as I said numerous times and the review you cite is unreliable and unbalanced.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The source you cited this time does not say that observational studies have found a correlation between SFA and CHD. It does not even talk about what observational studies have found the effect of SFA on CHD. I wonder why. They only talk about it's effect on cholesterol levels. This source is again irrelevant.

You have yet explained why the Krauss review is unbalanced. Did he leave some studies out? Did the cherry pick? The criticism you cited only asks clarifying questions, it does not change what the study found. And if you don't like the 2010 review, let's replace it with the 2009 review by other investigators that reached the exact same conclusion. Do you have any criticism towards the 2009 review too? If not, I will revert your removal of the Krauss review and replace it with the 2009 review.

In summary, you remove my well-referenced claim, with 3 reviews from independent reviewers supporting it, then you replace it with the opposite claim with absolutely no evidence. No evidence at all, you keep bringing up irrelevant sources. This is getting ridiculous, if you don't find any evidence for your claim of the correlation between SFA and CHD, I will revert the first sentence under cardiovascular diseases section back to my edit.

"the vast majority of observational have found no association" is not my idea, not my research, I am just reporting what the observational studies found and provided extensive evidence for it. You have failed to show any evidence to the contrary.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

halfway break

I didn't provide the source "this time", I provided that source long before but you failed to read it as usual. The source is clear like when I pointed "there is convincing evidence that myristic and palmitic acids contribute to an increase in risk", if you start reading you would know that.

The purpose is not to comment "observational studies", that kind of (primary/original) research is not a recommended source for health issues by WP:MEDRS, the purpose is to reflect the current medical knowledge, where that WHO/FAO source superseeds this low quality review you're using to support your POV. That's why it's unbalanced and you should know if you have already read the links I provided in the text linking to WP:NPOV.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So now you are talking about myristic and palmitic acids only? The link you provided does not say there is a direct correlation between SFA and CHD, only that some SFA's increase cholesterol. Be careful not to take the table out of context, if you read the text preceding it, as I said, they don't say anything about the direct correlation between SFA and CHD, only it's effects on cholesterol. I do not have to make up my own research or claims, that is what the studies found and the reviews concluded. You have not provided a shred of evidence for your claim, you just keep bringing up irrelevant sources.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The source provided say there's increased risk for CVD, are you blind? That section title is called " Recommendations for preventing cardiovascular diseases", have you ever click that link? The level of evidence is different between SFAs but we are talking about dietary SFAs, not any SFAs, where myristic and palmitic are qualified as "convincing", lauric as "possible" and stearic is the exception, not the contrary as you're supporting. The source itself generalizes dietary saturated fats as unhealthy, giving due balance to their human dietary consumption, but I have no objection to mention that exception. However that's way different from your claims of "no connection between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk".

You make me laugh when you say that WHO/FAO source is irrelevant, specially when you show to have never read it.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok here we go again. You are talking about the table, which summarizes the previous text. If you read the text preceding it, they say that SFAs raise cholesterol levels, with myristic and palmitic acid having the strongest effect, while stearic acid does not raise LDL. Therefore their reasoning is that SFAs are unhealthy and can badly influence risk factors. You must understand, this is different than the direct association between SFAs and CHD. The direct correlation does not exist, which I have provided extensive evidence for. The source you cited is therefore irrelevant, because it talks about a different thing.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't act blind, it's the first paragraph of item "5.4.4 Strength of evidence". Use the correct medical terms and don't act deceptive, this is your edit.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read their wording very carefully. They say convincing association have been found between (list of some stuff) and CHD. SFAs are not on the list. They then say some SFAs can contribute to an increase in risk, eg they can contribute to an increase in cholesterol, which is a risk factor in some populations. If you read the subsection "Fatty acids and dietary cholesterol" under 5.4.4, they go more in depth in this issue, where they explain that certain SFAs increase cholesterol. I repeat, they talk about the relationship of SFA to cholesterol and cholesterol to CHD, they do not talk about the direct correlation between SFA and CHD. I have cited the reviews and studies which look at the direct correlation, which concluded there is no significant correlation.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to explain to you but it's impossible to talk with people that can't even read. Anyway you're far from getting consensus for that change, so keep this article the way it is.--Nutriveg (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg, there's no consensus for the old (and weakly sourced and partly wrong) version, either. "There's no consensus" does not mean "So I get to force the old version into the article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You bring up sources that do not talk about the correlation, but beat around the bush saying it is unhealthy and can influence risk factors (cholesterol). I have provided 10 studies and three reviews that have said explicitly they found no correlation between SFA consumption and CHD risk. Are you ignoring them? You simply say I can't read, while the sources you keep on citing don't talk about observational studies that have directly looked at the relationship between SFA consumption and CHD. You say I don't have a consensus. The first sentence under the section cardiovascular diseases is currently unsourced (the sources are irrelevant, because they talk about other things), and I am arguing it is dead wrong. It cannot stay up there with no evidence simply because you say you don't agree with removing it and I have no consensus so I can't do it.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that someone else besides Nutriveg and Whatdidyoudo should have a look at this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.1.88 (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources cited do not support the statement "Diets high in saturated fat have been correlated with an increased incidence of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease." Neither source even contains the word "correlate", which has a very specific meaning. Unless sources can be found that show such a correlation, then the statement should be removed as WP:SYNTH or rephrased to avoid the word "correlate" --RexxS (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I fully agree with RexxS on this point. I also generally object to using government websites when scholarly sources are available (even if all the sources say the same things). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I propose that the statement with no evidence should be replaced with something along the lines of this: "The vast majority of observational studies have found no significant connection between saturated fat consumption and heart attack risk. Three review papers, which summarized over 20 cohort studies , concluded that there is no significant correlation between coronary heart disease and saturated fat consumption.". If you check the history tab, you can see the studies and reviews I cited in support for this claim. I would like to get some feedback, comments, discussion etc before I change it, so that it wouldn't get reverted back again.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the most important point for the general audience is that no correlation has been shown. How about breaking what we do know (and can support) into two parts, something along the lines of: (1) "Diets high in saturated fat may cause an increase in cholesterol in some people.<take your pick of sources here>"; followed by (2) "Health organisations recommend taking steps to reduce levels of LDL cholesterol, as high levels are associated with greater risk of heart disease.<sources here>" Please feel free to amend this as you see fit, but I'd recommend keeping an introductory paragraph to any section as free from jargon as you can, as that's the first thing a lay reader will encounter. You can always go into greater detail and use more specific terms as the section develops. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not about cholesterol, but cardiovascular diseases, where dietary saturated fats are a risk factor: "there is convincing evidence that myristic and palmitic acids (...) contribute to an increase in risk"(...)"Possible associations (...) for increased risk include fats rich in lauric acid". That's not WHO advice but a conclusion about CVD.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Another source for those who can see: "The evidence shows that intake of saturated fatty acids is directly related to cardiovascular risk."-

Read the sentence again, they say "contribute to an increase in risk". And if you read the rest of the section, it says they contribute by increasing cholesterol, or they say SFAs are directly related to CHD risk by cholesterol. They do not say anything about the direct correlation between SFAs and CHD determined by cohort studies. What I am talking about is a straightforward question, when accounting for confounding factors, do people who eat more SFAs have more heart attacks? I have provided over a dozen peer-reviewed articles showing that the answer is no.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They don't need to use the phrase you wish them to use, the phrase is very clear but you keep avoiding the facts.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is about cholesterol, and you know that not all saturated fats have the same effect. You now have two editors telling you that none of the sources you quote support the present text. The best way forward would be if you were to propose an amended wording that everyone can agree. --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They do not talk about the direct correlation between SFAs and CHD. They talk about SFAs effect on cholesterol and then about cholesterol being a risk factor. Do you agree they are different things?--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rexxs, where in this phrase "cardiovascular risk" is spelled as "cholesterol": "The evidence shows that intake of saturated fatty acids is directly related to cardiovascular risk."? I know that stearic acid is an exception and that is already written in the section text, giving due balance to its dietary role. Beyond that I'm just citing WHO words according to WP:Verifiability I won't change that because it may sound better for some.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you read the section before it here, they explain more thoroughly how SFAs are directly related to cardiovascular risk. All they say is that SFAs increases total and LDL cholesterol. They do not talk about observational studies. Please do not take a summarizing statement out of context. They do not talk about the direct correlations. It is really just a play of words. You must read the previous section to understand what they mean by "directly related". Related does not necessarily mean that studies have correlated increased SFA consumption with increased CHD risk.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• It should be noted that if there's a debate in the literature, we don't present one side of the debate per WP:NPOV. And it's not hard to show that there is a debate in the literature - if there's recent, decent reviews on the topic which come to opposite conclusions, obviously there's a debate. In this case, Whatdidyoudo (talk · contribs) provided 3 reviews. Two of them are recent and high-quality: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease (from ACJN) and A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease (Archives of Internal Medicine). These are both good journals. I summarized the former recently, but my summary was removed by Nutriveg (diff). The Archives review concludes:

  We found strong evidence that trans–fatty acids are associated with CHD risk, but weak evidence implicating saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids and total fat intake.

  The article acknowledges the general belief that saturated fat is closely tied to heart disease, but seem to say it is poorly-supported, and that the lack of nuance could lead to excess consumption of high-glycemic index foods. Nutriveg is violating neutrality, I think, by blocking the inclusion of this information. In comparison these focused reviews, the WHO source is not as high-quality - it's more of a tertiary rather than secondary source. That's not to say it can't be mentioned. II | (t - c) 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The key aspect is that a correlation is something that is determined by observational studies. These reviews summarize observational studies. The effect of SFAs on cholesterol is another issue. Nutriveg has not cited any review, study or source that says observational studies have found a correlation between SFAs and CHD, only general sources that say SFAs are unhealthy and can increase cholesterol. That is what I am debating about, because currently the article has a claim that diets high in SFAs have been correlated with CHD, without a hint of evidence, while at the same time there are plenty of studies and reviews showing no correlation between them. I see no reason why the current statement should stay there.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, that meta-analysis has been very criticized and the authors use a lot of weasel words. They write the article comparing dietary changes, like substitution by carbohydrates, and other emerging risks, like diabetes, when they say "the relative effect of dietary saturated fat on CVD risk requires reevaluation". They avoid talking just about saturated fat. That meta-analysis selected only 16 studies for evaluation and was partially sponsored by Unilever--Nutriveg (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They do not talk about just saturated fat? Let me quote from the abstract:

During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD.

Another quote:

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.

How is that not talking directly about SFAs? They selected only 16 studies? Please tell me where are you heading. Did they leave studies out? What studies? You have failed to show any studies/reviews/references that say SFA consumption is correlated with an increased CHD risk. What about the other reviews concluding there is no correlation? We have to work with the best evidence we have and you have not shown anything opposing the sources I cited.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No they don't, from the article: "Existing epidemiologic studies and clinical trials support that substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat is more beneficial for CHD risk than exchanging carbohydrates for saturated fat in the diet"(...)"there was insufficient statistical power for this meta-analysis to assess the effects on CVD risk of replacing specific amounts of saturated fat with either polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate"

Yes, they analyzed only 16 studies, from the article: "there were 16 studies that considered the association of saturated fat with CHD", even so they changed, "adjusted" in their words, the results of some of them that supported an association. They left the better studies out like those that analyze individual fatty acids, they just applied statistics to something unuseful. "Lies, damned lies and statistics".---Nutriveg (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not our job to figure out if the reviewers did their job: that duty belongs to the journal's peer-review process.

The quotation you give translates to "If you're not going to eat saturated fat, then substituting polyunsaturated fat for it is more healthful than replacing those calories with carbohydrates." It does not tell us whether changing the amount of saturated fat in your diet changes the likelihood that you will develop heart disease.

The second quote means, "PUFAs might be better than carbs for heart disease, but the effect on strokes is unknown." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's our job to select higher quality sources and give WP:DUE balance to them. Those two reviews are low quality and don't represent anyway current medical knowledge.

That quotation was a response to "Whatdidyoudo" where I demonstrated the authors weasel talking of not isolating the subject of examination, raising other issues just to confound and, maybe, excuse the misrepresentation of the actual facts that sustained their (lack of) conclusion. It's not so important to the general discussion for you to focus your "argumentation" solely on it.---Nutriveg (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus wept are you saying the Krauss review is not talking about the direct correlation between SFA consumption and CHD risk? What dooes your quoted text even have to do with it? Your quote talks about substitution of SFAs with PUFAs, that is a VERY different thing. What exactly is your point? A study can determine and examine several things. Let me repeat, they were very clear on the association between SFAs and CHD, they also found no association with stroke. I also don't understand your point about adjusting. Beforehand you were implying that perhaps the studies didn't properly account for confounding factors, now you remark that they "adjust" the positive association away, that's the whole point, to adjust for confounding factors like smoking etc.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

1. No: Our job is to say, "Peer-reviewed meta-analyses and systematic reviews are better than letters to the editor and websites by support groups." Our job is not to say, "I don't like they way they weighted the study, and I think they should have used different inclusion criteria differently, and I think they're biased because they work for a company selling cholesterol-lowering products."
2. Under what possible definition of "current" does a paper published this month not count as being current? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Risk is not disease

It looks like one of the biggest problems here is that we've confused "risk" with "disease". Consider this:

• I have a risk factor for breast cancer (my mother died from it).
• I do not have breast cancer.

Saturated fats have been associated with an increase in a risk factor for heart disease (elevated cholesterol). They have not been associated with an increase in actual heart disease (e.g., actual clogged arteries). In fact, there is (pretty good) evidence that the elevated cholesterol that results from saturated fat consumption is actually harmless.

This situation, to follow my pattern above, looks like this:

• People who eat saturated fat have a risk factor for heart disease (elevated cholesterol).
• But they don't get heart disease. (Why? Well, it turns out that serum cholesterol levels are a pretty lousy way to predict who's going to have a heart attack.)

We have preached the logical conclusion that anything that affects a risk factor will affect your chance of the disease for three decades now, but it turns out that we were wrong. Drugs that lower biomarkers don't always reduce disease; fats that increase biomarkers don't always increase disease. The literature is getting less sloppy about saying "fat makes cholesterol makes heart disease".

In terms of Wikipedia's articles, we don't want to say that saturated fat is associated with actual disease (because multiple of the very best types of studies show that it's not), but we do want to say that it's (convincingly) associated with elevated cholesterol levels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not trying to make science here, to correlate factors and assess their individual risk (SFA->cholesterol->"hearth disease"->CVDs), we just cite sources and the best sources available, like the WHO, clearly attribute SFAs as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, which this section is about.---Nutriveg (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They do not say that. They say SFAs increase a risk factor, not that SFAs have been correlated with increased risk itself. I have provided extensive evidence and reviews that there is no direct correlation. You have taken a summarizing sentence out of context, the only thing they talk about is it's effect on cholesterol.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg, it looks like we agree on what the papers say.

The problem is that the Wikipedia article doesn't say what you say here. It says:

The evidence shows that intake of saturated fatty acids is directly related to cardiovascular risk.[7] Diets high in saturated fat have been correlated with an increased incidence of atherosclerosis[8] and coronary heart disease[9].

It should say something far closer to:

The evidence shows that intake of saturated fatty acids is associated with elevated cholesterol levels. Elevated cholesterol levels, in turn, have been correlated with an increased incidence of atherosclerosis, stroke, and coronary heart disease.

Do you see the critical difference? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes the first follow WP:Verifiability, it just cites WHO (7). The second may be truth, but it's WP:SYNTH made by you.---Nutriveg (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the existing version misrepresents the sources that it cites, and leaves readers with an erroneous impression. And it can't be a SYNTH violation, because many sources have published exactly this before. (SYNTH, like Verifiability, is about whether the source exists, not whether I've named it here.)

But my question is much smaller: Do you understand the difference between "increases the likelihood of a heart attack" and "increases cholesterol levels"?

Put in another context: Do you understand the difference between "People taking this statin drug have lower cholesterol levels, but the same number of heart attacks as people who aren't taking it" and "People taking this statin drug have lower cholesterol and fewer heart attacks than people who aren't taking it"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How the first phrase is SYNTH if it's just a copy of (7)?

There are worse cases than yours but that's still a SYNTH and doesn't help in anyway to end this discussion which is basically about Whatdidyoudo supporting a "no evidence" POV. We can discuss changes to that section after this first issue is resolved, otherwise you're just prolonging this discussion adding more discussion topics before this first one is finished.---Nutriveg (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The first phrase might be seen as misleading. I propose that it should mention that it is related to CVD by increasing cholesterol. Otherwise it could give the wrong impression that SFAs have been directly correlated with CVD. The source which is cited explains in detail that the relation is due to cholesterol and does not mention a direct correlation.--Whatdidyoudo (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg, none of the statements above violate SYNTH. I did not say that they violated SYNTH; in fact, I said that they don't violate SYNTH. See my exact words: "And it can't be a SYNTH violation..."

SYNTH only happens when the Wikipedia editor is the first person in the world to publish such a claim.

Please try again. Compare these statements:

1. "People taking this statin drug have lower cholesterol levels, but they're just as likely to die as anyone else."
2. "People taking this statin drug have lower cholesterol levels, and they're less likely to die."

Do you understand the difference between these two statements? If so, then consider this pair:

1. "People who eat a lot of SFAs have higher cholesterol levels, but they're just as likely to have heart attacks as anyone else."
2. "People who eat a lot of SFAs have higher cholesterol levels, and they're more likely to have heart attacks."

Don't worry about which statement is true: I'm only asking if you can see that their contents are not identical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Older studies probably included in new meta-analysis

Regarding Saturated_fat#Cardiovascular_diseases, I moved the following studies to here, because they are probably included in the recent meta-analysis, which better and more systematically summarizes the subject than individual small studies. Feel free to reinsert if there anyone still deserves inclusion by some reason. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this policy. Citing meta-analyses is more compact and they are almost guaranteed to be more informative and reliable than the collection of studies would be, even if someone were to read all of them. This is the right encyclopedic approach. Eric Drexler (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

An increase in cholesterol levels has been observed in humans with an increase in saturated fat intake, such as a study of 22 hypercholesterolemic men. Some studies have suggested that diets high in saturated fat increase the risk of heart disease and stroke although other large studies have found an inverse association between saturated fat consumption and ischemic stroke Additionally, controlled experimental studies have found that people consuming high saturated fat diets experience negative cholesterol profile changes. In 1999, volunteers were randomly assigned to either Mediterranean (which replaces saturated fat with mono and polyunsaturated fat) or a control diet showed that subjects assigned to a Mediterranean diet exhibited a significantly decreased likelihood of suffering a second heart attack, cardiac death, heart failure or stroke. In 2005, Dutch scientists at Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University compared the effects of stearic acid with oleic and linoleic acids. Forty five subjects (27 women and 18 men) consumed, in random order, three experimental diets, each for five weeks. The results suggest stearic acid is not highly thrombogenic compared with oleic and linoleic acids. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, and other health authorities like World Heart Federation have urged saturated fats be replaced with polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats. The health body list olive and canola oils as sources of monosaturated oils while soybean and sunflower oils are rich with polyunsaturated fat. A 2005 research in Costa Rica suggests consumption of non-hydrogenated unsaturated oils like soybean and sunflower over palm oil. The Cochrane Collaboration published a meta-analyses of fat modification trials finding no significant effect on total mortality, but with significant reductions in the rate of cardiovascular events that was statistically significant in the high risk group.

References

Merge

It is has been suggested to merge Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease into this article's section on cardiovascular disease. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't see a conclusive rationale for merging that does more than enhance the cardiovascular disease article (which could be done without a merger). Also, a link to this article would allow readers of the article on CV to read here, also. MaynardClark (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Two other users have agreed with the merge on the talk-page of the Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease article. Basically that article is a stub, it is not worth keeping because the same content is already found on this article so only a small amount of text will be merged. There needs to be a major update on this articles "association with diseases" section which mentions the association of saturated fat with cancer and other chronic diseases from recent reviews. This is not just about saturated fat and CVD. I have listed some recent reliable reviews on this above (4 years old or less). There is no reason to be citing meta-analyses from 1997, 1999, 2001 or 2003 when we have meta-analyses and reviews published in 2017, 2018, 2020 and 2021. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

After going through the article Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease, I feel there isn't any information in there that if added to the articles on Saturated fat or Cardiovascular disease would violate WP:UNDUE in any of those articles. The existing info can easily be merged into those articles, enhancing both the articles to an extent. This article seems to be a repetition of what's there in the saturated fat and CVD articles. If warranted, we may have a separate article on "Diseases associated with nutrition", which would be much broader a topic than the one in question. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)