Talk:Saturated fat

Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Above, Sbelknap has made the claim that "the Dietary Guidelines for Americans no longer presents the conclusion that saturated fat is harmful". He goes on to say "In previous revisions, DGAAC ignored high-quality data and concluded that satfat was harmful. This has been removed from the 2020 DGAs."

I want to point out why these claims are completely wrong. Firstly, as the recent DGA guidelines say "The 2020-2025 edition of the Dietary Guidelines builds from the 2015 edition, with revisions grounded in the Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee" (page vii) [1]. Nowhere are they challenging the older conclusions, they build upon them.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans have not changed their recommendations on saturated fat, nor do they dispute the conclusions from the 2020 Scientific Report or DGA 2015-2020 [2]. There was indeed more science about the saturated fat research in the DGA 2015-2020, this was not included in the 2020-2025 version. This doesn't mean they have changed their conclusions about saturated fat. They don't need to reprint the Scientific Report, they link to it.

The Scientific Report can be found online [3]. There is about 4 pages in DGA 2020-2025 which gives some background about the Scientific Report, "The use of a Federal advisory committee is a commonly used best practice to ensure the Federal Government seeks sound, external scientific advice to inform decisions. The Committee’s work concluded with its scientific report submitted to the Secretaries of USDA and HHS in June 2020. This report was not a draft of the Dietary Guidelines; it was a scientific document that detailed the Committee’s evidence review and provided advice to USDA and HHS." (page 8). The DGA 2020-2025 is not challenging the Committee’s evidence review.

On page 23 it says "The science supporting the Dietary Guidelines is extensively documented in the Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which describes the state of the science on key topics related to diet and health. Outcomes with Strong or Moderate evidence are provided in Figure 1-3. The report is available at DietaryGuidelines.gov" [4]. It's obvious that the DGA have not changed their view about saturated fat and like all other guidelines are telling people to limit their consumption.

Sbelknap seems to be claiming that because all the saturated fat research cited in DGA 2015-2020 or the Scientific Report is not included or updated in DGA 2020-2025 they have changed their mind about their former saturated fat conclusions. This is clearly not the case. I have disproven that above, they are not challenging their older conclusions but building upon them. This is one of the oddest claims I have come across.

Currently there is no mention of DGA 2020-2025 on the article, this can be added. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot of text to dodge the point I made!

The USDA blocked use of outside meta-analyses by the DGAC preparing the 2020 guidelines, instead requiring the DGAC to rely on internal reviews by staff memebers at USDA. This was a change from the prior 2015 cycle. As there had been a big change in the views of some scientists on saturated fats since the previous cycle, outside experts attempted to introduce the external meta-analyses into consideration by DGAC but were rebuffed. This matter was discussed in the 2020 cycle by DGAC in a public meeting. Here's the transcript for that meeting:[5] There was no action taken by USDA or DGAC on this matter.

In the 2020 cycle, the DGAC ignored the available RCTs on cardiovascular deaths and considered only the observational studies. I consider this decision to be the most serious error made by DGAC in the 2020 cycle.

Thus, the 2020 cycle DGAC drew a conclusion that was not based on the best available information. And that is my point. Something is seriously amiss at USDA & DGAC. There are many peer-reviewed secondary sources that discuss these points. There is a lack of consensus in the scientific community and in the medical literature regarding the harmfulness of saturated fat. That lack of consensus belongs in this wikipedia article. sbelknap (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a conspiracy theory, this is the sort of thing that low-carbers like Nina Teicholz and Gary Taubes have been claiming. It is clear that the DGA guidelines on saturated fat have not changed. They are telling people to lower consumption just as all the other governmental and nutritional guidelines across the world are doing.

Your claim that there is lack of consensus about the harmfulness of saturated fat is not true. Just go to any governmental, dietetic or medical authority and they all say the same thing that high saturated fat consumption increases CVD risk. This is not disputed by anyone apart from those in the low-carb community. I am not aware of any medical textbooks claiming what you are saying. We do not need to create a false balance here. The medical consensus is very clear on this.

Here is a medical textbook "Saturated fats increase health risk if consumed in large amounts over a long period of time. They can raise total blood cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) or "bad cholesterol", thus increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke. Saturated fats may also increase the risk of type 2 diabetes and cholesterol cancer." (Gerard J. Tortora, Bryan H. Derrickson (2020). Principles of Anatomy and Physiology. Wiley. p. 49). Show us one medical or nutritional textbook claiming that high saturated fat consumption does not increase CVD or cancer risk. None exist. Show us a reliable medical textbook telling us saturated fat consumption decreases CVD risk. None exist. The opposite is true and there is decades of evidence to support it. Let's stick with the science and not promote conspiracy theories on here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The controversy regarding the toxicity of dietary saturated fat is discussed in current textbooks.

For example, here is the abstract for the relevant chapter in Clinical Lipidology, 3rd Edition (2023) by Christie M. Ballantyne

The Chapter Title is "Saturated Fat Intake and the Prevention and Management of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults: An Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence-based Nutrition Practice Guideline"

Abstract:

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States and globally and is largely attributable to atherosclerosis. Evidence indicates that multiple dietary components contribute to the complex causes of CVD and associated events and mortality. Public health authorities and scientific organizations have recommended reduced saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake for decades to promote cardiovascular health, which is linked to favorable impacts on established and emerging atherosclerotic CVD risk factors. Recently, a debate has emerged about whether SFA intake should be reduced for CVD prevention, which has contributed to confusion among health care professionals, including registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs), and the general public, and necessitates the critical evaluation of the evidence. The objective of this evidence-based nutrition practice guideline is to provide health care and public health professionals, particularly RDNs, with evidence-based recommendations on how to address SFA intake in adults within an individualized healthy dietary pattern. Moderate evidence supports the reduction of SFA intake for CVD event reduction, low- to moderate-certainty evidence supports prioritization of replacement of SFAs with polyunsaturated fatty acids, and low-certainty evidence supports focusing on reducing the total amount of SFA rather than specific food sources of SFA. Guideline implementation should include consideration of individual preferences; principles of inclusion, diversity, equity, and access; and potential nutritional deficiencies that may occur with reduced SFA intake. Future research is needed to address gaps that were identified and provide high-quality evidence to support stronger future recommendations based on the relationship between SFA and CVD. sbelknap (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The serious flaws in the DGAC/USDA process is a matter of public record. Senator Grassley has issued a letter regarding these serious flaws. His letter is here: [6]

sbelknap (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A letter by Senator Grassley is not good evidence. Firstly, he was lobbied by Nina Teicholz and you know this [7], [8]. You are taking all your information from Nina Teicholz's low-carb group "Nutrition Coalition" website, it is not a reliable source. They have Mark Hyman on their board of directors [9]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The paper you linked is a reliable source but has not been published yet in full [10] so most users here will not be able to read what it says but it doesn't dispute the evidence that saturated fat increases CVD risk. The paper was published by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. According to the conclusion of the paper "Based on the highest-quality available evidence, the Expert Panel found moderate certainty evidence to support reducing SFA intake for reduced risk of CVD and CVD events but was unable to recommend a specific percentage of SFA reduction or intake." [11]. From the conclusion this paper doesn't support what you have been claiming, it seems to come to a similar conclusion to the Hooper review that there is moderate evidence from trial data that reducing saturated fat intake reduces CVD events. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

You asked for a textbook account of this controversy. The abstract of that textbook chapter includes this statement, "Recently, a debate has emerged about whether SFA intake should be reduced for CVD prevention, which has contributed to confusion among health care professionals, including registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs), and the general public, and necessitates the critical evaluation of the evidence."

It is clear that there are conflicting views among experts on the toxicity of saturated fats. These conflicting views are not reflected in the current draft of this wikipedia article. sbelknap (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about the USDA but about saturated fat. All major nutritional societies worldwide recommend to cut back on it. The discussion above is too American-centric and does not belong here. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are not the arbiter of what belongs & what does not belong in this discussion. The USDA/DGAC position on saturated fat is the most influential government agency worldwide on this issue. Most other countries take the US DGAs into consideration when formulating their own policies.

Regardless, the controversial USDGAC behavior reflects disagreement in the scientific community in toto; textbooks, peer-reviewed literature are part of science, not part of one country. The point here is that tertiary sources reflect a current controversy among scientists on the matter of saturated fat safety. Given the vehemence of this disagreement, this wikipedia article will be improved when it reflects both views presented in the secondary literature.

Various absurd objections to a more balanced discussion have been raised by engaged editors. When these objections are shown to be in error, objections of an even more absurd nature are raised.

There is something wrong here. This is not good stewardship of wikipedia. sbelknap (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You say that „the serious flaws in the DGAC/USDA process is a matter of public record“ and that „most other countries take the US DGAs into consideration when formulating their own policies“. And still these other countries recommend to cut back on SFA. So clearly they don’t see any issue in what you try to frame as „serious flaws“. You have argued against your own case. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The National Academies have determined that the process used by the USDA and by the USDGAC is flawed. Most countries consider the USDGAs in determining their own recommendations. Thus, the dietary guidelines of other countries is also based on a flawed process.

This wikipedia article does not consider the high-quality secondary research that has been published.

There is a serious problem with this article. Something is wrong here. sbelknap (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming strong consensus in the medical community that high saturated fat consumption increases CVD risk. The view is accepted by all of the leading medical organizations around the world that study heart disease. For example, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, British Dietetic Association, National Heart Foundation of Australia, European Society of Cardiology, British Heart Foundation, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, Heart Research UK, American College of Cardiology, National Lipid Association, British Cardiovascular Society, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Indian Heart Association etc all support this view and it is very easy to look up these organizations and view articles and leaflets on their websites about saturated fat. They are all telling people to limit consumption of saturated fat, not increase it.

Wikipedia talk-pages are not the place to promote your conspiracy theories. If you believe all the medical organizations are wrong in the world and you are right then that is up to you but according to your Twitter profile you also promote global warming denialism and the pseudoscientific carnivore diet. My advice is to stop trolling these talk-pages, otherwise you may be blocked again like you were on the red meat article. We will not promote WP:Fringe theories on here regarding health. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

read about the fringe theory here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/well/eat/low-fat-dairy-products.html

Do you really not realize how absurd you sound calling this a fringe theory? One that all individual academics doing current research support? smh. We all laugh at you and will enjoy when this page finally reflects the reality of the best current research and evidence. Antisoapbox (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Engaged editors on this saturated fat page are failing to respect WP:NPOV.

The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them.

I've cited many high-quality secondary (and tertiary) sources supporting the alternative POV that high saturated fat consumption does not increase risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease. Wikipedia is not the place to express your opinions. The current version of the saturated fat article has been corrupted by a biased point of view that does not consider the range of prominent findings in the literature. This article is flawed because it suppresses an alternate POV that is presented in high quality sources from peer-reviewed medical literature. Here at Wikipedia, editors are obliged to rely on high-quality secondary/tertiary sources and not on position statements of organizations, clinical practice guidelines, government policies, etc. Something is very wrong here. What is going on? sbelknap (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith when you repeatedly ignore scientific consensus and keep typing the same thing over and over. Your behaviour is not acceptable. You disrupted the red meat talk-page before, now you have disrupted this and the taurine talk-page. I have taken this to WP:ANI [12]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

We are encouraged to assume good faith.

The point here is that there is *not* a scientific consensus on the health effects of saturated fat. There are many hundreds of primary source peer-reviewed articles and dozens of secondary source articles that contradict the POV in the current saturated fat wikipedia article.

Again, according to NPOV "to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them"

I am not "typing the same thing over and over." I have presented many separate high-quality secondary sources that present an alternate point of view regarding the health effects of saturated fat.

In your complaint at WP:ANI you made multiple misstatements regarding me. For example, I did not start making edits on September 9 to the saturated fat article. I have no connection to Nina Teicholz. Today, I added a POV tag to the article, as per discussion here on this talk page.

Other editors have expressed the same objection to the current content of the saturated fat article.

There is something very wrong here. The behavior of some engaged editors is not consistent with good stewardship of wikipedia. sbelknap (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

We have been here before many times. You did the same on the red meat article and got blocked for it, you did the same on taurine now you are back for round 3. You started editing this year on this article on September 9. As for Nina Teicholz we can all read her conversations with you on Twitter, she even re-tweeted you a few times.

You have not learnt anything after your block which leads to me to believe you are not assuming good faith. 1000s of words have been exchanged here and on other talk-pages with you but you do not listen, it gets to be point of being tiresome. It is the same thing every-time, you believe you correct and all the dietary guidelines and medical organizations are wrong. The World Health Organization, American Medical Association, European Society of Cardiology do not support what you are claiming, no medical organization in the world does. This isn't the place to promote fringe views about health. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I have made thousands of good faith edits to wikipedia that have stood.

It is absurd to claim that engaging in discussion with somebody that I've never met on a public forum is any sort of connection.

You claimed that I have been making edits on the saturated fat article since September 9. AFAICT, this is false. Please stop making false claims. Instead, I have engaged in good faith discussions here on this talk page.

Here on wikipedia, editors are to "describe debates rather than engage in them." Some engaged editors are not doing this here on the saturated fat article. There is debate on the healthfulness of saturated fats in the secondary literature. High-quality sources present a POV that differs from what is in this wikipedia article. This is poor stewardship of wikipedia.

My understanding is that wikipedia articles are to rely on secondary sources. Primary sources, tertiary sources, etc. may inform content but the primary cites are to be secondary sources.

The reason we have talk pages is to engage in discussion so as to achieve consensus. Please stop making threats. Please stop making false statements about me and my edits. sbelknap (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• My sense of the sourcing landscape is that the WP:BESTSOURCES say saturated fat is harmful, to the point where it is a consensus, but there is a legit minority position questioning this (leaving aside whack stuff like Teicholz etc. which is not legit). What would be ideal is a source offering a overview of this. Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Now why would we rely on a source offering an overview of the controversy?

  WP:MEDRS states that "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."

  I've presented some high-quality peer-reviewed systematic reviews & meta-analyses that were rejected for specious reasons. What I see here is ad hominem attacks on Hamley, false statements about me, and obstruction of NPOV by multiple engaged editors. Several other editors have also raised the same point that I am raising here. The current wikipedia article on saturated fat does not present a NPOV. All sorts of exceptional reasons are being raised in justification of resisting attempts to achieve a NPOV on this article.

  Something here is rotten. sbelknap (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fuuuuck, okay that was unexpected. I simply thought an overview (from, of course, a high-quality source) would serve the article well. But heh there's something going on here I don;t get so I'm out. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify I'm not opposed to also including some overview of the controversy. Thanks for suggesting that. However, we are to rely on high-quality secondary sources for most of the content.

  Why are we deviating from that wikipedia policy on this saturated fat article? sbelknap (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  It’s not even a minority position any more. It’s the current informed majority position of current academics and researchers in this area. It will be amusing to watch the editors of this article continue to fight the onslaught they will continue to face. They will lose — it is only a matter of time, and someone willing to devote the effort to take them on to elevate this dispute. Or like most advances in science, it must wait for the natural death of those unwilling to change their minds in the face of overwhelming, undeniable evidence. Meanwhile, a good summary of the current state, including commentary from truly leading academics like Mozaffarian was just published in the NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/well/eat/low-fat-dairy-products.html

  Eventually reality will catch up to those wedded to the past. Antisoapbox (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"It’s not even a minority position any more. It’s the current informed majority position of current academics and researchers in this area" - This is misinformation not supported by any evidence. Show us actual medical organizations that claim this. None exist. All health authorities and medical organizations, governmental guidelines around the world are telling people to reduce total saturated fat consumption, not increase it.

The New York Times piece you cite fails WP:MEDRS, it not talking about total saturated fat consumption, it is only talking about dairy product intake, we have known for a while that dairy intake from cheese and milk does not have detrimental effects on markers of cardiometabolic health in the general population and its effects are mostly neutral. However, even the article you cite admits no long-term trial data exists. We need much more research in this area. This is already covered on the dairy product Wikipedia article. The fatty acid profile of cheese and milk is different to butter and ice cream. You are misrepresenting sources, but you appear to be a drama queen logging in every few years to write sensational claims on talk-pages about saturated fat. Let's be honest about what the academic literature is actually saying. It does not support your claims. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Your statements are directly contrary to the medical literature, which is described, and also summed up by the academics interviewed in the article. You take refuge in the slow moving “medical organizations” who will eventually catch up to the best current research and data. Good luck with your, I hope, continuing, education. Antisoapbox (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The newspaper source you listed says there is no long-term trial data currently. More research is needed. Dariush Mozaffarian who you cited is quoted as saying "Some studies suggest that there may be a benefit of consuming full-fat dairy products, “but I don’t think the evidence is convincing enough yet to make that a dietary recommendation,” he added." This doesn't support what you have been claiming.

The medical organizations are up to date. We do not currently have enough research to being making the sort of sensationalist claims you are making. The New York Times article is not a reliable medical source, nor have you provided any medical references. One of the academics interviewed from your source is a low-carbohydrate diet advocate Ronald Krauss who receives funding from the National Dairy Council. Do you consider this person a reliable source? This is not a mainstream academic, he is very much on the fringe. You have made sensationalist claims not supported by good sourcing and you misrepresented Dariush Mozaffarian. If you have reliable sources then add them to the article but otherwise WP:NOTFORUM applies, this isn't a place to promote your nutritional fantasies. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The incivility of the comments here and elsewhere suggests WP:NOTHERE. I suggest ignoring anything other than a clear edit request. --Hipal (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)