Talk:Saturated fat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

extremely fuzzy categorization for meat products[edit]

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

Wall Street Journal article on saturated fat[edit]

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

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

The "Association with diseases" section is self-contradicting[edit]

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