User talk:MPalokaj

Vegetable oil

Your added content for the article was "Strictly not a vegetable but fruit oil." While I agree distinguishing fruit from vegetable source has merit for accuracy, the overall point is the same. In your email, you said "vegetable oils are increasingly shown to have health risks mostly due to the skewing of omega 3 to omega 6 ratios is many people's diets." That's not a health risk of the oil itself, but of peoples' choices for consuming oil and how much. These content changes affect the medical description and sources for the article, so must provide high-quality references as described in WP:MEDRS. I'm unaware of such reviews existing to refute what already exists in the coconut and olive oil articles. --Zefr (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks for your response Zefr. Let me respons point by point:

1. While I agree distinguishing fruit from vegetable source has merit for accuracy

There we agree. Do you have suggestions as so a non-obtrusive way to incorporate more accurate information?

I would respectfully suggest this is not a significant matter. The first two sentences of the lede say "A vegetable oil is a triglyceride extracted from a plant.[1] The term "vegetable oil" can be narrowly defined as referring only to plant oils..." Given that is the definition, then I suspect most readers would be ok with calling fruit oils vegetable oils.

2. These content changes affect the medical description and sources for the article, so must provide high-quality references ... I'm unaware of such reviews existing

See Diet and disease--the Israeli paradox: possible dangers of a high omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid diet and New insights into the health effects of dietary saturated and omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

My main issue is with the inaccuracy in describing fruit oils as vegetable oils (seeing as the page is not 'plant oils'). The potential downstream effects of people lumping fruit oils with vegetable oils is indeed perhaps one step too far for this wiki page.

Mentor Talk Contributions 17:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli study is > 20 years old (see WP:MEDDATE) and was speculative. The BMC article is not a review of high-quality clinical trials, so does not meet the encyclopedic standards of WP:MEDASSESS. If we can find medical association position statements, or a systematic review on the value of a low 6:3 ratio, then writing a different message would be warranted. I'll look further. --Zefr (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response.

1) Could you share your opinion on the fruit oils factually not being vegetable oils and what that means for their inclusion into the vegetable page? 2) There aren't a lot of great studies on this, one recent-ish one: 2013 Systematic review on 3/6 ratio and cognitive function/alzheimers. See also the omega-6 elements of the discussion section in Meta-analysis: Effects of Eicosapentaenoic Acid in Clinical Trials in Depression

Mentor Talk Contributions 12:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Again as above, the lede begins by defining vegetable oils to include all plant-derived oils, including fruit oils: "A vegetable oil is a triglyceride extracted from a plant. The term "vegetable oil" can be narrowly defined as referring only to plant oils"

2) PMID 23451843 impresses as inconclusive from preliminary, limited results, i.e., unencyclopedic. In addition to be outdated, PMID 21939614 provides limited results for one clinical disorder, but isn't sufficiently broad to make a general statement. This search provides other examples, but I don't see any that represent an integrated analysis to represent an encyclopedic conclusion per WP:MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Ah, I had stupidly missed that by focusing on the table. Entirely my fault for not examining the context properly.

2) I'll continue to follow research as it comes out and revisit the issue if a sufficiently strong analysis is released. I suspect it will take a while since omega 3's are not as hot a research topic as the 6's.

Thank you for the productive discussion! Mentor Talk Contributions 07:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omega 6 and health risks

Hello Mentor

You said: We previously had a discussion regarding omega-6 consumption in humans and the potential health issues therein. You indicated that the data lacked better data and meta analysis. At the time I had not yet found any such studies.

What is your opinion regarding: Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study and updated meta-analysis where The intervention group (n=221) had higher rates of death than controls (n=237) (all cause 17.6% v 11.8%, hazard ratio 1.62 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.64), P=0.05; cardiovascular disease 17.2% v 11.0%, 1.70 (1.03 to 2.80), P=0.04; coronary heart disease 16.3% v 10.1%, 1.74 (1.04 to 2.92), P=0.04). Inclusion of these recovered data in an updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed non-significant trends toward increased risks of death from coronary heart disease (hazard ratio 1.33 (0.99 to 1.79); P=0.06) and cardiovascular disease (1.27 (0.98 to 1.65); P=0.07).

and n-6 fatty acid-specific and mixed polyunsaturate dietary interventions have different effects on CHD risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. where For non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI)+CHD death, the pooled risk reduction for mixed n-3/n-6 PUFA diets was 22 % (risk ratio (RR) 0.78; 95 % CI 0.65, 0.93) compared to an increased risk of 13 % for n-6 specific PUFA diets (RR 1.13; 95 % CI 0.84, 1.53). Risk of non-fatal MI+CHD death was significantly higher in n-6 specific PUFA diets compared to mixed n-3/n-6 PUFA diets (P = 0.02). RCT that substituted n-6 PUFA for TFA and SFA without simultaneously increasing n-3 PUFA produced an increase in risk of death that approached statistical significance (RR 1.16; 95 % CI 0.95, 1.42). Advice to specifically increase n-6 PUFA intake, based on mixed n-3/n-6 RCT data, is unlikely to provide the intended benefits, and may actually increase the risks of CHD and death.

The first BMJ study is from 2013 bordering, out of date per WP:MEDDATE, and was a limited study on a small intervention group. I would classify the study as primary research, and not recommend using it. The second BJN study (2010) is more out of date. This 2017 review reaches the same conclusions, and states something that seems universally true as a design and trial conduct problem of food intake clinical studies: "The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials." We can discuss further here, if you wish. --Zefr (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]