Talk:Saturated fat

Needs Controversy Section

I know this has been discussed in the past. But this article is consiberably one-sided, especially seeing as there is a huge, yet well-hidden, controversy behind this. In fact, there isn't one scientific VALID study that links heart disease with the consumption of saturated fat; however, most studies, and medical literature, point to only benefits from saturated fats. These studies are numerous, and not just by Mary Enig (who is a very good source). There's even a meta-analysis out there involving more than 350,000 people that shows no correlation between fat and disease. My point is that there are tons of studies to be cited in support of the controversy. There's no reason not to include this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shicoco (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The verifiable information and medical consensus seem to be what is one-sided. Per WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, the result is that we get an article that is very appropriately "one-sided" to this overwhelming viewpoint.

We've a link to the controversy article. That seems more than enough. Otherwise we risk coatracking and giving undue weight to fringe theories. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a good point; however, there is a LOT more documentation to back up the "fringe" theory than the medical consensus. It seems here that Wikipedia editors are sticking to the consensus and not the facts. The majority of medical literature shows no link between the consumption of saturated fat and heart disease. I will add these to the page.

Also, that sentence I keep removing is irrelevant to the article. Wikipedia should use science to discuss what saturated fat is and its possible effects, not what other entities think about it. Shicoco (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe we're using science and basing the article on scientific consensus. The amount of documentation has absolutely no sway when it comes to presenting scientific or medical consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Saturated fat is a risk factor for CVD

Keep it. It is well-sourced, inherently encyclopedic and relevant. Removing it violates WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOT, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Added Opposing viewpoint

I added an opposing viewpoint and sourced it well. One of the sources is Gary Taubes, and while not a doctor, he is very well-known, and his article aggregates public knowledge into one place to analyze nutrition from a less medical nature. He was referenced by Harvard in some of their nutrition articles, and if he's good enough for Harvard Medicine, he's good enough for Wikipedia.

However, I did not go into detail, because there is a link to the main article that covers the controversy. But mentioning only one viewpoint is quite one-sided, and the opposing viewpoint, though hidden by health and political consensus, is rather large and has the majority of medical literature to back it up. Shicoco (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that the new content violates all the policies/guidelines mentioned above, as does the rationale above. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how. There exists opposing viewpoints, I added a quick bit in to keep the article neutral. This is not a fringe theory (as in the "earth is flat" theory); this is a huge controversy in the medical world. From WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I have represented a significant view that has been published by very reliable sources.

Also, all the sources are studies published in medical journals or articles by medical doctors, with an exception to the source by Gary Taubes, who is a well-known science and nutrition writer and is an authority in this area, and whose article reflects the controversy and the fact that one exists. Shicoco (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

While there are opposing viewpoints, and we present them with due weight. When presenting medical information, we follow MEDRS. We don't cherry-pick sources and give them undue weight to criticize a majority viewpoint, especially medical consensus.

It would be much easier to continue this discussion by sourcing information rather than simply presenting it as what appear to be simply personal opinions.

WP:FRINGE covers a great deal more than ideas like Flat Earth. See Wikipedia:Fringe#Identifying_fringe_theories. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ronz, multiple problems including sourcing and WP:WEIGHT issues. Yobol (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not a fringe theory, this is a REAL controversy that has been raging for decades, and I have put in the HUGE opposing viewpoint and have sourced it with VERY reliable information. From WP:Fringe "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources." (they are very well sourced) and "For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." the opposing viewpoint has A TON of scientific support from independent doctors, meta-analyses, Harvard, etc. There is actually very little data to support the link between SFA and CVHD. Do not remove valid information that is heavily sourced.

Also from WP:Fringe "Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics." Shicoco (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This single sentence is also not undue weight. It is a single sentence that presents the opposition, which is enough, as further commentary on the controversy can be found on the main article (it's funny that the main article link to the controversy page is presented yet the controversy isn't introduced at all, until now). Also, that controversy page is extremely one-sided, considering the fact that the best evidence supports saturated-fat-is-healthy view. More importantly though, that article needs better organization. Shicoco (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be selectively reading our policies. From WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." As is documented, multiple medical organizaitons recognize the adverse health effects from saturated fat. Adding material to suggest parity between the opinions of individuals and the broad consensus in the scientific community violates multiple policies, including WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia works on consensus, please do not edit war. Yobol (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You are selectively reading the policies. You didn't even read the next line: fringe theories "...have little or no scientific support". More: "...and for a fringe theory to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter.", "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources...."

However, this is not a fringe theory; it has verifiable EVIDENCE from RELIABLE sources. A fringe theory does not. So, from WP:FRINGE:"In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources...." "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article." The only thing left to discuss is undue weight. The opposing viewpoint cannot be omitted, as this gives the mainstream theory undue weight. For this reason, the alternate theory is given only one sentence, and comes after the mainstream view is presented. The opposing theory is quite large enough to be presented (think Fat Head, Atkins, Gary Taubes, Sally Fallon and her books, Mary Enig and her work, etc). Shicoco (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is a Wikipedia article dealing with this controversy (i.e. it's not a fringe theory). If the opposing view is large enough to warrant a separate article, it must, according to the rules quoted above, be mentioned in the main article along with the mainstream view. Shicoco (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The controversy is already discussed, under the table of reviews. You are equating the work of individual with the assessments of large independent medical bodies. This is a clear WP:WEIGHT violation and needs to stop. Yobol (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You are changing your argument each time. First it was the sourcing, then it was fringe theory issues, now it's weight issues. It is clear that you are letting your bias make your decisions.

This controversy is so prominent that it has its own article--but it's not a fringe theory article such as Flat Earth. Yet, the main article doesn't even mention the opposing viewpoint until after the table, and that allusion is a single, unsourced statement. This gives undue weight to the mainstream view; the link at the top of the controversy shows the fact that there is a dispute, yet the opposing viewpoint is not mentioned anywhere nearby. Wikipedia requires that all significant viewpoints are represented. Here's what policy says: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description' as more popular views...." Notice the keyword is description; there is no description at all. Here's more, from the policy article on neutrality: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It's fair to represent this significant minority viewpoint; representing in the way I have done is in a proportionate manner: it comes after the mainstream viewpoint, is a single sentence, and the rest of the article follows the mainstream view; and it has been published by reliable sources. Did you read that? Reliable sources. The one sentence after the table is not sourced. It doesn't matter that the the mainstream view follows the "assessments of large independent medical bodies", the minority view is significant and has reliable sources, and therefore will be represented in a proportionate way, which is a single sentence. Shicoco (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

My argument was that it violates WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOT, and WP:FRINGE - so the argument is unchanged. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After reading through this, I think the article as it is now is one sided and needs to include a significant section on the alternate theory. 108.242.239.177 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Evaluation of proposed sources

• Mozzafarian, et al.: Appropriate per WP:MEDRS, however is already noted in the large table so is redundant; therefore text not appropriate as proposed.
• DrBriffa.com: Clearly not an appropriate source per WP:MEDRS
• Siri-Tarino, et al.: Appropriate per WP:MEDRS, however is already noted in the large table so is redundant; therefore text not appropriate as proposed.
• Gary Taubes column in NYTimes: not an appropriate source per WP:MERS
• Mozzafarian, et al., in AJCN: Primary source, so not appropriate per WP:MEDRS
• Mary Enig/Sally Fallon on Mercola.com: Clearly not an appropriate source per WP:MEDRS
• Book chapter written by known skeptic of the lipid hypothesis Uffe Ravsnakov
• Article published on spiked-online.com: Clearly not an appropriate source per WP:MEDRS
• Jakobsen, et al.:Appropriate per WP:MEDRS, however is already noted in the large table so is redundant; therefore text not appropriate as proposed.

You are proposing to use redundant information, or mostly non-MEDRS sources. Clear violations of MEDRS, weight, etc. Yobol (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC) After reading through this, I think the article as it is now is one sided and needs to include a significant section on the alternate theory. 108.242.239.177 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Error in table

The third row (Danaei 2009) contains erroneous information. From my reading, the study showed a significant RR when SFA were replaced by PUFAs. However, the text in the right column does suggest the opposite (if it makes any sense at all - it seems corrupted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.195.93 (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)