Talk:Polyunsaturated fatty acid

message: Sentence in question: "Polyunsaturated fat, along with monounsaturated fat are "healthy fats," the amount of which in one's daily diet should be near 25 g (in a 2000 calorie-per-day diet)."
The sentence contains grammatical errors and is poorly worded.  There is no cited source.  The term, "Healthy Fat," is subjective and expresses bias when the healthiness of different fats is controversial at best.  The amount of polyunsaturated fat a person should consume varies greatly from person to person.  It would be better to express recommended intake as a percentage of total caloric intake.  However, macronutrient intake, especially of fats, is fairly controversial as well.
I intend to remove this sentence altogether.
X1101011x (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Healthy Fat and Recommended Intake

message: A sentence in the Health Benefits section contains information contradicted by its cited source: "Omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil, fish and seafood lower the total amount of LDL in the blood, which can decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease."
The link cited specifically says that omega-3 fatty acids from fish or fish oil supplements showed an increase in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels, not a decrease.  Additionally, there is nothing in the cited article linking low-density lipoprotein levels with cardiovascular disease.
X1101011x (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Increase LDL Cholesterol?

message: By reviewing the talk page for Coenzyme Q10 which is linked to under the section Relation to Cancer I've found that Peter Lambrechts, Business Developer for Kaneka Pharma, has made significant edits to the article on Coenzyme Q10 and other articles related to it, including this one, adding sections and other data in an effort to mislead readers into believing the chemical has significant benefits in reducing the risk of or curing cancer.  Because of this I recommend removing the section Relation to Cancer because it is so biased as to require enough rewriting that very little could remain unchanged.  -FoxMajik (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to Cancer 

message: Why are there articles for both of the above topics?  Are they not the same?  It is confusing to the reader.  Also, the status of the omega fatty acids as polyunsaturated fats/fatty acids is unclear.  It is also unclear as to how this relates to the polyunsaturated fat content on nutritional facts on food.71.130.241.197 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: propose merge the 2 articles ? Rod57 (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Polyunsaturated Fats versus Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids

message: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fats_and_cancer.html (82.83.46.161 23:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polyunsaturated oils increase cancer risk?

message: Are polyunsaturated oils the same as polyunsaturated fats? I read somewhere that one should avoid soymilk because it contains polyunsaturated oils, but then I looked to the ingredients of Silk soymilk brand and the label listed that it contained polyunsaturated fats, and I wondered if that were the same to polyunstaturated oils, which I am reading here, is known as a "healthy fat."
:From a biochemical point of view I don't think there is a difference between "fat", "oil" or "lipid" (of course I am excluding "motor oil", etc.) Regarding the claim that "Polyunsaturated fats are not to be compared to polyunsaturated oils, which are carcinogenic and can cause problems with the cardiovascular system", this sounds completely bogus to me, but I simply labeled the claim , on the remote chance that I am wrong. If no one supplies any backing for this odd-sounding statement I will delete it in a week or two. --Ben Best 00:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fats versus oils

message: * Polyunsaturated → Polyunsaturated fat … Rationale: This should be an uncontroversial move. Polyunsaturated was just the wrong name for this article, but I can't do it myself because a previous redirect was at Polyunsaturated fat. I've updated the Polyunsaturated fat redirect to point at Polyunsaturated but this leaves the right article with the wrong name  … Please share your opinion at Talk:Polyunsaturated. —cmh 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support, as this is the most common usage (is there any other usage for polyunsaturated at all?). --Dhartung | Talk 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
I don't see the point of pasting all of this here, but it's in the spec for requested moves so I'm doing it. -- cmh 04:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Cmh, it's so that consensus can be reached. If the discussion area always looks the same it make editors aware that a formal process is taking place, and the organization makes it easier to participate, so you get a better cross-section of opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. I didn't check that I was done after pasting this part. -- cmh 04:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support, as this is the most common usage (is there any other usage for polyunsaturated at all?). --Dhartung | Talk 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
I don't see the point of pasting all of this here, but it's in the spec for requested moves so I'm doing it. -- cmh 04:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cmh, it's so that consensus can be reached. If the discussion area always looks the same it make editors aware that a formal process is taking place, and the organization makes it easier to participate, so you get a better cross-section of opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. I didn't check that I was done after pasting this part. -- cmh 04:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Under Benefits: The statement, "Omega-6 fatty acids in sunflower oil and safflower oil also reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, but can contribute to allergies and inflammation" should be changed. Inflammation is a general term, which in this context reveals almost nothing about potential negative effects of sunflower oil or safflower oil. The inflammatory process is a necessary component of the immune response. But inappropriate inflammation can be part of a disease process. Thus, inflammation, within this context, should be fully explained. What is being inflammed? the digestive tract?  Further, these oils do not contribute to allergies... you're either allergic to them or your not, but they don't attenuate another allergic reaction. Overall, this sentence appears to be anecdotal, inaccurate and misleading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.121.228 (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that sentence sounds like a pile of crap. I am removing it; if someone wants it back they need to supply evidence. -- 125.236.160.38 (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Benefits

message: This sentence: Trans fats are more similar to saturated fat than are cis fats in many respects, including the fact that they solidify at a higher temperature. 
I changed it grom "higher" to "lower" which from what I can find on the net is what makes sense. Anyone know? Hoopiefromwayback 16:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher or Lower ? 

message: The statement which calls these polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats "healthy fats" is POV and should probably be removed. The evidence is conflicting and so the article shouldn't take a strong stance. What say you, fellow wikipedians? 76.180.120.161 07:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Healthy fats?

message: Substituted at 03:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I'm sorry, but when you wrote above is not correct !
I beg you to control what I reported below also at the conference in London:
Human Evolution: Past, Present & Future: Anthropological, Medical & Nutritional Considerations. Congress in London, 8-10th May 2013,
and published in new  "HUMAN  EVOLUTION", 29, 1-3,  2014.
Please check!
Greetings
Dr. Venturi Sebastiano:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281115776_Human_Evolution_Past_Present_Future_Anthropological_Medical_Nutritional_Considerations_Congress_in_London_8-10th_May_2013
:Conference proceedings are not sufficiently peer-reviewed, so are not usable as reliable sources for an encyclopedia per WP:SPS. The abstract content you provided is unconfirmed science, conjectural, and self-reported, which represents WP:COI; see under Common mistakes, scientists in academia. --Zefr (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: The polyunsaturated fat content of sunflower seeds given in the table is inconsistent with that appearing in the table of the WP article sunflower seed, especially considering that the latter applies to dried seeds.  The table in this article should specify whether each seed or nut entry applies to the dried product. Layzeeboi (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent nutritional content 

message: We don't really need two articles on this, but this is the common (if technically less compete) name. In terms of material, this article has better coverage of the food nutrition aspects, while the other one does a better job with the biochemistry. There's good parts of both, which is why it should be handled as a merge. oknazevad (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction between a fat (a triglyceride) and a fatty acid (an aliphatic carboxylic acid) is important, and the articles should not be merged. There does seem to be redundant information between the two articles, and given their length it might be worth merging Polyunsaturated Fat into Fat, and/or Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid into Fatty Acid. In fact both of these article titles already have redirects to those pages...  Synpath (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Having polyunsaturated fatty acid to the main fatty acid article could be a logical outcome as well. The merging of the polyunsaturated fat article to fat is too high of a merge. In fact, it was just undone as the merge left no details at the main fat article which are of interest and independently notable. oknazevad (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh you're right, I didn't see how the rest of the Fat related articles were organized. Looking at the monounsaturated fat and polyunsaturated fat articles there might be an argument to merge them with unsaturated fat. None of the three are very long, each lists several of the same compounds and have seemingly duplicate tables of information. To be honest it looks like all of these articles need work, at least to smooth out use of terminology and adding more relevant chemical images. Synpath (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as long as saturated fat and unsaturated fat keep their independent articles, as there's more than enough for them to have separate articles, and the previous merger of them into the main fat article (which was done despite there being clear consensus against such a merger) resulted in the topics getting a shallow, insufficient treatment. oknazevad (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Polyunsaturated fatty acid]] 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Polyunsaturated fatty acid which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress