Template talk:Fats

message: Types of Fats in Food
*Unsaturated fat
**Monounsaturated fat
**Polyunsaturated fat
**Trans fat
*Saturated fat
Notable Fats
*Omega: 3, 6, 9
*Coconut oil
Hi Jeramie, I saw you've been wondering about the Omegas. I had some indecision about them too when I created the infobox. In the end I decided to leave them off because they're not really in the same boat with the other broad categories. I was thinking of extending the infobox with interesting specific fats, kind of like the box I've marked up on the right.
The thing is, I'm not sure what "notable" or "interesting" fats there are to list other than the Omegas. We could list common cooking oils, like soybean oil etc. But is that really adding value? I'm not sure... 
I don't think I like the Omegas under polyunsaturated because I think they just jam up the infobox with too many levels and details. Most people, I think, would do well to learn about the broad categories with an option to explore a finer level of detail once they've got the basics. What do you think? -- cmh 04:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have said that there is increasing interest in Omegas, especially the difference between the different sorts of Omega.--Runcorn 07:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm happy for them to be listed in the infobox, because my idea was that the infobox would help people navigate from one kind of interesting fat category to another. I've just done a bit of poking around and I'm going to move them out of the polyunsaturated category because they are not all polyunsaturated. -- cmh 14:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I like your current version of the template that's live now. I think if we start adding individual specific oils, the potential size of the table is going to become way too intrusive. Also, I don't know about other people, but when I see "polyunsaturated" I'm thinking biochemistry, but when I see "coconut oil" I'm thinking cooking. I know technically it's all the same stuff, but it just sorta seems to clash. I guess it depends on if these articles are predominantly talking about the molecular, or macrolevel, forms of fat. I also didn't realize the omegas weren't all polyunsatured, my fault. JeramieHicks 18:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Been thinking some more about it. Is it correct to say that ALL fats can be definitively categorized as saturated or unsaturated (and of those, then monounsaturated or polyunsaturated)? I mean, those are the broad, all-inclusive categories? If so, does that mean that trans fat and the omegas are just random examples of particular fats, not broad inclusive categories like the above? If so, then maybe they need to be listed as in the "Notable fats" or "See Also" part instead. JeramieHicks 18:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Omega

message: I changed the template slightly, so that "Omega fatty acids" became "Omega numbering". This is because "omega" fatty acids are really just unsaturated fatty acids sorted by the position of the last (omega) double bond -- any unsaturated fatty acid is an "omega" fatty acid, and some categories are missing, e.g. omega-5 fatty acids. So it is more accurate to refer to the "omega" classifications as just that: a classification of fatty acids, rather than a type of fatty acids ("all unsaturated fatty acids" is here trivial). 204.14.239.176 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Omega numbering

message: To all intents and purposes, ω-3 and -6 fats are always polyunsaturated.  It's chemically possible to have a monosaturated fatty acid with its double-bond at the ω-3 or -6 position.  But such fats aren't part of the normal human diet.  Just as it's possible to have ω-3 and -6 fats shorter than 14 carbons—they aren't part of the diet (and the amount 14-carbon ω-3 is vanishingly small.)
Unsaturated fat is more of an abstraction than a reality; virtually all biological sources contain significant amounts of unsaturated fatty acids.
Someone has added Interesterified fat underneath Saturated fat.  Hmmm.  Much of the fat produced by interesterification is mostly unsaturated.  But there are a variety of reasons for interesterifying.  Putting 'interesterified' under 'saturated' would be like putting 'trans' under 'monosaturated' – sort of right, not quite right.  David.Throop 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Omegas and Interesterifieds