Talk:Diet and heart disease

Clean-up to remove undue weight of minority POV

The article had grown to be a series of sections, some of which had become POV Forks for other articles. These minority views should be worked out in the main articles, not here. Therefore, I created a list of the main articles that were mentioned and added others that are also relevant. I'll try to continue to build this article using a NPOV, but it should probably be merged elsewhere. OccamzRazor (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality disputed

This article gives undue weight to the minority view expressed by THINCS and Mary Enig. It reads like an advocacy article published by the Weston A. Price Foundation rather than an encyclopedia entry.

It needs to be rewritten completely to present the current scientific consensus regarding the role of saturated fat in heart disease - while recognizing the vocal minority viewpoint. See Lipid hypothesis for a good example of how to do this. --Javance 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. This article became almost entirely a soapbox for a minority view. I will attempt some clean-up and merging, but I don't believe this is an encylopedic article in itself as the research is vast and evolving and there are many types of "heart disease." It's too easy to select individiual studies to support a POV. Some of the studies cited as references are as old as 1940 and 1963. Articles like this can be dangerous if people view it as health advice instead of consulting a doctor or dietician. OccamzRazor (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Suggestion

Merge as suggested is probably best - there is already some material in Coronary heart disease on this subject. Inner Earth 12:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate. There's a huge amount to write about Coronary heart disease (e.g treatments) that are nothing to do with diet. Diet and heart disease is a whole and lengthy topic in itself, though the present article has a long way to go. I'd suggest moving most of the diet stuff from there to here and putting in a main tag. Nunquam Dormio 15:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Cardiovascular disease is a better candidate for merging. JFW | T@lk 07:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cardiovascular disease per Jfdwolff. -AED 18:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Nunquam Dormio. And speaking of stuff we could add, could someone who knows more about this add something to the article about monounsaturated fat? The monounsaturated fat article refers to this as a source of more information about how fats affect heart disease, but there's nothing here on monounsaturated fat's affect on heart disease. -- noosph e re 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge - a random passer-by. -69.87.204.151 00:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with something else please, or just scrap the whole article altogether. This article is only ever going to serve the purpose of somebody putting forward their interpretation in another forum. There is enough about the subject in the Cardiovascular disease and cholesterol articles already, this is unnecessary. 79.67.121.125 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sugar

So is sugar responsible for some of the heart disesase? 134.250.70.126 17:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)rogerdpack[reply]

Many researchers are starting to consider this is a possibility. Specifically, heart disease actually correlates much more closely with triglyceride levels (carried on the VLDL lipoproteins) than LDL levels (which themselves are inconclusive due to many variations in size and function of LDL particles and a general lack of understanding of the difference between the LDL particle and cholesterol carried in an LDL particle). Higher carbohydrate (particularly refined starches and sugars) lead to elevated triglyceride levels. However this still an extremely controversial and "fringe" hypothesis, apparently not even worthy enough to be included in Wikipedia articles, based on the POV problems in this and too many other related articles. Fortunately the research is out there and will eventually come to light. --WayneMokane (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citations

"The human body can convert ALA to EPA, and EPA to DHA, but the efficiency, and sufficiency for optimal health, of this conversion is controversial. Studies have found EPA and DHA levels in vegans to be about two thirds lower than in omnivorous people."

Should both these statements not have citations? The latter one definitely ought to - if these studies exist, it should reference them. 81.104.186.166 (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:CITE -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 18:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No "experts", please

This article can only hope for a semblance of objectivity if it references SOLELY scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Inclusion of the opinions of "experts", both pro- and anti-cholesterol, have turned it into an editorial.

We need to remove all weasel words. "It is generally believed" and such do not belong on wikipedia.

Let's make a referenced list of all large controlled, randomized studies that are relevant to the subject, and exclude all expert (potentially biased) commentary on it. The Harvard Nurses Study, for example, is not even mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.173.36 (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore bulk of article

I see that the majority of the article has been edited away. Even though it may have been imperfect, cannot it be restored as a temporary measure until something better is written. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" or something like that. 78.146.18.113 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]