Template talk:Vegetable oils comparison

Another crappy reference

The reference used for the smoke point of coconut oil and several other oils is Emissions of volatile aldehydes from heated cooking oils (doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.09.070), which does in fact list these smoke points. However, the smoke points are listed in the introduction and with no citation given. If the smoke points are a result of the researchers' own work then it is not explained in the article (materials and methods section does not mention it). I had hope that the nearby citation to the groups previous work Comparison of Volatile Aldehydes Present in the Cooking Fumes of Extra Virgin Olive, Olive, and Canola Oils would lead to a source for these numbers, but that article briefly mentions two of the same smoke points and cites another article which doesn't mention smoke points at all.

If one of the citations listed in this cited article is the source of the smoke points then it is not obvious which one.

Anyone have a better citation for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcjuul (talk • contribs) 09:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I found another template listing smoke points here and it's a mess of conflicting data with no primary sources as citations. Any source giving a single temperature rather than a fairly wide range for a given type of oil should probably be treated as suspect, especially if it isn't a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcjuul (talk • contribs) 10:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Crappy reference

I removed this nonsense reference:

<ref name=Temperatures>[http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/why-rancid-healthy-oils-are-more-dangerous-than-the-bad-oils/ Why Rancid “Healthy” Oils Are More Dangerous Than The “Bad” Oils] by Thomas Corriher.</ref>

1. [http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/why-rancid-healthy-oils-are-more-dangerous-than-the-bad-oils/] is a website which also features such gems as [http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/can-we-trust-the-cdc-claim-that-there-is-no-link-between-vaccines-and-autism] Can We Trust the CDC Claim that There is No Link Between Vaccines and Autism?
2. That cited page is itself a copy of [1]
3. The original article is itself not properly researched. It cites such gems as
   1. [2] Christian Chefs International, which is just a re-post of some other article elsewhere (bad character set on the web page, a sigh of a copypasta), which itself claims to be citing a book (The New Professional Chef, 6th edition 1996)
   2. [3] The University of Illinois "the Ask Van", which is just volunteers answering by googling.
   3. [4] Cooking for Engineers. This seems ok.

Sorting

| 6 - 9 || 10 - 22 || 68 - 89 || 56 - 71 || 12 - 18 || 10 - 22 || this is what I found in the flaxseed row. It prevents the sorting function from working properly. I took the midpoint of each entry as the number to use. Now it sorts correctly. I think it important that it sort, as this feature is used to find a oil with the properties wanted. I also converted all "-" to " " which works as well and sorts. I am not certain that these thing prevent sorting but they did in my tests just now. Now it sorts.Nick Beeson (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification. Deletion?

Oleic acid is a mono-unsaturated fatty acid (see Oleic acid) and therefore should appear under monounsaturated fatty acids, similarly to the subcategories of polyunsaturated fatty acids, rather than looking as if it is either a category of polyunsaturated fatty acids or something else entirely, which it is not.

I would like to have edited it accordingly but the edit is to columns and that requires an edit of the entire table so it'd be better if someone more dextrous than I would do it to avoid a mess.

However I also notice that the vaues for omega-9 are shown as very similar and often identical to those for monounsaturaded fats as a whole, so I wonder if those values might not simply come from a different source. The easiest thing would be to delete the column entirely and edit the monounsaturated column title to say "(incl omega-9).

LookingGlass (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing reading through it, saw your comment and ... rearranged. Gzuufy (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Citations for omega fractions?

I did not see any citations for the omega-fraction breakdowns. What is the source of these numbers? Gzuufy (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Gzuufy: other than a specific publication - if one can be found for a particular oil (not a fertile area for publishing usually) - the best source for breakdown of fat composition in oils is the Conde Nast site, nutritiondata.com (ND), shown here for palm oil. ND uses SR-21 from the USDA nutrient database (therefore, could be slightly off numerically and out of date, due to updates to the current version, SR-28), and dissects the data in a clear way. The user has to select the 100 g amount from the pick list for serving size, scroll down to Fats & fatty acids, then click on 'More details'. For reference, the fatty acid number notations can be found here. I'm currently going through all the oils listed in the template to update them for SR-28 and to add the USDA and ND references where needed. --Zefr (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

adding a column for ω-6:3 ratio

Hello everybody, I wasn't able to add the column "ω-6 : ω-3 ratio" on the correct location namely after the "Linoleic acid (ω-6)" column (right before the "smoke point" column) with multiple attempts. I would appreciate it if someone could correct it so that then we can add the ratios. Also, I must explain that in most sources Omega 6 & Omega 3 values are provided with their ratios. It would make it possible to compare different oils in terms of their health benefits from ω-3. Searching for omega 6, 3 "importance of the ratio" (with quotes) yields 3,450,000 results. Thanks! TheBritishColumbian (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I moved the columns in line with your suggestions. Please check for typos. Gzuufy (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)