Talk:Omega-6 fatty acid/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fish Oil Blog[edit]

Removed reference to Fish Oil Blog .com which is clearly a commercial site and violates Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.190.84 (talk) 02:48, December 25, 2005

Commercial Site?[edit]

I would like to know why you think that Fish Oil Blog is a commercial site. It has ads, but that's all it seems like to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.37.146 (talk) 10:24, January 6, 2006

Isn't it irrelevant to the article anyway, seeing as fish oils are primarily omega 3s? 81.141.169.205 (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny[edit]

Such a tiny page for a vital nutriment ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.213.254 (talk) 16:16, April 18, 2006

margarine ?[edit]

can we be serious here, margarine is full of trans fatty acids from hydrogenisation ! Let's cite the good sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.213.254 (talk) 16:19, April 18, 2006

Citing your name is good format too. Also, margarine does not have to contain trans fats, it's only common so as to increase shelf life and viscosity. Rhetth 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monounsaturated n-6?[edit]

Is there such thing as 18:1 (n-6)? If not in nature, could this potentially be created by the partial-hydrogenation process? Frankg 23:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polyunsaturated fat?[edit]

I'm guessing Omega 6 is a polyunsaturated fat, but is that true and should it be in the article somewhere? Rhetth 12:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemically, all ω-6 fatty acids are mono- or polyunsaturated. Mono forms may exist in trace amount in nature but are not known to be nutritionally significant. All the abundant ω-6 fatty acids (i.e. the ones in the table) are polyunsaturated. David.Throop 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this is related to my question above. :) Frankg 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK. I'll say that after many long nights of surfing the web, I haven't come up with any references to ω-6 monosaturates. I've also only seen one reference to any ω-3 or -6 that has less than 18 carbons. None with an odd number of carbons. The article that would mention it if it existed, but doesn't, is [1] Search down for 'spinach' to see the discussion of 16 carbon ω-3. On the other hand, any of those are clearly chemically possible. But they apparently play no role in human nutrition or physiology. As to whether 18:1 ω-6 might be formed during hyrdogenation — seems plausible, but I've not seen it substantiated. David.Throop 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge[edit]

I think we can merge this into Fatty Acid.RYNORT 07:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that this article does not stand on its own well. Essential fatty acid or Polyunsaturated fat would be a more promising merge target, though.
The list of ω-6 fats duplicates what's at Polyunsaturated fatty acid
David.Throop (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you recomend?RYNORT 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the ω fatty acids should be all in one article, which would be a separate article from fatty acids generally. Aramis1250 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very important in physiology and pathophysiology[edit]

This important class of vitamin-like compounds is converted to highly potent hormone-like eicosanoids. This section merits stronger documentation and comparison with the entry for 'omega-3 fatty acids'.Morelipids (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing redirect[edit]

Essential Fat links here. I'm planning to change this to link to Essential fatty acid, since both n-3 and n-6 are essential fatty acids (and in case we find other essential fats and fatty acids in the future). Unless there are objections, this redirect will take place in 24 hours. superlusertc 2010 January 18, 15:50 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to redirect "essential fat" to Body_fat_percentage as people searching for essential FATS would be looking for EFAs, but people searching essential FAT are more likely to be looking at the essential body fat percentages? 81.141.169.205 (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In nutrition, an essential nutrient is "a nutrient required for normal body functioning that either cannot be synthesized by the body at all, or cannot be synthesized in amounts adequate for good health (e.g. niacin, choline), and thus must be obtained from a dietary source." I'm not sure what the definition of essential is in body fat percentage, but I would guess that someone looking for "essential (insert nutrient here)" would be looking for the nutritional definition of essential. As always, there's no reason why you can't BEBOLD if you think it's wrong. superlusertc 2010 February 20, 13:47 (UTC)

I would have to agree with superluser here. I came looking for essential fatty acids (both omega-3 and -6) and was directed here. Essential should be used as it's commonly used in nutrition, as something the body needed from a source outside the body. --Delta Tango • Talk 10:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info about the nomenclature.....[edit]

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC system[edit]

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse with n-6 fatty acids with ω−6 ones, as the two naming systems....[edit]

are different. The former ones belong to IUPAC convention and ....the later ones???..... --222.67.208.221 (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of the trival naming for the term.....[edit]

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.208.221 (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: additional search results using other academic search engines are required to verify the above findings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.208.221 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand the intro[edit]

I think the intro is unclear. This part in particular:

The biological effects of the n−6 fatty acids are largely mediated by their conversion to n-6 eicosanoids that bind to diverse receptors found in every tissue of the body. The conversion of tissue arachidonic acid (20:4n-6) to n-6 prostaglandin and n-6 leukotriene hormones provides many targets for pharmaceutical drug development and treatment to diminish excessive n-6 actions in atherosclerosis, asthma, arthritis, vascular disease, thrombosis, immune-inflammatory processes, and tumor proliferation.

Problems:

  • What are "the biological effects"? - generally beneficial or hazardous?
  • "mediated" = reduced?
  • What does it mean to "provide many targets for pharmaceutical drug development"?? Do companies want to emulate Omega-6 fats? Piggy-back other substances onto existing fats? Fight against Omega-6?
  • I don't know how to read the last part at all. Do omega-6 fats "provide ... [ways] to diminish [...] atherosclerosis, asthma, arthritis [...]"? Or do pharma companies want to develop ways to prevent these diseases which are caused by Omega-6 fats?

I'm completely lost. Gronky (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i was reading this and asking, good or bad? I know it's all research and controversial and technical, but, heck, how about a few words with just one or two syllables. I added "Some medical research suggests that eating a lot of certain omega−6 fatty acids may lead to some diseases." to the end of the first para. Adapted from section 2. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why only negative effects?[edit]

AHA disputes that they are pro-inflammatory, and says they are healthy. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Omega-6-Fatty-Acids---Science-Advisory_UCM_306808_Article.jsp Ricardianman (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AHA is at the top of the reliability scale for Wikipedia sources yet this review has been ignored in the article. The AHA concluded that:
  • consumption of at least 5-10% of energy from Omega-6 fatty acids reduces the risk of CHD relative to lower intakes;
  • Even higher intakes appear to be safe and may even be more beneficial (as part of a diet low in cholesterol and saturated fat);
  • There is no association between high intakes of Omega-6 and cancer incidence;
  • There is no consistent evidence that Omega-6 increases the risk of strokes, and some evidence that the risk is reduced.
  • The suggestion that people should reduce the omega-6 content of their diets is more likely to increase CHD than to reduce it.
In my view, this article is unbalanced and therefore dangerously misleading, in that it encourages people to reduce their omega-6 intake and thereby increase their CHD risk, based on a faulty understanding of the science. This is disturbing in an article which is rated as being of high importance and it needs substantial revision. Beechnut (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AHA is not credible[edit]

The AHA takes money from seed oil interests - they also claimed cocoa Puffs were heart friendly.

We know that PUFA oils change insulin sensitivity via changing the FADH2:NADH ratio (which makes PUFA's an endocrine disrupter). PUFA's claim for health was that they lowered LDL - but probably by making people fat. We have a pandemic of type II diabetes(T2D) and obesity - that started about the same time they introduced artificial animal fats (AKA concentrated seed oil) to our diet. The LA(linoleic Acid) content of human body fat bio-accumulates - and has gone from 8% in 1960 to over 25% today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Health Effects of Omega-6[edit]

The indictment of Omega-6 fatty acids in the introductory paragraph as a cause of inflammation, and no reference to how controversial this claim is, is inappropriate. I am planning to take a stab at an edit, but I will leave my plans to do so open for comment before I do so. Neither the AHA, nor the WHO accept this claim, and recent research would appear to debunk the value of the Omega-3/6 ratio as important. Of course this is far from settled, but it's not settled from either perspective, and thus should be relegated to speculative, and moved from the introduction, or left as little more than a comment, and expanded upon deeper in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhisagan (talk • contribs) 23:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a better justification and scope[edit]

This article should start by explaining the characteristics (chemical or biological) that justify treating ALL omega-six fatty acids together as a distinct group. Just because ONE fatty acid is (allegedly?) essential and happens to have a omega-6 double bond is not enough.
At the very least, it should clarify that the topic is omega-6 FAs that occur in the human diet, which is a very small subset of all omega-6 fatty acids. The latter include infinitely many inedible, indigestible, and even toxic FAs.
Could "omega-6" be nothing more than a meme that the oil and health supplement industries have found useful for their marketing?
Anyway, health studies that tested the health effects of specific omega-6 fatty acids should be described as tests of THOSE fatty acids, not of "omega-6 acids" in general. This mischaracterization is like describing a study of the safety of Ferraris as being about the risks of driving red cars.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omega-6_fatty_acid/Archive_1&oldid=1087309243"