User talk:Nutritionscience1

Large, unexplained edits to mature articles
Hi there. In Wikipedia, a huge unexplained edit of a mature article by an inexperienced editor is a problem. Perhaps this edit is a homework project, but the fact remains that typically edits are explained, they are made incrementally, and that editors - new and experienced - act by consensus. So maybe you care to discuss the situation. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Response
Hi Smokefoot, thank you for your comments. No, this edit is not a homework project, although I did note that the reason for undoing the edits I made came through as a homework project from yourself.

The reason for my edit, as was stated in the reason section, was to provide more current and evidence-based information.

Secondly, I was concerned that the second reference in the original article was used eleven times as a reference throughout the article for both important statements related to frying and smoke point, and as the smoke point reference for a number of different oils. However, the reference, although inputted as a newspaper article (which would still be quite a weak source of information) is actually a link to a product page for organic “unrefined” canola oil: https://www.maisonorphee.com/en_usa/unrefined-canola-oil/

Furthermore, a number of other references are links to product pages or an individual’s website, which is not as strong or independent as peer-reviewed journal articles or text books.

Thirdly, I disagree this is a huge unexplained edit. Rather, an incremental change (with reasons stated in edit field, and backed by many more peer-reviewed papers than the original). I have simply included standard cooking temperatures, introduced oxidative stability as a better predictor of an oils behavior when heated and provided stronger citations.

More than happy to continue this discussion and include a third-party review.

--Nutritionscience1


 * Thanks for responding. I am sure that the article needed help and we are lucky to have you.  Here are two comments that caught my attention.

If you need help or want to discuss aspects, feel free to ask.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to cite a textbook or monograph that defines smoke point to support the opening statement.
 * "Contrary to popular belief, the correlation between this point and the production of potentially unhealthy compounds has not been proven." That uncited comment seems kind of negative or agenda-setting especially for the second sentence so I removed it.
 * " hydrolysis and oxidation are the two primary degradation processes that occur in an oil during cooking." what about protein denaturation?
 * In general, it is a good idea to find superior general sources per WP:SECONDARY. Sources more general than the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
 * Thank you for clarifying. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your response, and I am happy to be part of the conversation. Apologies for the delayed response, I have been on leave with very limited access to internet.

Please see below responses to your queries:

1) Smoke point – AOCS definition now cited

2) "Contrary to popular belief, the correlation between this point and the production of potentially unhealthy compounds has not been proven" – happy to focus on positive statements for now given this feedback and your previous feedback of changes happening incrementally in a step-wise manner. Appreciate this is a topic that many find confusing which is why it is so important to provide the facts in forums such as this

3) " hydrolysis and oxidation are the two primary degradation processes that occur in an oil during cooking." what about protein denaturation?

Firstly, whilst hydrolysis and oxidation are two of the main chemical changes in oil during heating, hydrolytic stability is not a good predictor of an oils stability during heating whereas oxidative stability is, and widely researched in the literature. Therefore, hydrolytic stability is not relevant to the article (which is about smoke point, and therefore, what oils to cook with), so I removed it. I think this also follows along the lines of making small incremental changes vs larger changes.

Secondly, regarding protein denaturation, oils do not contain protein in any meaningful quantity. Usually less than 0.05%. Consequently, protein denaturation is not a degradation process in fats and oils used during cooking. If you are discussing what happens to the food during cooking (e.g.: foods that contain protein), this is a completely different topic to smoke point of an oil, and what happens to an oil when heated. That is not considered in this article and I believe that would require a separate article.

4)References – thank you for your feedback. I have added a few more references including a comprehensive text book on frying technology and practices and the American oil Chemist Society’s official method for the determination of smoke point.

A few more points based on changes that you made to the article:

1) “Smoke point of an oil correlates to its purity” - This is incorrect and purity does not equal refinement. The more refined an oil, the more it has gone through neutralization of free fatty acids, bleaching and deodorizing, for example. In the case of olive oil and extra virgin olive oil, olive oil is refined and has consequently been stripped of many phenolic compounds and antioxidants that contribute to its higher oxidative stability than olive oil. Purity is an issue of authenticity and it does not relate to smoke point.

2) “The differing stabilities correlates with differences in unsaturation, which serve as antioxidant” – This phrase is incorrect. The fatty acid profile of an oil is not antioxidant. It simply determines if the fat is more or less susceptible to oxidation.

3) “EVOO is high in such unsaturation, conferring stability” - again this is incorrect and the correct statement is “EVOO is high in monounsaturated fatty acids and natural antioxidants conferring stability”.

Separate to its fatty acid profile, EVOO is naturally high in antioxidants, and the higher the quality, the higher in antioxidants. Once an oil is refined, whilst the fatty acid profile remains the same, the volume of antioxidants decreases significantly, as does the oils oxidative stability.

For more information on grading's of olive oil, olive oil standards and antioxidants:

http://www.internationaloliveoil.org/estaticos/view/83-designations-and-definitions-of-olive-oils http://www.internationaloliveoil.org/estaticos/view/222-standards https://www.australianolives.com.au/article-detail/olive-oil-grades http://lib3.dss.go.th/fulltext/Journal/J.AOCS/J.AOCS/2001/no.3/2001v78n3p243-247.pdf

I look forward to continuing this discussion.

--Nutritionscience1 (talk) 9th January, 2017