Talk:Medium-chain triglyceride

Cholesterol

MCTs can raise blood cholesterol levels.

"MCTs significantly raised serum cholesterol in subjects with prior mild hypercholesterolemia." MCTs "decreased HDL cholesterol"

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDN/is_5_7/ai_94159012/pg_2

Mixing phytosterols with MCTs can reduce these negative impacts: "MCT oil, phytosterols and flaxseed oil" results in "a better lipid profile than those who consume a diet rich in OL [olive oil]" alone.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/6/1815

Itsme2003 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)My citation of PDR hEALTH might not conform to the standards. I would appreciate it if someone would clean it up if needed.

Clear up reference on MCT ratios

It appears that the reference (currently [1]) on the ratios of various MCTs in coconut oils is no longer valid; now it leads to an index of terms, which doesn't immediately appear to have an entry for MCTs. --Rory-Mulvaney (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The link was invalid. And searching the PDRHealth.org did not reveal the intended article. Doing a little more searching, I did not find a statement which backed up the assertion. So, I replaced it with "citation needed." However, looking at a couple of sample products, the statement did appear reasonable and worth keeping. NOTE that the assertion of MCT ratios in the article is for commercial products, not coconut oil which is the topic of this question. Fatty acid ratios in coconut oil are quite different. According to the USDA FNIC database, coconut oil has about: 8% caprylic (8 Carbons), 7% capric (10 C), 46% lauric (12 C), 18% myristic (14 C), 8% palmitic (16 C), 2% stearic (18 C). --EricE (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent source

The Handbook of Functional Lipids is an excellent source of info on MCTs. I'd recommend anyone editing this article to read the relevant section and follow the refs. --Slashme (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dietary Relevance needs cleanup

The assertions in the first paragraph of "Dietary Relevance" are both dubious, and probably not on topic, at least as written. For example, it says:

The milk fats of cows, sheep, and goats are rich in short-chain fatty acids.

According to the cited source and others, the values are about 10% of total fat. Is that a "rich source"? And since this is an article about MCT, is it relevant? The paragraph might be rewordable to make it relevant and more correct. Otherwise, it might be worth removing. --EricE (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

How long is a medium chain triglyceride?

I have found a few peer reviewed articles that give different lengths for medium chain triglycerides. If it is greater than 12 carbons it cannot passively diffuse as described in the first paragraph (and the first reference). The most common fatty acid in coconut milk is lauric acid (12C) but the range this morning said 6-10. There are a bunch of inconsistency in this article. I am trying to clean some of them up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.242.170 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The peer-reviewed scientific literature, including the paper by Bach cited after the statement of chain length that starts this article, supports the definition of medium chain triglycerides (MCT) as being between 6 and 10 carbons in length. I have cleared up the inconsistencies in this article, and also cleared up the article on coconut oil that echoes the inconsistency. A 12-carbon fatty acid is not considered as a component of a MCT. 04:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blonz (talk • contribs)

There are inconsistencies across the published research. I expect it is because we're using a poor definition of MCT. Let's find some definitive sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that the resource you cite for the 6 - 12 carbon length states SPECIFICALLY that MCTs are 8 - 10 carbons in length. This IS the current thinking. If you want to resist this, fine. If you want to search out papers that clink to a more physical, rather than a functional classification, fine. But perhaps you should not only state one view. Why not state that there are different views as to what the definition of a MCT is, then you can cite the references that support the various positions. Your current article, the one here, on coconut oil, and on Lauric acid, are way too one-sided and not reflective of current scientific thought. Blonz (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC) E Blonz, Ph.D.

Could you please identify what sources you are referring to? --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

While it's not as definitive as I'd like, and doesn't include any discussion on the history of the categorization, Mosby's Medical Dictionary says 8-12 [1] --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You want scientific resources - please do not depend on a dictionary - here you go., ,,,,,,. To me a most telling point is that the people doing research on MCTs, the ones that rely on the specific characteristics of these lipid structures, ONLY use fatty acids of 10 carbons or less. Look at these resources. Many specifically include a definition of the MCT. I am just trying to help here. I am a scientist and academic and have no vested interest in this topic.

References

Blonz (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Ed Blonz, Ph.D.

This is a bit of a silly dispute. 1) no one's qualifications outside of WP matter - we have no way of verifying and don't care. 2) More to the point. "medium chain triglyceride" is not a technical term in the way that something like imatinib is, which designates a specific chemical. it is a loose term. 3) This can be resolved. i think, by saying something like "An MCT generally has 6 to 12 carbons, but most commonly, 8-10". 4) and everything in WP should be sourced from secondary sources (reveiws), that are fairly recent and published in high quality journals. for health related information, you can add to that, "statements by major scientific or health organizations". citations from 1982 are irrelevant. Jytdog (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I've been reading, I agree that it is not a technical term.

Medical dictionaries as sources should be fine, though sources discussing the history of the use of the categorization would be even better. Mosby's is the only one I can easily access that actually includes it. The others did not include it, hence my agreement that it is not a technical term. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

saturation

Why are all MCFA also SFA? Aren't there mono- or polyunsaturated MCFA? User:ScotXW^t@lk 14:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Stomach upset

Why does MCT oil cause stomach upset and diarrhoea? Can it be mitigated by consuming it in a greater number of smaller doses, giving it a better chance of being digested? Correctrix (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't give advice in WP. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

MCAD Defficiency

There should be a mention in the article of MCAD defficiency and a link to the wikipedia page on the condition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium-chain_acyl-coenzyme_A_dehydrogenase_deficiency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.172.97 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Branched chain MCFAs

Section "List of MCFAs" has a factually incorrect statement: "With regard to MCFAs, apart from the above listed straight chain (unbranched chain) fatty acids, side chain (branched chain) fatty acids, e.g. nonanoic acid, also exist." That reference, and the wikipedia article on nonanoic acid, describe it as straight chain. Imaginaryhollow (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, nonanoic acid was incorrectly listed as an example of a branched fatty acid. I have simply removed it from the sentence. Thanks for catching the error and reporting it here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Whole triglycerides or fatty acids

Do whole triglycerides get diffused into blood or are they decomposed into fatty acids first like other fats? I don't know much on the subject, and am likely misunderstanding. On one hand, most sources only ever discuss "triglycerides" (it's in the name), but descriptions of Butterfat suggest that t.g. are mostly mixed with shorter acids found on position 3, and only an insignificant fraction could be entirely short or medium. -- J7n (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Biologically inert?

The article says that MCTs are "a good biologically inert source of energy." That doesn't make sense to me. If it's a source of energy, it's not inert. If is metabolized by the body, it's not inert. Social Norm (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)