Welcome to the Forum Limobean.
You are confused because the description of the project given at the cited web page is very misleading.
They did NOT calculate the percentage of saturated fat from the time to clear the iodine staining -- they used the data in the first table of the first reference given in their bibliography. Their statement of their hypothesis is incorrect. Their hypothesis is actually something like "the time to clear the iodine staining in the oil goes up with the percentage of saturated fat in the oil". The independent variable is really the percent saturated fat (obtained from the reference cited in their 'References'). The dependent variable is the time to clear the iodine-induced color. They do not calculate the percent saturated fat at all. They do not even plot the time versus the percent fat! A very shoddy writeup indeed. I would give it a C-
For your report I suggest you use their table but fill in the times from your data. If you want to make this a more polished effort, add a graph of time versus percent saturated fat. Also, ideally you would test each oil at least three times to see how accurately you can measure the time-to-clear; plot all three (or more) points on an x-y graph (not a bar graph), then add points for the average and run a line between the average value points. That way the reviewer can see the uncertainty of each point as well as the best estimate (the average). Finally, point out the error in the hypothesis in the write up, but use cautious wording, something like: "I believe a better description of the hypothesis and the independent variables would be ..." so as not to be offensive.
Sorry you ran into this. Best luck on your report.