So...about the Lauric Acid (analyzing a study)
Dragonwolf
Posts: 5,600 Member
Alright, I know there are studies to prove and disprove just about every point.
However, I ran across this study regarding types and amounts of fatty acids as they relate to heart disease occurrence. Their conclusion is that the combination of lauric and myristic acids (basically, palm oil shortening) increases risk substantially, even compared to frying foods in partially hydrogenated soybean oil.
As you can see, that flies in the face of just about everything I've learned since staring this way of eating even in the most loose of ways. I attempted to pick apart the study, as the abstract and even the dietary assessment sections seem horribly flawed (lauric+myristic acids as opposed to the individuals, the number of confounding factors known to contribute to heart disease and the difference between the subjects and controls with regard to those confounders, the presence of high levels of trans fats, etc). However, upon looking at the tables, particularly Tables 2 and 3, the worst thing about it seems to be that the conclusion that it's lauric+myristic acid that's the biggest factor is off (as the tables suggest that myristic is the bigger culprit of the two, but that stearic acid is the worst offender), or at least that it's unclear what their baseline is for that conclusion.
Can someone more versed in analyzing these kinds of studies take a look at it and tell me whether my gut reaction was justified, or whether it was off base? I'm curious to know the merits and flaws of this study.
However, I ran across this study regarding types and amounts of fatty acids as they relate to heart disease occurrence. Their conclusion is that the combination of lauric and myristic acids (basically, palm oil shortening) increases risk substantially, even compared to frying foods in partially hydrogenated soybean oil.
As you can see, that flies in the face of just about everything I've learned since staring this way of eating even in the most loose of ways. I attempted to pick apart the study, as the abstract and even the dietary assessment sections seem horribly flawed (lauric+myristic acids as opposed to the individuals, the number of confounding factors known to contribute to heart disease and the difference between the subjects and controls with regard to those confounders, the presence of high levels of trans fats, etc). However, upon looking at the tables, particularly Tables 2 and 3, the worst thing about it seems to be that the conclusion that it's lauric+myristic acid that's the biggest factor is off (as the tables suggest that myristic is the bigger culprit of the two, but that stearic acid is the worst offender), or at least that it's unclear what their baseline is for that conclusion.
Can someone more versed in analyzing these kinds of studies take a look at it and tell me whether my gut reaction was justified, or whether it was off base? I'm curious to know the merits and flaws of this study.
0
Replies
-
Dragonwolf I will take a look at it when I get some time. From my first glance it was submitted over 12 years ago and the better research on the subject has been published in the last 5-10 years in my view. With that being said the study should not be flipped off in my case since coconut oil is my go to fat.
As you stated this flies in the face of current research but what if recent research was wrong. All researchers are good at supporting their biases but few are good at trying to disprove their past results its seems.
0
This discussion has been closed.