Coconut Oil - good for you? - what does science say?

amflautist

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (www.cspinet.org) will help you sort scientific fact from marketing hype. Here is their publication about coconut oil ...

http://www.cspinet.org/nah/articles/coconut-oil.html

3dogsrunning

Coles notes for those that don't do outside links?

Sharon_C

Thank you so much for posting this. I often get frustrated with Dr. Oz and his "claims". So many people take his advice as the absolute word that it's worrisome. This just proves that people need to do their own research and speak to their doctors first before trying anything Dr. Oz recommends.

sammniamii

Nice article, very enlightening.

But I shall continue my coconut oil use, which isn't much. I use it instead of Olive mostly because I like the taste & it's more shelf stable (I've had Olive go bad before - nasty). And as a skin lotion (i'm allergic to allot of things & perfumes, so far not with coconut oil use on my skin *squee*). I'm not one of those who eat tablespoons of it a day, maybe a single tablespoon to cook with (and the dish is then broken into 3 servings).

bacitracin

Coconut oil is great-tasting and good for you, despite Dr. Oz' claims.

Carnivor0us

CSPI is a front for anti-fat propaganda.

Encouraging coconut oil consumption is one of the few things Dr. Oz ever got right. (Only a few years late though)

jetlag

My only real issue with that article is this:

Nor is there evidence that cold-pressed oils are healthier than highly processed ones. "I am not aware of any studies," says Brenna. But he also notes that "we see no data suggesting that heart disease is rampant in several small islands in Polynesia, where people consume most of their fat as coconut fat from fresh coconuts."

There is evidence that highly processed polyunsaturated fats are toxic, so why not saturated fats. Sorry, but that one article is not enough for me to stop eating it, the implication that saturated fats are bad for you. They aren't!! Oz's claims may be wrong, but it is a healthy fat.

BigGuy47

CSPI is a front for anti-fat propaganda.

This.

I would like to see some unbiased studies on coconut oil.

cwolfman13

Didn't read the article...don't need to. Eat a balanced diet, including your essential fats...generally speaking, it's over-consumption of pretty much anything that leads to negative consequences. Get 20-30% of your diet in fat, get plenty of protein, and round your diet off with carbs...EZ-PZ.

ngyoung

CSPI is a front for anti-fat propaganda.

This.

I would like to see some unbiased studies on coconut oil.

Add me to this statement as well. CSPI has been pushing their own agenda with junk science for years. You can partially blame them for why we had a problem with trans-fats being in so much food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UecRn09mF5U

JustPeachy044

not sure about ingesting it...have heard a multitude of opinions. but I love how it makes my skin feel. better than any lotion on the market...

grantdumas7

It's not the miracle supplement as it's made out to be. It does lack EFAs after all. If you like coconut oil the use it.

Fishshtick

The current coconut oil craze has all the attributes of a pseudo-scientific fad. I look to the science, as it exists at this time, and the bulk of evidence suggests little if any health benefits and leans toward coconut oil still carrying at least some of the health risks of a highly saturated fat. No scientific review panel or professional society of nutritionists has come out endorsing increased consumption of coconut oil. The most they will say is that it might not be as bad as previously thought and can be included in a healthy diet in moderation. That is far from an endorsement. Proponents point to lauric acid as the primary saturated fatty acid and that it is shorter than some of the other saturated fats, but large sample size studies of saturated fat profiles in diets still link lauric acid with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. It is true that some of the old studies of coconut oil effects on cholesterol used hydrogenated forms, which carried its own added risks. It's also true that nutritionists are looking more closely at differentiating the risks associated with different saturated fats and recognize that some are less harmful than others. There is evidence that lauric acid increases HDL along with LDL (but it is not clear that the particular HDL components that are increased offset the LDL risk). Finally, the popular claims that heart disease risk is much lower in tropical regions that consume more coconut have been shown to be patently false.

My view is use some if you like, but I don't see the need to follow a potentially risky fad when there is much more support for less harmful or even beneficial effects of unsaturated oils, such as olive oil.

Laurenmp16

No one should be eating tons of oil, but if you're cooking with any oil, this is an ineresting article on what oils are ever appropriate to be heated.

LOL Sorry about the previous post...working and on here.

http://www.kumc.edu/school-of-medicine/integrative-medicine/health-topics/healthy-cooking-oils.html

Carnivor0us

I'm sorry to hear you wish to cancel your order. I would be happy to check the status of your order with you and provide any available options for cancellation at this time.

Wha-wha-what?

MercenaryNoetic26

All I know is I've been eating it for years now. No adverse effects here. I also use it as lotion. So all the anti-coconut oil campaigns are full of ****.

lithezebra

I go to Google Scholar when I want to find out what the science says. But you have to look at a lot of articles, or, better yet, be knowledgeable enough to be selective about which studies are most significant. I have no idea how much saturated fat is good for you. I've seen a lot of different studies that point both ways.

Zaniejane

It's a good lubricant. That's all.

MercenaryNoetic26

It's a good lubricant. That's all.

Oh yeah????? Hmmmm. :huh:

SrJoben

CSPI is a front for anti-fat propaganda.

This.

I would like to see some unbiased studies on coconut oil.

Add me to this statement as well. CSPI has been pushing their own agenda with junk science for years. You can partially blame them for why we had a problem with trans-fats being in so much food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UecRn09mF5U

Let me summarize the clip: "This organization changed it's message when new scientific data became available. That makes them evil."

You really don't get this? That's how it's supposed to work. People who ignore the truth and carry on in a wrong course are the ones deserving of censure. Not ones that alter their policy to be more correct in the light of new information.

Don't you guys remember this? This was that butter vs. margarine thing that went back and forth in the 80's and 90's EVERYONE was confused. It seemed like the recommendation flip-flopped every month or two for a while.

yarwell

The CSPI article appears to misrepresent one of its references by saying "And, contrary to what Mercola claims, the average waist circumference at the end of the study was the same—about 38 inches—in both groups"

Whereas the cited study abstract says " but only group C exhibited a reduction in WC (P = 0.005)" C = coconut oil, WC = waist circumference. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19437058

Reference to the full paper at http://www.meltbutteryspread.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Effects-of-Dietary-Coconut-Oil-on-the-Biochemical-and-Anthropometric-Profiles-of-Women-Presenting-Abdominal-Obesity.pdf shows that the soya bean group had an increase (not significant) in average waist size, despite being on a 10% calorie deficit, and the coconut oil group had a statistically significant decrease.

The soya oil group saw their LDL:HDL ratio get significantly worse, the coconut oil group the ratio reduced slightly but not significantly. Total / HDL cholesterol ratio (risk predictor) went up from 3.7 to 4.6 in the soya group - a few years off their life from a short trial.

So the CSPI thing is a fraud, but coconut oil is a lot better for you than soya oil.

Joehenny

Coconut oil is great-tasting and good for you, despite Dr. Oz' claims.

It tastes like plain oil to me.

Carnivor0us

CSPI is a front for anti-fat propaganda.

This.

I would like to see some unbiased studies on coconut oil.

Add me to this statement as well. CSPI has been pushing their own agenda with junk science for years. You can partially blame them for why we had a problem with trans-fats being in so much food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UecRn09mF5U

Let me summarize the clip: "This organization changed it's message when new scientific data became available. That makes them evil."

You really don't get this? That's how it's supposed to work. People who ignore the truth and carry on in a wrong course are the ones deserving of censure. Not ones that alter their policy to be more correct in the light of new information.

Don't you guys remember this? This was that butter vs. margarine thing that went back and forth in the 80's and 90's EVERYONE was confused. It seemed like the recommendation flip-flopped every month or two for a while.

The problem I have with them isn't that they change their recommendations based on new data - it's the fact that they lie about what they used to promote or what they've done in the past. For instance, they were on MickeyD's *kitten* in the early 90s to get them to stop using beef tallow for their fries and to switch to transfats. Fair enough, we didn't know transfats were bad for us yet - but then they turned around a decade later and not only harassed McDonalds for using transfats (because hey, those are unhealthy!) but they lied and said they had ALWAYS been against transfats.

I don't trust them, they backtrack to make themselves look good.

ngyoung

CSPI is a front for anti-fat propaganda.

This.

I would like to see some unbiased studies on coconut oil.

Add me to this statement as well. CSPI has been pushing their own agenda with junk science for years. You can partially blame them for why we had a problem with trans-fats being in so much food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UecRn09mF5U

Let me summarize the clip: "This organization changed it's message when new scientific data became available. That makes them evil."

You really don't get this? That's how it's supposed to work. People who ignore the truth and carry on in a wrong course are the ones deserving of censure. Not ones that alter their policy to be more correct in the light of new information.

Don't you guys remember this? This was that butter vs. margarine thing that went back and forth in the 80's and 90's EVERYONE was confused. It seemed like the recommendation flip-flopped every month or two for a while.

No. Summary of the clip is that they pushed for one thing then when they learned it was bad, instead of admitting they were wrong they acted like that was always their stance. They still fight against saturated fat which is more and more to being wrong and looking to be innocent when it comes to heart decease. It can raise HDL and LDL but the LDL pattern that it does raise is the large puffy harmless type.