Talk:Coconut oil/Archive 1

message: It appears that most of the content added by an anonymous user was simply made up - I have found contradictory information about factual stuff such as the smoke point.  Namely, everything in this paragraph (which has since been edited):
"Non-hydrogenated coconut oil melts at 74 degrees F.It is the most stable of all oils and has the highest smoke point of all cooking oils.Contrary to popular belief it is a very healthy oil to consume unless it is hydrogenated.Non-hydrogenated coconut oil will speed your matabolism and cause you to lose weight.It is metabolized in the body very quickly.Studies show that coconut oil consumption reduces a womans chances of getting breast cancer."
I'll just go and remove it from the article.  Scott Ritchie 23:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made up stuff 

message: I have moved the following item from the article page because the source does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which means that the item itself does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and can be deleted.
It has been suggested that virgin coconut oil may have a potential as an anti-viral agent. In the first clinical trial involving HIV patients, treatment with coconut oil for 8 months resulted in reduced viral load in 8 or 15 patients, and favorable increase in CD4/CD8 counts in 5 of 15 patients. 
-- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coconut oil as anti-viral agent 

message: This is regarding the statements on the health research controversy:
Here are the original statements:
"The above study involved only 14 subjects, and it is unclear how the coconut oil used for the study was processed. The conclusion that coconut oil is unhealthy is consistent with prior concerns raised by the AHA.
The study has been criticised as misleading. The participants in the study consumed refined coconut oil, which is regarded by some as dangerous because of the added chemicals to make the oil colorless and odorless. In contrast to the study done by the AHA, a more recent modern study 1 showed coconut oil reducing LDL and improving HDL."
Now I had emailed the authors of this study to ask them exactly what type of coconut oil they used (I too was wondering if they were using the refined or hydrogenated stuff).
This is the reply I got from Jason Harmer:
Thank you for your interest in our research study into the effects of saturated fats on the anti-inflammatory properties of HDL-cholesterol and blood vessel function.
Below you will find some additional information about the fats used in this study.
I do apologize if I have not been able to answer all of your questions.
 
Best wishes, Jason Harmer
 
COCONUT OIL:
By Melrose Laboratories Pty Ltd
4 Redland Drive
Mitcham 3132 Victoria AUSTRALIA
Tel (03) 9874 7800
www.melrose health.com.au
Sold as 300 g NET:
* Virgin
* Cold-pressed
* Unrefined
* Organic (ie: Australian Certified Organic)
* High in Lauric Acid (~48%)
* Product of the South Pacific and East Timor
* Bottles describe that the oil is produced using the Direct Micro Expelling (DME) process.
* This oil is WIDELY available in “heath food” stores within Australia.
 
SAFFLOWER OIL:
Biogenic Health Foods
By Select Health Products
2 Tarlington Place
Smithfield NSW 2164 AUSTRALIA
Sold as 500 mL v:
* Virgin
* Cold-pressed
* Free from chemicals and preservatives (but no specific mention of this product being “organic”, or Australian Certified Organic) – though it is self-described as “pure” and “natural”
* Packed in Australia
* This oil is also WIDELY available in “health food” stores within Australia
Clearly, they did their homework and used the good stuff. Can someone kindly incorporate this info into the main page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spacediver (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help - can someone add this information (don't have time to learn how to edit it right now) 

message: Anyone read this paper? A New Look at Coconut Oil
It's got plenty of referencing, though I'm no researcher, just someone who wants to believe the anti-coconut oil rheteric was based on lies and using partially-hydrogenated oil, rather than virgin. --TheRedFall 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For one, stop using alternative healing web sites as cited sources- if they cite anything, refer to that. These citations are so very, very old, mostly 60s and 70s preliminary work. Better controlled work published in the last 20 years continues to support claims that high saturated fat negatively impacts cholesterol profile and increases the risk of heart disease. I've included most of my info in the article itself. 152.3.61.244 23:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A New Look at Coconut Oil 

message: "Coconut oil is best stored in solid form - i.e. at temperatures lower than 24.5 °C (76°F) in order to extend shelf life. However, unlike most oils, coconut oil will not be damaged by warmer temperatures."
If, therefore, kept at temperatures higher than 24.5 °C, coconut oil's shelf life is shortened, i.e. some chemical processes will occur. Therefore, some damage WILL happen. The paragraph is self-negating.
:I removed the second sentence, as it is uncited and also most likely untrue.  The previous one is common knowledge - when kept cooler, triglycerides keep better.  The temp given is arbitrary, and should be removed and replaced with a more appropriate general statement r.e. temps and storage. Halogenated (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will higher temperature damage it? 

message: The Hormel Foods link says "Coconut oil contains a high level of saturated fat (92%)", whereas the article presently says "86.5% saturated fatty acids".  As a human-processed product derived from a natural source (a plant) that comes in several varieties, it seems inaccurate and misleading to give a single % saturated fat content number precise to a tenth of a percent.  Something more like "approximately 90 percent saturated fat" would probably be more appropraite.  24.85.239.188 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  % Saturated Fat? 

message: Due to the controversy over the health effects of coconut oil (is it bad or is it good), EVERY statement in the "health effects" section, for and against, should state references and sources.  The current second paragraph of this section does not do this to my satisfaction, and I am considering removing it.  Of the three assertions made here, only 1 is referenced.  Massjit 22:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important to remove claims that look like facts that are made without reference.  However, right now, the health section reads very poorly because it is a collection of unrelated comments backed by references.  It has no flow.  I think the health effects section should be re-written in such a way that it gives the reader a sense of an overall theme.  Since we can't agree that it is overall good or bad, the theme should be that there is controversy over the health effects of coconut oil; we could then group the statements into a paragraph supporting, one opposing, and add some discussion about why it is difficult to establish relative harm / benefits.  Just a few sentences would be necessary to do this I think.  Cazort 04:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that it would be better to Fact-tag first. --Ronz 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Chill Shot info 22:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effects 

message: I'm going to clean up the external links following WP:EL and related guidelines rather strictly.  I hope no one is upset by this. --Ronz 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I read all the articles, and looked at the websites hosting them.  --Ronz 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I've removed the unused references as they've been tagged as such since this edit: 20 July 2006. --Ronz 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unused references 

message: What's the point of having the first paragraph which begins, "There is widespread misunderstanding about coconut oil?" Why not just start with a summary of the health effects, if we have good sources that provides it? --Ronz 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I've been researching it more and don't see any good solutions.  Saturated fat hasn't made much headway either.  All these small-sample studies are red flags, but they'll have to do 'til we find better or some nice research reviews. --Ronz 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Effects on health" section 

message: I looked at reference [19] (Edmond K. Kabagambe et al) and this study has nothing to do with coconut oil:
:A study examining the types of cooking oils used by Costa Ricans found that those who used palm oil were more likely to suffer a heart attack than using other oils. Edmond K. Kabagambe, Ana Baylin, Alberto Ascherio, and Hannia Campos The Type of Oil Used for Cooking Is Associated with the Risk of Nonfatal Acute Myocardial Infarction in Costa Rica J. Nutr 135:2674-2679, November 2005
:
Any point in its being there? Nunquam Dormio 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now removed this Nunquam Dormio 08:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study is on palm oil 

message: Several studies have been done/are ongoing in philippine hospitals on the effects of Virgin Coconut Oil (VCO) also the National government is standardizing the the manufacturing process  along with the PNS see ref.  The Country Finally Adopts Philippine National Standards (PNS) for VCO 
but I don't feel that I can provide a NPOV on this subject at this point in time.
--Mkouklis 11:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the Philippines it's called VCO? 

message: Mum fried up some hash brown patties in coconut oil, and I couldn't breathe. The oil vapour was like trying to breathe water... yet I've never had problems with other vegetable oils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frying with it 

message: someone please include research by bruce fife, n.d.  he researched and wrote several books about the benefits of coconut oil.  he explained saturated fat better than i've ever read before: imagine a bus wherein every seat is filled to capacity--or "saturated" with riders.  that's what a saturated fat molecule looks like; its complete and intact and can't let anything in.  polyunsaturated oil molecules, and to a further extent trans fat, is like a bus with only a few seats filled.  after a while it oxydizes, attaches to free radicals, bonds to other molecules, and is otherwise dangerous.  i know i'm supposed to discuss the article, not the subject, but coconuts, and especially their oil, are so vilified by their competition [for backstory check out http://www.wholesoystory.com/ and dont get me started on canola] that countries are thinking of turning a wholesome food into feul, but feeding us oil that oxydizes in our bodies and causes cancer. VCO, when used properly, stays fresh, cooks beautifully, tastes great, and best of all, wont kill you.  sorry for soapboxing, but cancer is worth preventing :) 76.217.125.14 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fife's work doesn't even come close to meeting our standards here. --Ronz 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  live saving! 

message: Everything I have heard recently about coconut oil is that it is not anywhere as bad as it has been made out to be. The reason why it has such a bad reputation is because the Soybean lobby got their way in the 80s and 90s to push their product on consumers. Due to this, many people are having coronary problems from fats like Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil and such. If anything, this article should examine the soybean lobby's effects on the success of coconut oil and the truth about coconut oil being healthier than other fats should be stressed on wikipedia. --Barinade2151 00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negativity and Health Effects? 

message: "Sources attribute different characteristics to coconut oil's saturated fat fraction, as compared to other food products, such as those derived from animal fat."   I do not know what this is supposed to mean.  Starting with "sources" comes across as WP:WEASEL.  "Saturated fat fraction" is not easily understood.  "Characteristics" is not used or explained elsewhere, so it is also confusing and comes across as WEASEL. --Ronz 17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are those references at the end of the sentence. "Saturated fat fraction" is the quantity of the lipid that is saturated, as opposed to unsaturated. If this sounds too much like chemistry, there may be other ways to phrase it. "Saturated fat component"? The whole controversy, though, is about whether or not laurate, caprylate, and other medium-chain lipids have different physiological effects than the longer-chain lipids of animal fat like stearate and palmitate. (Hence, the characteristics.). What do you (or others) think? Frankg 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to identify one or more of the sources in some way rather than saying "Sources attribute".  Seems like "saturated fat fraction" can be rephrased to something more readily understood.  It's just the ratio of saturated to unsaturate fats, correct?  I'm still not sure what to do about "characteristics". --Ronz 16:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, rephrase to maybe, "Researchers such as Enig, Kurup,...attribute..." etc.? Meanwhile, the composition of the saturated fats (the particular type of lipids) is different from other well-known heavily-saturated fats, hence the dispute. (Let me know if I should clarify this point, I don't mean to leave out details if an expanation is appropriate.) Frankg 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of it is simple rephrasing, but it needs to be specific and clear.  "Researchers" is better than "sources".  I don't know if it's necessary to name them since there are references.  I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'm thinking it would be beneficial to refer to what is currently in the article rather than introducing new terms and phrases. --Ronz 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sources attribute..." 

message: Claims about studies showing that coconut oil is a promising treatment for AIDS, HIV, dental care, peptic ulcers, benign prostatic hyperplasia, genital herpes, and hepatitis C do not cite references that meet the Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources.  One verification source, cited twice, is to http://www.doh.gov.ph/SARS/coconut_oil.htm – a “page not found” on an otherwise functional website for the Philippine Department of Health.  The URL also seems to specify “SARS” instead of HIV or AIDS.  The other reference citation is to a paper published by http://www.coconutoil.com, not a valid scientific publication, especially when it comes to claims about treatment for diseases as serious as AIDS. Therefore, I have removed the claims. If someone can provide valid reliable sources, feel free to reinsert. OccamzRazor 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That link should be all lower-case: http://www.doh.gov.ph/sars/coconut_oil.htm works just fine. Argonel42 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims about promising  treatment for AIDS, etc. 

message: This man was the premier researcher on coconut oil until his recent death. This page is lacking without a mention of him. Unfortunately, some of the pages he's on have trouble loading (the above link is a cache), but hopefully that will clear up in time. OptimistBen (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's mentioned, but should not be discussed in detail.  His research r.e. HIV/AIDS focusses on 7 case studies, three of which developed AIDS while consuming coconut oil, one of which died within 2 weeks - hardly groundbreaking, and not even remotely statistically significant.Halogenated (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profile of  Conrado Dayrit 

message: The grammar in this article makes it almost impossible to read. It's almost impossible to work out what is being claimed. I think the first part of the article is in favour of coconut with the last part being against it. The trouble is that the bit that is for the coconut is written in such a way that it appears to be against it. I think somebody has ham-fistedly edited it.
It would be better if one of the original writers edited it... as only they can truly say what they intended to write. Slick12 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree this article needs to be revised, I don't see what you're talking about in terms of favoritism.  The article has been pretty well edited to remove POV statements, particularly in the health section.  It would be useful if you could point out some specific examples.  Halogenated (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: The article abstract for noting the association of hypertension with coconut fat intake is confusing.  It states that saturated fat intake was significantly associated with hypertension, followed by that consumption of coconut oil and butter was weakly associated with hypertension, and then followed by "Significant determinants of hypertension were higher saturated fat, particularly coconut oil".  Can someone with access to this journal:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167-5273(96)02842-2
read this over and provide some clarification?  Halogenated (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypertension 

message: I found Wikipedia very helpful to me during my medical studies, especially in studying pharmaceuticals. But this article points up the problems with permitting anyone, including those with vested interests, to post whatever they please with little objective review. Plainly those who are selling coconut oil, either for profit or just because they are True Believers, are going to be more motivated to alter it and to keep changing it to suit their prejudices than are public spirited citizens with a little basic science knowledge to make it accurate. 
In the case of coconut oil this is a serious matter as the article is implicitly encouraging the consumption of a very unhealthy product. The article contains a great deal of misinformation, one notable one being that “monolaurine” can only be found in coconut oil and mother’s milk. What could be healthier than mother’s milk? The article actually contradicts itself on that point, telling us that, in fact, the monolaurine is produced in the human body FROM lauric acid. Lauric acid is, in fact, one of the most common of fatty acids in nature. According to the Cyberlipid Center: “It occurs extensively in Lauraceae seeds (Laurus nobilis) where it was discovered (Marsson T Ann 1842, 41, 329). It is dominant in cinnamon oil (80-90%), coconut oil (40-60% as trilaurin) and is found also in Cuphea species (Umbelliferae).”
I hope someone at Wikipedia will take this article in hand and lock out the misinformed and/or greedy exploiters who are seeking to use Wikipedia to further their own ends. Consult a REAL nutritionist or an organic chemist to learn why coconut oil, with its very high percentage of saturated fat, is almost as bad for you as lard.
JohnFMayer (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coconut Oil Article Unconscionably Biased and Inaccurate 

message: Reference 10 to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7270479 does not show that they have normal lipid profiles. It explicitly states that the Tokelauans, who consume more coconut oil have a higher cholesterol level compared to the other group that had a lower saturated fat intake.
Sirrecneps (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the section to talk in case editors want to use some of this information and these sources, after sources that follow WP:MEDRS are found. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

text: This is getting far too promotional and off-topic for an article talk page.  I'm collapsing the comments. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

text: "Yes, this is further proof of Dr Mary Enig's work"  Seems you're more interested in proving Enig's work than anything else. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

text: "If..." That's a big "if" with the evidence overwhelmingly in opposition.  That's why we follow WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Effects Section