Talk:Coconut oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Energy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Coconut oil is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Coconut oil at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 

Health organizations against[edit]

An IP has removed the following piece three times: "Many health organizations advise against the consumption of high amounts of coconut oil due to its high levels of saturated fat."

On my talk page, the editor explained, "coconut oil is very heathly for you give me a souce where health companies think its bad for you mma fighters n athelets eat it everyday"

I replied, "That various athletes use it does not, in any way, demonstrate that it is healthy to do so. The "Health" section cites numerous organizations (United States Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, International College of Nutrition, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, British National Health Service, and Dietitians of Canada) saying as much. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks." (As the text is in the lede summary, we typically do not cite the claim there when it is extensively sourced later in the article.)

Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Although many health organizations warn against the consumption of coconut oil because of saturated fat content, consumption of coconut oil is recommended by an alternative health organization called the Weston A. Price Foundation. This recommendation is based on research of the effects of the consumption of saturated fats on cholesterol and also of specifically the consumption of coconut oil on cholesterol. One such study examined the effects of removing coconut oil from a person's diet. The effects were an increase in total and LDL cholesterol and a decrease in HDL cholesterol.
  • Mary G. Enig, PhD. "A New Look at Coconut Oil". Weston A Price Foundation. 01 January 2000 19:37. www.westonaprice.org. 25June13.
  • Prior IA, Davidson F, Salmond CE, Czochanska Z. Cholesterol, coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls: a natural experiment: the Pukapuka and Tokelau Island studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 34:1552-1561;1981
Wkemp22 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Wkemp22
Generally when we present health information in an article, it needs to be sourced following WP:MEDRS. The sources and organization you mention above fail MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This needs to be revisited. Weston A Price is not the only source on Coconut Oil's benefits. If I could submit my own blood test results over a 3 year time span, I would, but cross research on this to offer a counterpoint would do a lot of good. 71.219.254.137 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to submit your own research, but, unless your research has been subjected to peer-review and published in a reputable scientific or medicinal journal, mentioning your own personal experiments would violate Wikipedia's policy about original research--Mr Fink (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course not! People on Wikipedia need resources to quote, so I understand, but people as a whole are being lied to about the benefits and health of Saturated Fats. But I understand why it's not common knowledge. Yet. The time will come. 71.34.128.135 (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC) (same as previous comment, even if my IP has changed)
THC Loadee has been indefed for disruption/personal attacks/socking. Due to IP socks, this article is semi-protected. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


I am not an "IP" and I removed it from the opening paragraph. The sentence I removed was repeated verbatim in the health section, which is where it belongs. I do not believe it is important enough to include in the opening paragraph. Chekit (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it. We should reword it in the health section. It's fine in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Composition[edit]

There used to be a detailed composition of the fatty acid profile on this oil, and it's been replaced altogether with a chart that summarizes the composition in comparison to other oils. Can someone please add back the detailed composition of this oil? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spudchick (talkcontribs) 19:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is this garbage table here? It defies credulity that the composition is exactly 6.000 % of this and 3.000% of that. This table should be removed and the composition of coconut oil actually detailed. Comparing it to multiple other oils is obviously some fan-boys work but is just not relevant to an article on a single oil.173.189.74.76 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of the obvious[edit]

If someone reverts your edit, read the edit summary. If, upon reading the edit summary, specifically discuss the issue on the talk page. Saying your edit is now correct on the talk page is not discussing the issue. If several editors revert your edit several times and you are blocked for edit warring, do not assume that lack of discussion on the talk page means everyone has now agreed with you. Additionally, do not edit under an IP address and/or another user name during your block. Gee, thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that THC Loadee is more interested in perpetuating the edit war, while simultaneously ignoring all attempts at discussion and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with him of ignoring all of his alleged attempts at discussion.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

THC Loadee has been indefed for disruption/personal attacks/socking. Due to IP socks, this article is semi-protected. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Another sock. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/THC_Loadee.) Watch for more, request protection as needed. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
HSV-1 is a really annoying problem that you really can't get rid of. I wonder if the misunderstood 66% medium-chain fatty acids in coconut oil (as cited in livestrong) are an effective treatment for this. I would be REALLY nice to get rid of this recurring annoyance. (Note that this has nothing to do with HSV-1. I've opened a new sock case.) - SummerPhD (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

positive and negative health stuff[edit]

This edit [1] has changed the lead, but I don't see any positive effects mentioned in the body of the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the cholesterol stuff. Though the article referenced is not solely about coconut oil. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, all the research I've seen shows coconut oil is good. I'm not aware of any research that shows it's bad. So, although it's true that lots of governments and NGOs recommend broadly against saturated fats, putting that so strongly at the top of the coconut oil article seems misleading and biased. Just having it all down in the health section is at least an improvement. Cup of cocoa (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but we have to summarize current mainstream thinking. I am quite sympathetic to your view, but we have to go by mainstream secondary sources. The one for the cholesterol effects actually does not look only at coconut oil. I hope others chime in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The only downside I can find, is that although coconut oil is good for you, it *might* not be as good for you as some other healthy oils, like olive oil, as per [2]. Not sure if that's worth mentioning in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cup of cocoa (talkcontribs) 02:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole paragraph on saturated fat govts/NGOs should be removed for a reference to Saturated_fat#Association_with_diseases instead. That page already goes in to detailed sourcing on the fact that there's not much of any scientific evidence to support the recommendation to avoid saturated fat, but also notes that various governments and NGOs recommend avoiding it. Just linking over to that seems better. Cup of cocoa (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream medical thought still advises against the use of coconut oil. When that changes, we can change the article, but it should state this unequivocally as long as the medical mainstream is also unequivocal. Yobol (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
What? You just made the article even *more* biased. I don't know what you consider mainstream, but there are no studies showing coconut oil is bad. As mentioned above, per the [3] article, the only thing to note is that maybe some other oils are even a little better. Cup of cocoa (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
If you would read the article, we have multiple sources from mainstream medical organizations saying it should be avoided. Yobol (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes there are mainstream govts and NGOs saying it should be avoided, but the point is that there has never been any study to justify that recommendation. Mentioning their recommendations is fine, but the state of medical research should also be reflected. Cup of cocoa (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Produce a WP:MEDRS compliant source, and we can talk. The high quality sources we already have that do meet MEDRS say it should be avoided due to its saturated fat. Yobol (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We need MEDRS sources, Yobol is right on this one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

He just deleted MayoClinic and IUPAC references. The page is more biased than ever towards governments/NGOs and away from the medical research community. I don't see how that could possibly be seen as an improvement. Cup of cocoa (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I deleted material that placed undue weight to speculation about lauric acid. Most of the weight should be given to higher level sources such as recommendations by high quality medical bodies. Yobol (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Coconut oil apologist MEDRS list[edit]

The citations offered in this artcle are a good list of potential MEDRS. However, the article itself should not be cited, as they exaggerate, speculate, and misrepresent many of the studies linked to. As an example, their claim that a study has shown an increased burning of 120 calories a day had 8 subjects, all young male college students. And they were consuming 190 extra calories worth coconut oil for the study. And 120 calories was on the higher end of the range observed within the 8 subjects. So while this is a good round-up of the research, please don't believe anything written in the article. Gigs (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Are any of them reviews? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe so, and many of the studies were very small. They should of course be used with due caution. Gigs (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)