It's precisely the fact that Coconut oil is 100% plant-based, saturated fat that it IS healthy. The notion that saturated fat causes heart disease has been thoroughly debunked as sham science. It's the inflammation in the arteries stimulated by excess sugar consumption (refined carbs, table sugar, soda, etc) that causes the problem. The body sends cholesterol to the scene to patch the damage.
Best analogy I've heard is "Gee whiz, everytime I see a fire, I see firemen. I guess firemen cause fires". Cholesterol does not cause heart disease all by itself.
You'd think scientists and the media, by this time, would have stopped relying on Dr. Ansel Keyes for their rationale for what causes heart disease. His 1950's "Seven Countries" study was an example of cherry-picked data to support a pre-determined outcome that was desired.
Finally, I can show you cultures, such as the Inuit, who's diet is almost exclusively saturated fat and protein and which are healthy (as long as they stick to their native diet). I challenge anyone to show me a culture who's diet is primarily sugar-based which has comparable health.
So why does the AHA still say that saturated fat raises LDL, and cites multiple trials? This goes beyond the media and Ancel Keys. Are these studies not able to control for confounding factors like replacing the sat. fat with sugars and refined carbs?
For what it's worth I don't think saturated fat is necessarily bad. I don't have links but I've read a couple of good studies that showed saturated fat raised LDL in a cohort of sedentary participants, but had no impact on LDL in a cohort of regular exercisers. This suggests it may be more important to focus on exercise if you're worried about HDL/LDL.
Keep in mind there's also increasing evidence that HDL/LDL are symptoms, not causes of heart disease. Maybe the strongest is the failure of drugs that lower LDL and increase HDL - they don't make people better.
E.g. Eli Lilly's Evacetrapib: tested on 20k patients over 24 months, LDL down 30%, HDL up 125% - but zero difference in cardiovascular health outcomes. Needless to say it failed the trial and has been scrapped.
>Finally, I can show you cultures, such as the Inuit, who's diet is almost exclusively saturated fat and protein and which are healthy (as long as they stick to their native diet). I challenge anyone to show me a culture who's diet is primarily sugar-based which has comparable health.
Eating fresh raw meat you actually do consume copious sugars in the form of the raw glycogen stores of the now dead animal.
Glycogen isn't made out of fructose. Fructose is the molecule that disregates appetite and is now considered by many to be at the root of the obesity epidemic.
We've been happily using coconut oil for centuries. Its the staple. Let those who disagree use their "refined" canola oil ;). Check out which oils are good for high heat cooking.
I stopped thinking the AHA were credible after they stuck dogmatically to their 'salt is evil' message despite the complete lack of any evidence to this effect, (and some evidence that low salt consumption is problematic).
"This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie, that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis."
"We might also point out that the vast area in the middle is shared by both those with and without heart disease. In fact, the solid line represents about seven times as many people as the dotted line. That means that the vast majority of people who developed heart disease developed it with cholesterol levels similar to those of seven times as many people who remained free of heart disease."
Look, everyone should be making their own informed decisions about their health and nutrition. I've made mine, and that's to completely cut out extraneous carbohydrates, and eat adequate amounts of protein, with healthy fats thrown in for flavour and satiety. I've never felt healthier, more focused, and full of energy in my life. For me, I stick to green and cruciferous vegetables. My fats include olive oil, butter, avocado oil, and coconut oil, in that order. Canola oil is used sparingly. And of course, any fats normally found in meats, nuts, eggs, and dairy.
Even if you don't subscribe to my way of eating, please understand that the American Heart Association has a financial interest in promoting this biased research. They receive most of their funding from private donors, and are backed by pharmaceutical companies that produce statins which they sell to us for big money. Finally, in the US, a lot of your food is labeled with the AHA's Heart-Check Food Certification Program.
They have a financial interest in promoting these loaded facts so that companies keep paying them for the label.
Coconut oil is definitely not going to meet those requirements. These are the same people that keep telling you to eat less butter, and eat more grains. If that worked, then why are so many of us struggling with our weight, diabetes, and heart disease? Moreover, I'm sure these studies increased fat intake without decreasing carbohydrate intake at all, which completely changes the interactions in the body.
Do your research, and judge for yourself. I just hate that folks are being told these loaded facts and are being set up for failure.
BTW, as of today, I've lost 18.6 lbs in 53 days with this new lifestyle. It does work, and I'll be getting a follow-up blood panel in 3 months to confirm it.
Bullshit, the problem is not fat, it's the carbs. Watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vr-c8GeT34
David Diamond, Ph.D., of the University of South Florida College of Arts and Sciences shares his personal story about his battle with obesity. Diamond shows how he lost weight and reduced his triglycerides by eating red meat, eggs and butter.
This one is not heart problem related, but still interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da1vvigy5tQ
Can a person be "cured" of Type 2 Diabetes? Dr. Sarah Hallberg provides compelling evidence that it can, and the solution is simpler than you might think.
So after learning a lot about it I just started ketogenic diet a couple of weeks ago (very low carb, high fat, moderate protein). Everything I read about it says MCT is good, so coconut oil is good. Pure MCT is much better but it's £18 half litre so I'm not going to cook with that.
And what was his caloric intake? Virtually every eat only X diet is based on the fact that the portions combined with the limitation on ingredients limit the caloric intake by as much as half. These diets work pretty well on overweight people since their BMR tends to be quite high due to their body mass.
I would really like to see the person that eats 3-4 500g rib eyes with a sunny side up on the side topped with half a stick of butter a day for a year that some how still gets a clean bill of health.
On the other hand eating lean red meat (<5% fat), egg whites and a bit of butter for fatty acids is a completely different story but then the initial premise is misleading.
That said unless you get a ton of fiber supplements daily I wouldn't bet on having comfortable bowel movements on that diet.
I don't think he was fat. Anyway, obviously it doesn't mean that you can eat as much as you want, it's never healthy.
I can only speak for myself, my calorie intake is restricted by about 20%. Most of it has to come from fat, not protein and your biggest problem is how can you eat that much fat. So lean meat is fine, but bacon, pork, steak is better :) And whole eggs, butter, cheese, avocados, carb free peanut butter, mayo. I measure everything, and it's still a lot of food. Since your blood sugar is basically constant during the day you don't feel hunger.
Yeah, you need fiber, but not a ton, just a teaspoon of psyllium husk powder daily, I mix it with my protein shake. Works.
I pretty much take the stance that any bit of news that says "don't eat this thing", without also saying "do eat these things instead" is a completely worthless energisation of pixels.
From the article: "While the AHA warns against it, people who cut saturated fat out of their diet might not necessarily lower their heart disease risk, a 2015 BMJ review suggested. That's because some people fill the void with sugar, white flour and empty calories."
So this bit of news translates to saying precisely "blah blah blah blah, you're all going to get heart disease. We don't know how to prevent or treat it".
But we do know the risk factors, so we should do those things that reduce or eliminate the risks: Eat food, but not too much, mostly plants. Fast regularly. Exercise, but not too much. Relaxy. Practice diaphragmatic breathing exercises. Get plenty of rest, and ensure you sleep properly. Avoid those things you find stressful. Have good relationships with your family. Get a dog and love it. Stop eating high carb foods all the freaking time. There is no safe level of alcohol consumption.
I think that roughly covers most of the risk factors for heart disease.
You will still die, something will snuff you out eventually.
> You will still die, something will snuff you out eventually.
God someone please explain this to some of my friends who have a minor panic attack if they accidentally eat GMO food. Like one meal will reduce their lives by half.
There's not much of a correlation. I think only half of the cases of cardiovascular disease have elevated LDL cholesterol. It's always more complicated than simply having elevated cholesterol; it's overall diet, exercise, and plain old genetics that have the largest effect.
Agreed. Cardiovascular disease is definitely multifactorial, as are most diseases without a known genetic cause. Even those diseases with a clear genetic abnormality, the other factors contribute to the development of said disease.
Can you link of that evidence? In form of scientific studies (quality ones)?
This is not a general "you can't prove your point, you don't have science". I'm actually interested. I have been looking for hard science in this area and have seen none that would back up your claims.
So far, all I've found is some research that artificially lowering LDL or raising HDL may not show clear correlation to lower heart disease risk- not quite the same thing as saying LDL isn't generally correlated to heart disease risk:
The linked paper goes into more detail, of course. And this is only one drug, but there are quite a few other failures of similar type, though less dramatic, discussed in the "Cardiovascular Disease" section of his blog. He always links the original papers, but they're often paywalled or highly technical.
It's been a while since I've read that book, but I seem to remember Taubes argued that LDL cholesterol could plausibly have a negative effect on cardiovascular health and that VLDL cholesterol had a extremely negative effect on cardiovascular health. Am I misremembering?
Population of Kerala : 34.8 million and many more live in Persian Gulf and other parts of India. This is a huge population, about size of Venezuela. When you talk about a State in India it pretty much is a large sample size.
When you're talking about India, 34 million people is a rounding error.
It's also a country with unusually high population diversity which means that genetically speaking you could be talking about a group of people that are naturally immune to the effects of whatever they're consuming. You'd have to take a broader sample to find out.
> When you're talking about India, 34 million people is a rounding error.
I don't understand your point. Sure its a rounding error when compared to the rest of India. But for the purposes of observing the effects of a certain foodstuff, that is certainly a large enough sample size of humans.
> It's also a country with unusually high population diversity which means that genetically speaking you could be talking about a group of people that are naturally immune to the effects of whatever they're consuming. You'd have to take a broader sample to find out.
This is highly unlikely. If there was such a genetic trait, I think it would be very apparent (e.g. we know certain populations in Africa are prone to sickle cell disease). Besides, its not just Kerala: most coastal regions in India have many many (delicious) coconut based cuisine which have been regularly consumed for generations.
What I mean is you may need to have a broader group in order to draw actual conclusions.
Medical research has been heavily damaged by not including enough diversity in the sample groups. One region of India is not necessarily proof of anything other than that particular group of people does not suffer any ill-effects.
For example, millions of Europeans have been consuming dairy products for generations and suffer no ill-effects but this is only because they have a mutation that allows them to process lactose in adulthood.
Yup. I wonder which one gives a better result: AHA taking a 10 person sample or millions of people over generations?
Sedentary life style has more to contribute than oils I think. Our lifestyle has changed dramatically over 50 years.
About 30 years ago people of Kerala almost exclusively used coconut oil. Then came advertisements and "studies" claiming coconut oil is bad and promoted other oils like sunflower etc. Since then heart disease has increased. This is general observation.
That is actually not very surprising. If you consider all the people in India, poverty and malnoursihment is still incredibly high. But there is much prosperity in the cities ... but healthy habits (like exercises, gym) have only recently started taking root. So obesity is more common amongst well to do Indians which in turn leads to cardiovascular diseases.
Kerala is sub-set of India and they have one the better socio-economic indices in India, from that my guess is better Health indices relatively speaking. The biggest problem in the state for Health is alcoholism (to my knowledge).
When it comes to food, I follow Micheal Pollen's rule, food that your grandma recognize a.k.a traditional food. Coconut Oil has been used in traditional foods in many parts of the world that is sufficient evidence for me.
With all do respect for your personal health choices, that's not science nor "evidence". Just because some culture does something, doesn't mean it's the optimal way of things, especially nutrition. It's just something you have chosen to base your life on.
People in India have eaten Betel nuts/leaves for generations, yet that causes oral cancer. Doesn't seem like sufficient enough evidence to me that traditional foods = healthy.
Please refrain from Ad hominems like this. Depending on where you are from, I can probably find a similarly unpleasant public health characteristic, but does it really get anywhere in the argument?
Besides, they actually don't. Its one of the most progressive states in India with 100% literacy etc.
I'm just pointing out that "well India has done it for a long time so it must be good" is a logical fallacy as not all practices engaged in there will positively effect health. No offense intended.
Your assertion is meaningless because "well India has done it for a long time so it must be good" is not being said for the social practice of open defecation but for the specific effect of coconut oil on the health and longevity of a large number of human beings.
What I've personally decided is: my entire family has been using coconut based products for generations and my grandparents have lived to sufficiently long ages. I would be happy to live just that long and thank you, I will continue to use coconut oil.
Unfortunately, I am failing to readily find good references, but coconut oil has long been medically recommended for serious stomach disorders, including cystic fibrosis (which causes pancreatic insufficiency, among other things) and stomach cancer. This is in part due to the fact that it can basically be used directly by the body without digestion. It can simply be absorbed.
I have no idea if it is heart healthy, but this sort of broad dismissal is unfounded. Maybe it does bad things for your heart, but if you have gut problems that are literally killing you, coconut oil has a long track record of helping with those. This can be life saving if your gut issues are severe enough.
As someone who drinks Bulletproof coffee (ala Brain Octane oil), how does this fit in? Is the concentrated coconut oil in brain octane oil also just as bad? Or is the fact that its very concentrated mean it contains less of the negative qualities?
I feel like what this article is saying is that, just guzzling oil isn't good for you, which is obvious, but in small doses, is it ok?
From the article: 100% MCTs may increase your metabolic rate, but traditional coconut oil only contains about 15% MCTs and isn't good for your health in any quantity.
From what I understand, the MCT oil in Brain Octane oil is essentially just the medium-chain triglycerides from coconut oil. All of the other saturated fats and so on are removed in the process, Asprey and many others give this as the reason to use MCT oil over coconut oil. It's really just a very pure form of the kind of fat the body likes, and can most easily use.
Glad you mentioned Bulletproof. Asprey said once in one of his many videos that Coconut Oil doesn't work when combined with coffee because it contains bad saturated fats which you want to avoid. It does however contain MCT, but not in the ratio you want, hence his Octane oil products which only provide the good fats that you need.
If this article is correct, please explain why my blood pressure and cholesterol figures go through the roof when my diet includes fructose.
Please also explain how and why everything goes back to normal when I cut fructose out entirely. I am an quite serious - I do not allow even trace amounts in sauces and mayo and the like, nor in hidden sources such as "agave nectar" (which is 50-90% fructose).
Oh and BTW, I eat TONS of pasta, saturated fat (including butter), plants, and a really nice steak every month. I pour heavy whipping cream into my coffee every morning (not the usual trash, but the fancy expensive stuff free of polysorbate 80 and carrageenan.)
Unless you're eating a fresh strawberry that hasn't been mutilated in a blender (and even then, not too many all at once), fructose makes you fat because it messes with your appetite regulation in the bad direction. Even a little fructose makes you hungry.
Dietary fat (saturated or otherwise) does the exact opposite: all other things being equal, it makes you feel sated.
Don't just take my experience over the last ten years into account - here's a leading endocrinologist that's overturning decades of dogma. He'll set you right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Why does the AHA even still exist? Anyone who is at all informed about nutrition has long ago stopped listening to their nonsense.
The answer is of course that the AHA exists chiefly to promote the financial interests of the entities that fund them - the processed food industry (i.e. wheat, corn, and soy), and to give their "heart healthy" product marketing campaigns the illusion of scientific/medical legitimacy.
I'm vegan. "Plant-based" is not a panacea and not automatically healthy. This article is one-dimensional when there are multiple health considerations including both cholesterol effects, cancerous compounds in cooking vapors and cancerous compounds like aldehydes generated depending on the amount and time of heating.
In general, olive oil is the healthiest oil to use for frying, both in terms of cholesterol effects and aldehydes. Furthermore, oil consumption can be greatly reduced by good cooking and minimal frying techniques.
The graph in this news report probably started the coconut oil cargo cult, which overlooked its inherent unhealthiness:
I've found that avocado oil is really expensive. I've only been able to find it at my local Whole Foods. Haven't checked Trader Joe's, though I'd wager that if they did have it, it'd be a bit less expensive than WF.
I'm sorry your hipster friends have given you such a bad taste for coconut oil. Personally, I use it all the time in cooking and find its taste rather enriching. The other day, I was making collard greens, but instead of cooking the onions in veg oil or butter, I used coconut oil... it certainly adds a hint of coconutty flavor, but its not overpowering; on the contrary I found it rather delicious :).
Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-...
Best analogy I've heard is "Gee whiz, everytime I see a fire, I see firemen. I guess firemen cause fires". Cholesterol does not cause heart disease all by itself.
You'd think scientists and the media, by this time, would have stopped relying on Dr. Ansel Keyes for their rationale for what causes heart disease. His 1950's "Seven Countries" study was an example of cherry-picked data to support a pre-determined outcome that was desired.
Reference: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-co...
Finally, I can show you cultures, such as the Inuit, who's diet is almost exclusively saturated fat and protein and which are healthy (as long as they stick to their native diet). I challenge anyone to show me a culture who's diet is primarily sugar-based which has comparable health.
Reference: http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-he...