Coconut oil isn't healthy and it's never been healthy
usatoday.com
usatoday.com
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...
Eating fresh raw meat you actually do consume copious sugars in the form of the raw glycogen stores of the now dead animal.
>For instance, when blubber is analyzed by direct carbohydrate measurements, it has been shown to contain as much as 8—30% carbohydrates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine#Nutrition
But, I bet there is a world of difference to how our bodies process dietary glycogen and plant-sourced carbohydrates.
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.
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.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/05/18/now...
(turns out response to salt varies wildly between people)
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full
"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."
https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2011/03/14/genes-ldl-choleste...
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.
To meet the AHA's Heart-Check requirements, you need to adhere to these requirements: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/He...
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.
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.
KCKO :)
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 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.
Go to reddit /r/keto, there is a faq there.
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.
Edit: fixed a word
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.
The problem isn't that people are eating too many vegetables sprayed with pesticides.
The problem is that people aren't eating any <expletive> vegetables.
That's not entirely fair, the green grocers and supermarkets sell a lot of vegetables. But it is a fair description of what I see my colleagues eat.
Also, I don't live in a major city, so my organic grocer options are limited to precisely one. I should go there more often.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Editing because lots of people want sources.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4513492/
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/panel-suggests-stop-warni...
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis#Accelerated_gr...
This is a group I was unaware of until providing you links: http://www.thincs.org/index.php
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:
Broad overview:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cholesterol-conundrum/
Studies references (but not cited) in the article above: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0801608
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1107579The 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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Or rather, it's less of a health detriment.
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.
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:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11981884/Cooking...
I'd say this is a feature :).