Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmpman | Hacker News Reader

I have a hard time believing that an oil which is liquid at body temperature is the same threat as saturated fats which are solid at body temperature.

View on HN

The idea that liquid at temperature has anything to do with health is outdated. It seems to have been spread by the transfat supporters 30 years ago, and they have been discredited.

Elaidic acid (major transfat) has a melting point of 113F. And now I see that coconut oil is primarily lauric acid, with a melting point of 110F. They both look bad from the assessment of melting point greater than body temperature.

Have any papers that specifically discredit “liquid at temperature” health implications?

It seems like transfat was only exposed as a problem through long term evaluation, and the studies likely couldn’t determine if it was just transfat with melting points over a certain temp which caused the effects.

I don't know of science (which would be good to have), but it seem unlikely. Fat is broken down in the digestive system by various enzymes, and potentially dissolved in various solvents in the body. The simplistic analysis of melting temperatures is not useful, you need to figure out what happens in the context of the human body (other animals will have a different digestive system) which is very different from what happens on your kitchen counter.

Per the article coconut oil has more saturated fats than lard. Jeez people, read the article.

But there seems to be some disagreement in the nutritional community on whether saturated fats are good for you or not.

It doesn't help that coconut oil legitimately has anti-fungal and anti-microbial properties that probably make it a benefit to foods that its added to, despite its possibly harmful lipid profile.

Perhaps that's the nuance that is missing in this debate that's needed. The shocker that foods can be simultaneously good and bad for you...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com