Talk:Coconut oil/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Doing real research

It's somewhat startling that before I came along and made this edit, the section on the health effects of coconut oil was based on complete falsities. It was not hard to find real studies on coconut oil; most of them were referenced clearly by strong pro-coconut websites. There's lots more studies, too, but I didn't get around to putting them up. Did those of you who put lies up here do zero research? I'm bothered that some people seemed to put themselves into the pro-coconut/anti-coconut camps without any real research. And, of course, it's a little strange that the pro-coconut people, after 5 years, weren't able to get it right. In fact, it appears as if they got it right at the beginning, but after neglecting to cite, were edited out by administrator User2004. Fact tags are useful for uncited claims, but also, think about actually doing a quick search rather than a fact tag. Try not to contribute your preconceived biases to Wikipedia. If someone makes a claim that research says something and forgets to cite it, then don't assume they're making things up. Think about doing real research rather than partisan hacking. For years now people reading Wikipedia have been misinformed. This is a real loss.

OccamzRazor has done a similar thing to User2004. Coconutoil.com has cited claims about treating HIV/AIDs, yet he has ignored them. Here (pdf) is a well-done research article on it by a professor of pharmacology with impressive credentials: president of the National Academy of Science and Technology, co-founder of Philipine Heart Academy, author of a book on the subject, ect. Here is another study with a more roundabout claims; however, this is just as roundabout as the saturated fats claim that existed on here for at least 3 years, and likely more true. I believe both of these studies should be added to the article, and hope I haven't offended anyone. Some Wikipedians have an obsession with mainstream facts, and that prevents them from looking deeper to see the truth even when it's staring them right in the face. In fact, rather than investigating novel claims, they prefer to fight them. Unfortunately, these people seem to comprise of most of the interested, competent Wikipedians -- and probably most of human society as well. OptimistBen (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're citing an abstract from the Cocotech Meeting in Chennai, India? Seriously? 71.230.124.112 (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Although I certainly agree the material warrants further consideration, the sources are not exactly the most reliable sources. The National Academy of Science and Technology is a stricly Filipino organisation, and not the same as the National Academy of Sciences [[1]] as the western world knows it. The claims made are HIGHLY controversial because they have poorly credible scientific basis. However, that being said, I again say they warrant further investigation. Halogenated (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to see well-sourced material in this article. Unsourced claims don't belong here any more then they belong in any article. This article has had a number of exceptional claims added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Much as I love what "medical science" has to say, I've re-worked that section to conform with what the references say somewhat more closely. Regards, WLU (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that was some good work there. My only concern is that it might be fairly difficult for a lay-person to interpret, and the re-write uses some terminology not in common usage. Personally it reads fine to me, but I have a degree in biology, so I may not be typical. Halogenated (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Damn the general public and their lack of knowledge regarding advanced biology! I've tried writing it a bit more simply; the polynesian part really seems to belong in the coconut page rather than this one about just the oil. WLU (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. I'll admit that I didn't read some of these studies very carefully nor cite them very precisely (in the case of the first one, it looks like I somehow didn't even read it at all). I must have been in a hurry. A PubMed search for coconut oil turns up only 20 reviews, many of them not focused on coconut oil at all. "Medium chain triglycerides (MCT) in aging and arteriosclerosis." is an interesting review on coconut oil and heart disease. I don't have access, but I wouldn't mind reading it over if either of you have access -- my address is imperfectlyinformed@gmail.com. II | (t - c) 09:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to cite a 21 year old review on a rapidly changing medical topic. Based on II's pubmed search it appears that the subject of coconut oil on health is extremely minor, so I would recommend avoiding making a big deal out of the subject. Jefffire (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There are nearly 1200 primary articles, which I think should be looked into closer. Here is one suggesting negative effects on memory. I don't agree with the general practice of putting health effects at the bottom. As I said, I think the average reader is interested in health effects, and as the world, and esp. the developed world, is currently facing a health crisis, this interest is prudent. I think it would be nice to have some more information on the heart disease relationship, as well. That review is positive, but it would be interesting to see if there were more negative studies, esp. considering the widely-accepted conclusion that saturated fats cause heart disease. II | (t - c) 10:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If there are recent reviews published in high impact journals then those would be extremely useful to base the health effect section on. Assessing the state of the primary research is not our job, even if any of us were sufficiently expert in medical expertise. To do so runs head long into WP:SYNTH. Jefffire (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy explicitly says that you can use primary studies. Since authors' of primary studies generally state their conclusions in plain language, there is no SYNTH problem. II | (t - c) 10:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
But dredging through pubmed to advance a minority position is. Such behavior was the result of the arbcom on the Dana Ullman case. Primary papers can be found to advance virtually any position, regardless of it's scientific acceptance or accuracy. Pubmed dredging to find them, and then presenting them as being reliable, is simply not acceptable. If there are recent reviews in high impact journals, lets see them. If not then that's just tough and we've not got anything reliable to discuss the healing powers of coconut oil with and we'll just have to wait for medical science to catch up. Jefffire (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire: if we're going to remove primary articles, there's little reason to remove them selectively except to enforce a personal bias. We have no idea what the minority position is. If we removed primary studies from this article, we'd be left with nothing in the "Health effects" section. The only thing we could include (that I've found so far) would be the 1986 review, plus a few others which discuss tropical oils (I haven't seen their conclusions). Would you prefer that? Seems like you're saying we need to wipe the "Health effects" section out. If we took the same tack with other less well-researched articles, many of our health-related articles would have no content. Should we do that? You can have your position, but it is not based on policy, and others should know that they can respectfully disagree. Asserting that you're talking policy is misleading, and especially confusing for people who are not well-read on the actual policies. II | (t - c) 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that we remove all primary studies from Wikipedia. I'm saying that pubmed dredging though all the small studies on the database is a dreadful, dreadful way to write an article. Primary sources are fine, if they can be confirmed as authoritative or influential (ie. heavily discussed, published in high impact journals, discussed favorably by reviews). To date you've done none of that, you've only gone through pubmed with a superficial search and expect an article to be written based on what you found there. I recommend you take a look at the arbcom on Dana Ullman, you'll see how well that exact same approach went done on homeopathy. Jefffire (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I thoroughly agree with Jefffire here. If what you say, "We have no idea what the minority position is", is true, then it follows we have no idea what the majority position is. Therefore, we should say nothing. If the health effects of coconut oil are truly known and notable (positive or negative) then they will have been written about in reliable secondary sources. I disagree that "the average reader is interested in health effects" wrt this article. This is a general encyclopaedia, not a medical encyclopaedia. To repeat some policy from WP:NOR:
Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
A primary source, especially one involving basic science such as rats and in vitro experiments, limits what you can say, if you can really say anything at all. One must take care even repeating the usually enthusiastic conclusions. Remember, that medical journals are not written to be read by Joe public; the intended readership knows when and if any claims must be taken with caution. Colin°Talk 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You're both assuming bad faith, and I suspect you're not even reading what I wrote. First, I already admitted that I didn't read the studies as closely as I should have; I skimmed them. I didn't dig through PubMed for them, either -- they were in a list of abstracts which was already referenced on this page. As far as SYNTH allegations, Colin would do well to read the NOR section on primary sources -- when the findings are stated in plain language, you can repeat them just fine. Second, I just said it would be nice to find more negative studies on heart disease and coconut oil. I'm open to any and all decent studies. There is a lot of controversy surrounding coconut oil and it would be good to give the reader a picture of the research on it. The section as it stands, however, appears fairly informative to me: coconut oil is associated with hypertension, so it is probably bad for your heart; however, epidemiological evidence so far isn't strong. If you're going to consume coconut oil, your heart may be better off on the unprocessed stuff, but you're better off using polyunsaturated fats. II | (t - c) 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
No-one is saying that we can't use primary sources, there are just certain conditions which need to be satisfied before we do. We've gone over this point in detail. Jefffire (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not assuming bad faith and please don't accuse me of this or of careless reading of your words. If we disagree, that's fine, but it doesn't mean I have any particular opinions about you. Nowhere on WP:NOR does it say "when the findings are stated in plain language, you can repeat them just fine." The point I made about "repeating the usually enthusiastic conclusions" is that such conclusions must be taken in context (using material out-of-context is repeatedly forbidden in WP:NOR) and represents the view only of the author(s) of the paper (at that point in time). The context of a paper in a basic science journal is to inform other researchers and professionals in the field. This context means the conclusions in such a paper cannot be used to inform medical or societal opinion. That just isn't what those journals are for. There are quite separate published journals for that purpose (medical guidelines, or consensus reports, etc). So even if a rat researcher writes that he believes he's found a potential treatment for obesity, for example, we mustn't directly repeat that claim as though it has any clinical relevance. This is why it is so important to use reviews (secondary sources) for claims -- as a review of even basic quality would not make the mistake of interpreting basic or limited research as though it was of general relevance to humans, for example. Colin°Talk 10:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cholesterol Myths

It might not directly apply to this, but I found this paper by Uffe Ravnskov, M.D., Ph.D. interesting as pertaining to HDL- and LDL- cholesterol's connection (or lack of connection) to atherosclerosis and CHD. The Cholesterol Myths - Section 1 Again, references abound. --TheRedFall 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. HDL/LDL ratios are consistent predictors of heart attack and stroke- The National Institute of Health held a consensus development conference reviewing the scientific evidence available in 1984, during which a panel of 14 experts unanimously voted "yes" on the questions of whether blood cholesterol was causal and whether reducing it would help to prevent heart disease.[1] The panel concluded:

It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that lowering definitely elevated blood cholesterol levels (specifically, blood levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol) will reduce the risk of heart attacks caused by coronary heart disease...[2]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.61.244 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 May 2007

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is common in India and, recently, an increase in the incidence of CHD was reported from the South Indian state of Kerala. The traditional Indian diet is low in fat content. The high incidence of CHD in Indians is, therefore, in contrast to western studies that have correlated high fat, saturated fat and cholesterol intake to CHD. Consumption of coconut and coconut oil that contain high amounts of saturated fat and are thought to be strongly atherogenic, are believed to be one of the main reasons for the high incidence of CHD in Kerala. To explore this presumed link, we studied 32 CHD patients and 16 age and sex matched healthy controls. Consumption of coconut and coconut oil was found to be similar in both groups. The groups did not differ in the fat, saturated fat and cholesterol consumption. The results imply no specific role for coconut or coconut oil in the causation of CHD in the present set of Indian patients from Kerala. The exact reason for the high and increasing incidence of CHD among Indians is still unknown.

FROM: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9316363&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

'Paul Dudley White was President Eisenhower's personal physician in the fifties when the president had two heart attacks. White was a Harvard educated heart specialist. He'd published a textbook titled Heart Disease in 1943. In that book, Dr. White wrote, "When I graduated from medical school in 1911, I had never heard of coronary thrombosis." Now this was the President's doctor. The reason he'd never heard of coronary thrombosis in 1911 was because the first article about it, detailing four unusual cases of this new phenomenon, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1912. Coronary thrombosis is a heart attack. This is a modern disease that is caused by refined foods. We don't call these problems the "diseases of civilization" for nothing! http://www.drrons.com/weston-price-traditional-nutrition-2.htm SO we had heart disease being a new phenomena in the early 20th century..VERY uncommon...While coconut oil was being consumed by millions around he globe...strange isnt it! Jalusbrian (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr Mary Enig

Could we have the information from Dr Mary Enig reinserted in Health Effects since I believe her research on coconut oil is valid and she is a reputable and qualified person in her field of nutrition. Alternatively, if we can't use Mary Enig, then it needs a source with regards to the health benefits of extra-virgin coconut oil. 122.107.141.196 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead, we should follow WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS states

Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies.

Further it states

A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. Literature reviews, systematic review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources, as are position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed. Do not confuse a scientific review (the thing) with peer review (the activity).

Dr Mary Enig represents a major health organization the Weston A Price Foundation, does literature reviews and is an expert in her field of nutrition. Her work is also peer reviewed [2]. Please tell me how this does not meet WP:MEDRS. 122.107.141.196 (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The foundation promotes WP:FRINGE viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE states that examples of fringe theories are:

conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

The foundation has presented scientific support for their ideas which is not novel in anyway. Neither do they present hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

Further, WP:FRINGE states:

However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy.

Even though the foundation has ideas which "are widely held to be wrong", it's ideas by the scientific community are not considered "absurd or unworthy".

WP:FRINGE also states:

One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research.

Not only has Dr Mary Enig engaged in peer reviewed research, independent peer reviewed studies such as these corroborate her work: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7270479 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19437058 122.107.141.196 (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"Much of Enig's dietary advice is in opposition to the consensus of the medical and scientific communities. She admits that she is "on the fringe" in her nutritional views and advice.[7]" --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

However, WP:FRINGE still states:

"ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." 122.107.141.196 (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you now agree it is a fringe pov. Now look again at WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You are using WP:FRINGE to the letter of the law and not in the spirit it was written. WP:FRINGE was written for topics like The Face on Mars which science considers "absurd". Dr Mary Enig's hypothesis are fringe but scientifically plausible. But not to worry. If Dr Mary Enig is too much for you to stomach, I will add some coconut-oil ncbi citations that are even more crazier than the Face on Mars. 122.107.141.196 (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you follow up on your threats to disrupt Wikipedia, you'll likely be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! You want to block me? You are not even an administrator to block me. Further, I must warn you that Wikipedia:Gaming the system is strictly forbidden:

"Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden."

So your continued insistence that Dr Mary Enig is WP:FRINGE when she has no association with The Face on Mars, Bigfoot or UFO's shows your lack of understanding of the issues at hand. Her ideas are a minority opinion rooted in the scientific method.

Further, this wiki article[3] states:

"Articles that discuss the existence of a controversy (be it scientific, interdisciplinary, popular, political, or religious) should clearly identify proponents of minority views and explain the extent and reasons for their marginalization. It is important that articles which discuss such controversies neither exaggerate nor minimize the proportion of experts in the field who advocate minority views." 122.107.141.196 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You've threatened to disrupt this article, not me. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For those interested in the background to the demonisation of coconut oil and other saturated fats, here is Dr Enigs article: the Oiling of America: http://www.drcranton.com/nutrition/oiling.htm ..Jalusbrian (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed from Introduction

What makes coconut oil different from most other dietary oils is the basic building blocks or fatty acids making up the oil. Coconut oil is composed predominately of glyceryl esters of medium chain fatty acids (MCFA). The majority of fats in the human diet are glyceryl esters of long chain fatty acids (LCFA).

MCFA and LCFA differ in the length of the alkyl chain that makes up the backbone of the fatty acid. MCFA have a chain length of 6 to 14 carbons. LCFA contain 16 or more carbons. The length of the carbon chain influences many of the oil’s physical and chemical properties. When consumed, the body processes and metabolizes each fatty acid differently depending on the size of the carbon chain. Therefore, the physiological effects of the MCFA in coconut are significantly different from those of the LCFA that are more commonly found in the diet.

MCFA and LCFA can also be classified as saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fatty acids. Coconut oil contains 92% saturated fatty acids. All of the MCFA in coconut oil are saturated. They, however, are very much different chemically from the long chain saturated fatty acids found in animal fat and other vegetable oils.

Because coconut oil has a high amount of saturated fatty acids it also has a relatively high melting point. Above 76°F (24°C) coconut oil is a colorless liquid. Below this temperature it solidifies into a pure white solid.

I removed this material from the introduction. While it may indeed be factual, it is both misplaced and uncited. My apologies to the author, but as it stands this cannot be applied to the article. IF you read this, and would like to rework it with citations and perhaps cut down a little I'd like to provide some constructive advice. Thanks. Halogenated (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, I must not have saved these changes. Anyway, I redid this, removing the section as explained above. I also removed some of the tags mentioned by the author below. They were put in place due to a proliferation of edits at the time to promote dubious health claims, which are no longer in place. I have updated the citation tag, as many portions of the article remain uncited. Cheers Halogenated (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Time for a change of template decoration?

{{POV-section}}

The multiple issues banner has been up at the top of the article page for a while. Has it served any purpose? It would certainly help me – and probably other editors – address specific issues (there are only specific issues) if any regulars with concerns about neutrality etc. placed a {{POV-section|talk page section name}} at the section or even para – illustrated at the top of this section – containing a specific controversy, and {{fact|march 2010}} [citation needed] or this cheeky item {{dubious}} [dubious – discuss] at the specific statements they contend. And take that flag off the top at the same time. Thanks, Trev M ~  02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Trev, see above. Halogenated (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

hair?!

Why no mention of its use as hair oil? 69.116.203.143 (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC) R.E.D.

Removal of two sources

Some valid sources have been removed. Please indicate the objection with them. Absent an explanation I will restore them.

I have removed the statement "Researchers from Harvard Medical School have found a tendency for coconut oil to raise high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels" together with its reference: Norton, D.; Angerman, S.; Istfan, N.; Lopes, S.M.; Babayan, V.K.; Putz, M.C.; Steen, S.N.; Blackburn, G.L. (2004). Comparative Study of Coconut Oil, Soybean Oil, and Hydrogenated Soybean Oil. Philippine Journal of Coconut Studies 29 (1–2): 76–89, for the following reasons. Looking up the Philippine Journal of Coconut Studies, I find that it is published by the coconut industry in the Philippines for the purpose of promoting their product, thus making any study published therein suspect. I could not verify that the referenced paper was actually published in the "Journal." The link is to a PDF that does not appear to have any connection with the publisher. The quality of the writing is poor, including such words as "der4ivedform" (page 3, last paragraph). The articled does not mention the size of the effect, but only p values, which are very similar (hovering near the edge of statistical insignificance) for coconut oil, soybean oil, and hydrogenated soybean oil. In the Discussion section of the article, dated 2004, the authors express an expectation that they will "complete the statistical analysis," in "3—4 months" If this study is to be used as a reference, the complete paper should be cited, not this preliminary summary. — Jay L09 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Kabara, Jon J. (1978). The Pharmacological Effect of Lipids. Champaign IL: American Oil Chemist's Society. pp. 1-95. ISBN 9991817697.</ref>

Lambanog (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the statement "Medium chain fatty acids in coconut oil have also been found to be capable of killing various microorganisms linked to the formation of atherosclerotic plaques," because it is not supported by Kabara. After removing the suggestion that only pp. 1-95 should be read, I have restored the Kabara reference and moved it to "Further reading." — Jay L09 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Diffs? The latter wouldn't be appropriate for most circumstances. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Norton 2004 is a primary study, and should be used with caution and for good reason. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Kabara 1978 fails MEDRS and verification. [4] --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Norton 2004 is not a reliable source. [5] --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A WP:RSN discussion has been started here --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of another source

Please explain the removal of the source and how it fails WP:MEDRS. Without clearer explanation I will restore. Lambanog (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Diff? --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes

Restored version that apparently had copyvio was from September 2009. Was reverted. Will modify the information.

Moving some disputed citations here until more thorough review of their appropriateness:

  1. Felton, C.V.; et al. (1994), "Dietary Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids And Composition Of Human Aortic Plaques", Lancet, 344: 1195–1196, PMID 7934543 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)
  2. Fushiki, T.; Matsumoto, K. (1995), "Swimming Endurance Capacity Of Mice Is Increased By Chronic Consumption Of Medium-Chain Triglycerides", Journal of Nutrition, 125: 531
  3. Applegate, L. (1996), Nutrition. Runner's World, 31: 26 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. Fife, Bruce (2005), Eat Fat Look Thin, Piccadilly Books, Ltd., pp. 5–246, ISBN 0-941599-62-0, retrieved 2009-07-21
  5. Geliebter, A. (1980), "Overfeeding With A Diet Containing Medium Chain Triglyceride Impeded Accumulation Of Body Fat", Clinical Research, 28: 595A
  6. Hill, J.O.; et al. (1989), "Thermogenesis In Man During Overfeeding With Medium Chain Triglycerides", Metabolism, 38: 641 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)
  7. Baba, N. (1982), "Enhanced Thermogenesis And Diminished Deposition Of Fat In Response To Overfeeding With Diet Containing Medium Chain Triglyceride", Am J of Clin Nutr, 35: 678
  8. Seaton, T.B.; et al. (1986), "Thermic Effect Of Medium-Chain And Long-Chain Triglycerides In Man", Am J of Clin Nutr, 44: 630 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)
  9. Siri-Tarino, Patty W., Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, and Ronald M Krauss. (January 20, 2010). Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 91 (3): 502-509. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26285.
  10. Fife, Bruce. Health Properties of Coconut Oil.

Lambanog (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for help at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard.
Can you please identify the exact version you copied the information from?
As identified multiple times on this talk page, WP:MEDRS applies to health claims. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
We need a review article, not individual studies. The NYTimes article needs corresponding MEDRS sources. --Ronz (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The NYT article is self-explanatory and review articles in any case have been cited. If you can find a review article that contradicts the studies presented then they should be included as well but removing studies that were published in reputable medical journals seems like undue censorship. It is also unclear why you believe the sources you removed from the further reading section were fringe. Please describe the nature of the problem fully—the exact claim being made you feel is inappropriate. In the absence of a suitable explanation I will feel inclined to reintroduce them. Lambanog (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say, "review articles in any case have been cited." Please indicate what you're referring to. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
To make any medical claim, the source must be secondary. Claims shouldn't be made unless they are secondary. Citation 1 doesn't mention coconut oil in the abstract, does it do so in the body? If it does not, it should not be used. Citation 2 is a primary study in mice and not appropriate. Citation 3 is not a MEDRS, it's a popular magazine. Citation 4 is to Piccadilly Books, which appears to be the publisher for a single person (and not in my opinion a MEDRS). Citation 5 is a primary source and a study on rats. Citation 6 is a primary study. Citation 7 is a primary study in rats. Citation 8 is a primary source. Citation 9 contains a brief summary regarding coconut oil and should receive a correspondingly short summary. Citation 10 isn't a MEDRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you give three examples of books or studies other than those given that are about coconuts and that are of higher quality and would be acceptable in your view? I wish to know what such a source looks like for reference, thank you. Lambanog (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's possible they don't exist and we should simply not try to expand a section on health benefits without better quality sources. The best place to start is pubmed by typing in "coconut oil" then selecting only review articles from the list of options in the right hand column. We must also be aware of policies like undue weight that state minority views (i.e. coconut oil is healthy) must not be given more prominence than majority views. Looking into pubmed, I've only found two articles that really mention coconut oil in a meaningful way in the abstracts - both are brief, both are negative. [6] [7] (I stopped looking before 1996, 15 years is a reasonable but relatively arbitrary cut-off). Searching on google books will doubtless be tedious and unhelpful - the first set of books come up with the word "miracle" in the title an awful lot [8]. Google books is more of a crap shoot because you get a ton of popular books and these tend to be gushy, representing a predetermined opinion based on an overextension of primary research rather than a solid scholarly consensus. Google scholar is a bit better, but the results are still a mixed bag with a lot of non-medical stuff in it. Since we are bound by our policy on neutrality to represent the opinion within the relevant scholarly majority, it's quite possible that we can't write a section on the health benefits of coconut oil because it's not supported as a healthy fat. Though it's possible coconut oil may be healthier than other saturated fats because of it's lauric acid (as suggested in this article) or some other reason, until we can demonstrate that a significant number of scholars believe this (in the form of review articles advancing this conclusion) we shouldn't try to make the conclusion ourselves.

An example of a non-coconut review article that would be acceptable would include something like this or this for olive oil, this for eggs, this for fats in general, this for trans fats. In the absence of high-quality evidence and secondary sources, we are better off saying nothing than assembling a conclusion ourselves from primary literature. See WP:RS and WP:MEDRS in particular for the relevant guidelines. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

More "health" changes

I have moved the "Medicine" section (4.3.3) from its old position under "Uses":"Personal uses" to a new position under "Health." — Jay L09 (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following statement (which makes the novel claim that Human Immunodeficiency Virus is a protozoan): "Monolaurin has been found to have antimicrobial properties capable of killing lipid-coated viruses, bacteria, and protozoa like herpes, cytomegalovirus, influenza, HIV, helicobacter pylori, and giardia lamblia.[3]" from the section on Cardiovascular disease — Jay L09 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the irrelevant and nearly meaningless statement: "Lauric acid is also turned into monolaurin in the human body." As used in this context, lauric acid means "any glyceryl laurate". Monolaurin is a glyceryl laurate. The statement therefore reduces to the claim that lauric acid is also turned into lauric acid in the human body. — Jay L09 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm dense here but, from my understanding, lauric acid is different from monolaurin, so I do not understand what your point is. Lambanog (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not so much a matter of being dense, as a matter of first buying and then defending advertising propaganda. As stated above, as used in the context of the removed statement, lauric acid means "any glyceryl laurate." (Because life processes are quite adept at making and breaking glyceryl ester bonds, it is traditional for nutrition scientists to describe fats in terms of the free fatty acids which would be produced if the esters were completely saponified. The "lauric acid" contained in coconut oil is in the form of various glyceryl esters, and is therefore as different from free lauric acid as is monolaurin. The problem here is sloppy terminology and its abuse.) Monolaurin is a glyceryl laurate and hence, as used in the removed statement, is an example of lauric acid. The healthy human body is fully capable of producing lauric acid and various glyceryl laurates including monolaurin from carbohydrates, from carbohydrates and shorter-chain fatty acids, and from longer-chain fatty acids such as palmitate and stearate, the saturated fatty acids most commonly found in vegetable oils from temperate climates. Thus, the claim about "lauric acid" from coconut oil is completely irrelevant: carbohydrates and all other vegetable oils are also turned into monolaurin in the human body. To the extent that consumption of coconut oil cures herpes, cytomegalovirus, influenza, HIV, helicobacter pylori, and giardia lamblia, so does consumption of carbohydrates or any other non-marine fat. — Jay L09 (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have once again clarified the weasel-like construction: "newer studies have indicated there may not be as strong a link" by re-wording it to "newer studies have failed to clarify whether there is or is not as strong a link." It should be understood that, unless it is conveying permission, the word "may" has the same meaning as "may not." Due to the prevalence of advertisement in our culture, together with the threat to advertisers of being held accountable for making false claims, we have become accustomed to gratuitous use of the word "may" to suck the meaning out of sentences, much as the animal was once believed to suck the contents out of eggs. Advertisers continue to use "may" before their claims because many people will take the resulting claimless sentence to be a real claim, while the advertiser can point out that no claim was made, false or otherwise. If new studies have indeed proven that the link is not so strong, the article should say so clearly. If they have not, we should make it clear that they have failed to do so. If "the mark" is to convey misinformation while maintaining plausible deniability, the "may" construction should be retained. Misinformation, however, is not the goal of Wikipedia. — Jay L09 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this the only problem with the wording you found? If so I will restore with more unequivocal language. There should be no question as to the general effect of accepting the conclusions of the meta-analyses—it improves the standing of coconut oil—but that won't stop someone who wants to disagree. Lambanog (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the problem I have is the same problem I described the first time, before you replaced the equivocal wording and claimed it seemed "closer to the mark." Do not use "more unequivocal" language, use absolutely unequivocal language, but only if the weasel-free assertion can be found in a high-quality source. Otherwise, if its just so much advertising blather, remove the entire sentence - it has no place in Wikipedia — Jay L09 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Unless you've got a reference that says "coconut oil can do X due to it's lauric acid content", it's original research. If you've got one reference that says "lauric acid can do X" and a second that says "coconut oil has lauric acid in it", it's an inappropriate synthesis to put together a sentence saying "Lauric acid can do X[1] and coconut oil has lauric acid in it[2]". It is particularly inappropriate to add to that "therefore coconut oil is likely to have X property". The only thing I can think of that would be worse would be to add "and thus coconut oil can cause X when consumed." The overall issue is coconut oil should not be promoted as a healthful fat or as a treatment for disease when eaten unless there is clear, high-quality evidence in the form of reliable, pubmed-indexed secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I could accept such reasoning if the linking of the various items was more dubious, but considering the way they are all brought up together in the literature, I think use of this argument in this case would be highly disingenuous. There is explicit mention of coconut oil having high lauric acid content in the discussion of many pertinent studies. Even less logical is for coconut oil to be condemned for having saturated fats but when the saturated fats it has are in the end shown to have a net beneficial effect it does not get credit. The logic goes both ways. Indeed many of the studies and recommendations used to show coconut oil is bad are far more guilty of such logical lapses and willful blindness. They look at total cholesterol and LDL but do not look at the HDL? They extrapolate from partially hydrogenated coconut oil to say things about all coconut oil? This is also the same scientific consensus that attacked saturated fats only to have them replaced by even worse trans fats, then got its favored supposedly scientifically backed AHA diet humiliated by the Mediterranean diet. It also supported the idea of a low fat diet only to discover that it doesn't hold up to testing and is now being forced to reassess saturated fats because all of the preceding reversals are also currently related to the current issue. The so-called "scientific consensus" here doesn't have a very good record. The issue of scientific manipulation has been brought up [9] as has publication bias. By the way, I do not see a stipulation in WP:MEDRS that says pubmed articles must be used or even should be used. In fact the expertise of scientists publishing behind the pubmed front and given its imprimatur are often opaque and cannot be held to be superior on this subject coconut oil than some of the independent researchers on the subject that have stated clear opinions and who have clearer lines of expertise and history on the subject. One wonders if any of the people whose opinions are being given weight have even used coconut oil. Who would you say is the world's leading expert on coconut oil? Why? Let's see the résumés. Lambanog (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Our policies are explicit, it requires a reliable, secondary source to make these claims for us. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote ideas, nor is it a crystal ball to make predictions. If the scientific consensus does not currently make these claims, neither does wikipedia. We don't use logic, we use sources to verify the text in an explicit manner. If the current scientific consensus is wrong about coconut oil, then when it changes we can document it. Not until then. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not clear: the assertions in favor of coconut oil can be supported by the meta-analyses. My observation though is that the main heart associations and medical associations in their official statements use the inferences you have pointed out to support their vague stands. I can more effectively block and dismiss the stand of the various health associations using the logic you put up than someone wishing to retain them. They usually talk in terms of saturated fats not coconut oil. Be careful of the logic you are using. Would you be okay with it if someone removed their statements because they talk about saturated fat and not coconut oil? Lambanog (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the two primary sources per MEDRS.
Mensink et al, 2003 mentions coconut three times. Twice coconut appears as an equivocal statement that its effects on coronary artery disease are unknown ("Total:HDL cholesterol is more sensitive and specific than is total cholesterol as a risk predictor (8–10), but the favorable effects on this ratio by such factors as coconut fat, which is rich in lauric acid, do not exclude the possibility that coconut fat may promote CAD through other pathways, known or as yet unknown.") Note underlined section, this is a hypothetical. The next discussion of coconut however, states "Lauric acid—a major component of tropical oils such as coconut and palm kernel fat—has the largest cholesterol-raising effect of all fatty acids, but much of this is due to HDL cholesterol. As a result, lauric acid had a more favorable effect on total:HDL cholesterol than any other fatty acid, either saturated or unsaturated." Taken together, I would support a statement that coconut oil raises total cholesterol but does so mostly by raising HDL, though its effects on cardiovascular artery disease is uncertain.
Kintanar, 1988 is from Trans Nat Acad Science and Techn (Phil), a non-pubmed indexed publication, and has been cited only once. I'm not sure about using this one. The New York Times is out for medical claims, it's a newspaper. MSNBC is only useful to say the FDA hasn't produced anything solid on coconut oil. Erguiza 2008 and Assunção 2009 are both primary sources and should not be cited. It's possible they are the first in a wave of publications indicating coconut oil is a healthy food that actually protects the heart and arteries, but we must wait until that wave has crested, not try and beat it to the beach (so to speak). I've edited WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV v. MEDRS

I think the recent discussion over MEDRS is missing an easy alternative solution, one which NPOV requires anyway.

Instead of trying to prove through inadequate studies that coconut oil has certain beneficial properties, let's just report that many people in the nutrition/natural health/fitness community think it does, and are increasing its place in their diets. We can also say that these people think that coconut oil is different than other saturated fats because 'virgin' coconut oil does not have hydrogenated transfats and coconut oil is made of medium rather than long fatty chains, under the assumption that they are more easily digested. We can even say that people in the natural health community think that coconut oil may have anti-bacterial qualities which help ward off heart disease. We can then report that the scientific community has not shown any of this to be true, that studies which originally grouped coconut oil in with other dangerous saturated fats have not been superceded, and that clinical nutritionists and doctors still recommend limiting coconut oil due to its high saturated fat content.

This way we can report on what is actually going on, from all sides, without denying the interest or the claims, and without substantiating them. NPOV permits and even requires we report on these issues when they are significant, of course MEDRS only permits stating the claims as fact if there are quality secondary studies--which there are not.

Here are some sources along the lines of what I am thinking. Note that they are RS for attributing the POV of those interested in coconut oil not MEDRS for the claims being supported by evidence.

I don't think there are really RS objections here, so the only issue would be Weight. I'm open to a slightly shorter phrasing, although I don't think there's good reason not to address the details. They're out there, and we aren't helping anyone by glossing over them here. We can be both comprehensive and verifiable, as long as we craft the presentation to match the sources. WP:Pseudoscience is clear that non-mainstream claims should still be described so long as they are not totally fringe. These claims have entered the mainstream and we should report on them where they have received significant attention, and summarize the current scientific position, which is that the claims are not supported. Ocaasi (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good approach if we can find sources to agree upon. We'll have to watch OR, NPOV, FRINGE, and PSEUDOSCIENCE issues carefully.
I recently found (Garin: Claims on health benefits of VCO need proof The Philippine Star. 12 Sept 2010.) while working on the related article, Mary G. Enig, which shows that all the pseudoscience and promotion isn't without criticism of the "put up or shut up" variety. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I would have serious concerns about this approach simply because saying "X people think coconut oil is good for you" is the same thing as saying it is good for you, unless we have a strongly skeptical reliable source to point out the failings here. By using these types of sources to claim someone thinks coconut oil is good for you, we're running ahead of the science. If science comes to accept and document that virgin coconut oil is actually a healthy fat, we've been a crystal ball. If it doesn't, we've promoted a fringe theory. I would want to spend time finding and reviewing skeptical sources long before I considered putting in credulous popular ones. I don't consider those to be reliable (particularly for medical claims). Seeing Andrew Weil and the Guardian as sources makes me nervous.
Naturally though, it all depends on the specifics, so I'll review the sources before making an absolute statement. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU, the idea is that rather than just taking the conservative line of medical and scientific consensus, we can more inclusively report on medical topics from a social and news perspective as well. While this is fraught with some risk of suggesting popular media has a clue about medicine or science, it is a totally separate endeavor from using newspapers as MEDRS. We can laying out claim in a non-speculative fashion--the claims are widely discussed in mainstream media--and then squash any notion that the claims are yet supported by evidence. (Just to be abundantly clear, this is not a debate about MEDRS, but a debate about NPOV and CRYSTAL. I'm in no way suggesting that NY Times features can substitute for systematic reviews. I am saying that CRYSTAL doesn't apply since the claims themselves are already out there in the mainstream, and that then NPOV should be our inclusionary guide.)
I see what you're saying about not having a counter-weight. If you look at the sources I linked above, almost all of them describe the debate rather than asserting the claims as fact. We can do that as well, is my suggestion. And we can either find skeptical counter-weights to the proposed theories (which I find less necessary since the fact that there's no research backing it up seems sufficient); or, we can just use a more general description of the health interest, so that there's no need to make specific rebuttals. Ocaasi (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
My main concern is that we do not turn Wikipedia articles into advertisements. Many of the sources which started this conversation were generated by the coconut oil industry to generate the appearance that there is a strong scientific basis for the message "You should be buying a lot of coconut oil at a premium price!" This sort of stuff is tending to permeate all articles about edible fats. If we are to cover the social phenomenon that many people "think" that coconut oil is particularly healthful, especially that it is more healthful than other fats, we must include coverage about many other inseparable social phenomena, for example:
  • many people "think" that canola oil is particularly healthful, more so than coconut oil;
  • many people "think" that corn oil is particularly healthful, more so than coconut oil and canola oil;
  • many people "think" that evening primrose oil is particularly healthful, more so than coconut oil, corn oil, and canola oil;
  • many people "think" that olive oil is particularly healthful, more so than coconut oil, corn oil, canola oil, and evening primrose oil;
  • many people "think" that palm oil is particularly healthful, more so than coconut oil, corn oil, canola oil, evening primrose oil, and olive oil;
  • many people "think" that palm kernel oil (note high laurate content) is particularly healthful, more so than coconut oil, corn oil, canola oil, evening primrose oil, olive oil and palm oil;
  • many people "think" that safflower oil is particularly healthful, more so than coconut oil, corn oil, canola oil, evening primrose oil, olive oil, palm oil and palm kernel oil;
  • etc.
Apart from the huge bulk of these conflicting commercial claims (excuse me, the many "social phenomena" of specifically conflicting beliefs) is the problem that many of those who seem to be holding one belief are also seeming to be holding several others. Indeed, the social phenomenon of advertisement in general should be covered in Wikipedia. However, the advertising content pertaining to a particular commodity should not. — Jay L09 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If we are going to take this approach, I think the proper way to do it would be to draft a mock-up here or on a subpage using a small number of the best sources, and see what it looks like. It's always hard to comment in the absence of an actual block of text. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems with recent edit

Among the problems with recent edit:

  • Removes historical context
  • Hides source
  • Removes source from appropriate location
  • Removes two sources completely
  • Replaces citation containing a direct link to full text of source with one leading only to an abstract
  • Removes information showing coconut oil when partially hydrogenated has different health effects
  • Removes information regarding dangers of trans fats
  • Emphasis on total cholesterol raising effects highlighted while effect on total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio is obscured despite the latter being a better indicator for risk
  • Removes information that FDA hasn't rigorously reviewed coconut oil
  • Removes information that saturated fat content is main source of concern for FDA

The removal of such information does not help to build a better article or encyclopedia. Given all the above drawbacks, an explanation on why the all the above was performed should be given. In the absence of such explanation or convincing rationale I call for the restoration of the earlier version that contained significantly more information. Lambanog (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To quote Ronz, above: Diff? (That is, which edit are you talking about?) — Jay L09 (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Which edit, can you provide a diff? If you are talking about this edit (which is essentially the same as these two), then I can comment.
  1. The historical content was unsourced and can be removed, as well as presenting a summary that really needs to be sourced to remain (the historical context was essentially "coconut oil has been unjustly maligned")
  2. The hidden source (Kintanar, 1988) is old as I said, but is also from a non-pubmed indexed publication that I've commented on above. I'm not sure about this publication, it may deserve a separate section at RSN - I'm not saying it can't be used (that's why I hid it rather than deleting it) but it's quite questionable in my mind.
  3. I'm not sure what the "appropriate location" comment is referring to.
  4. I removed two primary sources per WP:MEDRS.
  5. Oops, you are correct about the direct link - I forgot to expand the {{cite pmid}} template, it's now completed with a full text link.
  6. The fact that hydrogenated coconut oil has different health effects is sourced to the NYT (inappropriate for a MEDRS) and Kintanar, which I still consider problematic. Is there truly no newer sources review articles that say hydrogenated coconut oil has a different effect on blood lipids than nonhydrogenated?
  7. This information is temporarily hidden pending a decision regarding Kintanar.
  8. We can not go beyond what the sources say about coconut oil. The statement that is there now is supported by Mensink which is very, very equivocal about coconut oil - coconut oil's health effects have only been examined in the context of biomarkers for CAD, not for actual morbidity and mortality. It misrepresents the source to say that it vindicates coconut oil. Noting it does indeed raise HDL (clearly stated as "good" cholesterol) while ignoring the fact that the implications of this are unknown, is not appropriate.
  9. Regarding the FDA, I'd much rather simply remove the statement that they've not reviewed the evidence for coconut oil than spin it positively. I would be OK with saying it simply hasn't reviewed it, since the actual FDA website doesn't seem to have a firm statement (the closest I could find is this one which basically says it's a saturated fat to be avoided).
  10. Per above, the FDA does consider coconut oil to be high in saturated fat and is therefore something to be avoided.
Overall, I'd rather have less information than inappropriate information that presents an idea unsupported by high-quality sources - that coconut oil is unjustly maligned and has a positive health profile unlike all other types of saturated fats. I also believe this is an appropriate approach to take based on our policies and guidelines. Again, we report what is verifiable, not true, and we do not promote or try to outrun the scientific consensus. Recent review articles suggest the scientific consensus is that coconut oil is a worrisome saturated fat, not a health benefit [10]; [11]. However, based on some reference I turned up in my search, I have added some references which show possible benefits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree that WLU's reasoning seems sound here. I note also that Lambanog is restoring material, even uncited material, in violation of WP:BURDEN. Please discuss on the talk page rather than restoring to a disputed version when multiple editors have voiced concerns against your version. Yobol (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
We're also in edit warring territory now (slow edit wars are still edit wars), which isn't good. I've left a note.
I've also unhid Kintanar, 1988 and integrated it as a minority opinion regarding the use of hydrogenated versus virgin coconut oil. It's probably not the best source on which to base a rewrite of the health section, but it's worth noting that potential qualification. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well now that I have some feedback, I have some idea of how to improve the article further. I will find more sources for the trans fat items. I thought that was so well-known it would not be contested and the NY Times sufficient. Still, removing statements outright without discussion unless it is believed the claims are false should be avoided. Doing so without discussion or reason can be perceived as disruptive deletion. There remain a plethora of concerns with the current version, among them:
  • Despite its saturated fat content, coconut oil may be a better alternative to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil when solid fats are required due to the high proportion of lauric acid. Vague and contradictory. Lauric acid is a saturated fatty acid. So the statement is basically saying "Despite its saturated fat content, coconut oil may be a better alternative ... due to the high proportion of saturated fat".
  • Due to its high content of lauric acid, coconut oil significantly raises blood cholesterol primarily through its impact on high-density lipoprotein ("good" cholesterol) Vague and watered down rewording of a clear statement.
  • though the implications of this for coronary artery disease are not known. Vague and misleading. In general lower TC/HDL-C which is the key new finding caused by lauric acid that the researchers found is known.
  • WLU your comment above that the statement by Mensink et al. is very, very equivocal looks to me like a misreading. Cautious statement? Yes. Very very equivocal? No, unless you are saying it is possibly being overly cautious. Take out the editorializing by the researchers and let the evidence speak on its own and the effect of the findings is pretty clear. Indeed in light of newer results Mensink et al.'s editorial comments are already superseded.
  • Two meta-analyses (Mente and Siri-Tirano) have been removed. Please justify their removal or restore them.
  • In recent years virgin coconut oil has increasingly become popular in natural food circles and with vegans. It has been described as having a "haunting, nutty, vanilla flavor" that also has a touch of sweetness that works well in baked goods, pastries, and sautés, and as the "devil himself in liquid form". Restoration of the bold portion in that location without context does not look constructive. Is there anyone here insisting that it be kept?
I will address some of these issues myself. If there is a disagreement I request those disagreeing to explain their reasons before editing. Lambanog (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a {{vague}} tag to the phrase though the implications of this for coronary artery disease are not known; Yobol removed it: Diff. I am concerned that due to the wording in the article it might appear that a favorable total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol has unknown ramifications and that people unfamiliar with the science might be led to believe that regarding favorable total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol "the implications of this for coronary artery disease are not known". It is vague, it is misleading, and it needs to be changed to something clearer. I suggest the wording in my preferred version but I am being opposed. So it is incumbent on those reverting my edits to come up with a better solution. Lambanog (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed the wording to better match the source, so that should take care of any "vague" concerns. I note that both meta-analyses mentioned (Mente and Siri-Tirano) are discussion of saturated fat in general and not about coconut oil (indeed neither reviews even mention coconut oil). Both would likely be better placed in Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy (...and it appears they are already there). Yobol (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I note that nearly all health organization guidelines are based on saturated fats in general or tropical oils in general. If discussion on saturated fats is inappropriate, they should be removed as well because the article would not be NPOV. I prefer that the meta-analyses I refer to be kept to provide context.
As for the replacement with the phrase: although coconut oil may still promote atherosclerosis through other pathways that is editorial speculation by the authors in 2003 not supported by their evidence, in the end they said more research was needed. More recent studies such as Marina et al. suggest beneficial effects. The speculative phrase should be removed and maybe even replaced by one showing possible beneficial pathways as shown in more recent research. Lambanog (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It's what is in the paper. You can't just ignore the conclusions of the authors just because you don't like them. Yobol (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yobol has also just removed a classic study with over 600+ citations since 1993: Diff Google Scholar results. I have asked that editors discuss their changes before making them. Yobol does not seem to be exercising care in his edits nor attempting to fully understand the inclusion of certain sources, but simply removes them. Tagging the source or asking here on the talk page before precipitously removing sources is the proper procedure. I ask that the source be promptly reinstated and that in the future Yobol seek the reasons for the inclusion of any sources he is inclined to remove before doing so. WP:MEDRS does not authorize the automatic removal of primary sources. All such contemplated removals should be discussed first. Lambanog (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed a study that was primary (which should be avoided per MEDRS and WP:PSTS) and which added nothing to the page except as a "padding" as an extra reference. Why should we include it? I would also refer Lambanog to WP:BRD. You were bold in putting in the reference, I reverted it, and now we are discussing it. As to the addition of the meta-analyses, I think a one liner about the role of saturated fat would be appropriate, in the context of acknowledging that the mainstream stance of the medical community is still that saturated fat leads to atherosclerosis. We should definitely not try to give the impression that saturated fat isn't related to atherosclerosis based on these two meta-analyses. Yobol (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU in his number 6 comment above states "The fact that hydrogenated coconut oil has different health effects is sourced to the NYT (inappropriate for a MEDRS) and Kintanar, which I still consider problematic. Is there truly no newer sources review articles that say hydrogenated coconut oil has a different effect on blood lipids than nonhydrogenated?". The Willett study is the classic study on that topic, so I added it. Yobol please do not remove any sources without prior discussion. BRD is not an excuse for haphazardly removing sources. If you have concerns I suggest and request that you discuss or tag all such sources first. I also request that you reinstate the source.
Regarding the meta-analyses: they are meta-analyses—the best kind of source according to WP:MEDRS. They say what they say. I think you need to come up with a better reason than "I just don't like it". Lambanog (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And you also added another review, which is more appropriate. I will continue to remove inappropriate references as I find them. If the consensus is they should be put back in, then so be it, but let's get some outside opinion on the matter first. I will not be reinstating the study for the reasons already noted. As to the meta-analyses, including any information to give the impression saturated fat does not cause atherosclerosis, against the mainstream consensus that it does, would be a gross violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Inclusion of those meta-analyses would hinge upon wording which would clearly state that the mainstream consensus is that saturate fat leads to atherosclerosis. Yobol (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If you can find an abundance of such very high quality sources, then by all means cite them! The "mainstream consensus" should be able to provide a wealth of them to be deemed the "scientific consensus". I see a lot of guideline statements, now if they can be backed up by recent meta-analyses that would be even better. Lambanog (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Since Willett, Mente and Siri-Tirano don't mention coconut oil explicitly, they shouldn't be used. Note that I'm assuming Willett doesn't mention coconut oil since I don't have access to the full text. Mensink obviously isn't endorsing coconut oil; the statement is that it does improve a surrogate for cardioprotection, it goes on to say it's not clear if it's truly cardioprotective. I support the removal of the {{vague}} by the way.
Lauric acid is a type of saturated fats, normally saturated fats are associated with increased risk of heart attack, but this one may be cardioprotective (or not, the science obviously isn't settled). There's nothing controversial about noting one particular saturated fat may be less bad for you (or even good for you) compared to butter, lard or tallow. Are there any review articles stating lauric acid is unequivocally cardioprotective? This one suggests it is neutral but I wouldn't cite it in the article.
The statements by health organizations should remain - they're saying that based on what we know, saturated fats should be avoided. This means there's no consensus on coconut oil specifically being better for you. If this changes and these agencies start promoting coconut oil as healthy, we change the page. We don't try to anticipate. It is neutral to retain them as a measure of uncertainty, it's not neutral to remove them because it does not favour coconut oil as a healthy choice. Again, the consensus is pretty clearly that coconut oil = saturated fat = bad for you. If that consensus changes, then we change the page.
The removal of sources is very far from being "haphazard", multiple editors have no clearly stated why they are removing sources and in fact, those reasons have converged - we shouldn't use primary sources or push a synthesis based on sources that don't mention coconut oil. They were never removed based on the idea that "we didn't like it", it was based on them being primary, popular, or irrelevant. Meta-analyses that don't mention coconut oil specifically are still great MEDRS - just not for this page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I can confirm Willett doesn't mention coconut oil, either. Yobol (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Marina 2009 is all about VCO (it would actually be a great reference to use in general, it covers a lot of ground) but it's actual relevance to human health is close to nill - it discusses almost solely animal studies with one reference to a 1981 study of the rate of heart attacks among Polynesians. I can e-mail it if anyone is interested. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

POV statement

So the line "Despite its saturated fat content, coconut oil is a better alternative to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil when solid fats are required due to the high proportion of lauric acid" has been disputed as POV. I don't believe this is the case, since a high saturated fat intake is clearly considered a health risk. It may be wrong as a factual statement as revealed by subsequent research, but the neutral presentation is to give the mainstream point of view precedence. The issue is apparently that this is contradictory because lauric acid is itself a saturated fat. I don't see this as

Lambanog has suggested replacing it with "Despite its saturated fat content, coconut oil is a better alternative to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil when solid fats are required due to the high proportion of lauric acid". I have absolutely no problem with this. However, in an effort to better represent the possible benefits and downsides, I've edited a couple sentences. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronz has removed a statement wherein the similarities between coconut oil and breast milk composition is noted. He says WP:SYN and WP:NPOV apply; I disagree with the reasons for removal because it would seem to be factually correct and I do not see a POV problem. I will restore the edit if there is no fuller explanation. Lambanog (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Why do you disagree? --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If you mean this edit, I can see why. Thormar et al is a primary source and doesn't mention coconut oil in the abstract - it's primarily about human milk. Amarasiri on the other hand, does appear to support the idea that breast milk and coconut milk both have lauric acid - but also states "No work has been done with coconut fats per se and goes on to speculate. I've seen this "coconut oil has fats similar to breast milk", as well as the "coconut oil is anit-infectious" argument. I'd like to see better sources for this, particularly given Amarasiri's candid admission that the links are speculative rather than evidence-based. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The statement removed by Ronz is "Coconut oil also shares many similarities and fats like monolaurin found in human breast milk." The sources support that assertion. I see nothing in the removed statement about any anti-infectious argument or any speculation. If it was only the statement without the sources proving it would you object? I will restore the statement again. Lambanog (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
That statement was removed by Yobol most recently, perhaps by Ronz in another edit. Is it sourced to Kintanar? I could see it being reworded and sourced to Hegde perhaps, but have concerns about it being referenced in the "Health" section; I would suggest a pubmed indexed source like PMID 19665786 or even better a recent, pubmed-indexed review article. If we're just referencing that lauric acid is found in coconut oil and in breast milk, that could perhaps be included elsewhere (though really it's a fact to be included in the lauric acid page). Saying it "shares similarities to monolaurin and breast milk" is certainly not the most ingenuous way of putting it, particularly in a section labelled "health" - that suggests, quite plainly, that coconut oil has health benefits akin to breast milk, which certainly isn't an accepted fat. In other words, it's possibly appropriate to note that it has fats that are structurally similar to those found in breast milk, it's not appropriate to say it shares the health benefits of breast milk. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I should note that Hedge looks like just an awful source for any health claims. Certainly if the comparison between coconut oil and breast milk is prominent enough to make it should be in a pubmed-indexed secondary review? Yobol (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The statement was not sourced to Hegde. The statement also makes no medical claim necessitating a secondary review unless you believe a statement like "honey contains fructose" needs a secondary review. The statement is neutral since it neither says that the similarity is beneficial nor deleterious. Please restore the statement. Lambanog (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I discuss Hegde in the further reading section below (note that it's "GD", not "DG"; it's not spelled the same as a bit of shrubbery). I agree it's not a good source for a health claim. If this page had a prose section that discussed the breakdown of fats in coconut oil, I'd say put it there and leave it out of the "health" section. Since we don't, it may be appropriate to include in a section discussing lauric acid. But the comparison should be "Coconut oil contains lauric acid, a fat also found in human, goat and cow's milk", not "Coconut oil is like breast milk". Lambanog, two other editors have expressed opposition to the inclusion of the information in the former form (three of Ronz actually removed it previously) so please do not replace it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I would have no problem discussing the link between monolaurin/coconut oil/breast milk outside the area of health. Perhaps Amarasiri from the Ceylon Medical Journal would be appropriate for this association, since we're not making a health claim about coconut oil? Yobol (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd be OK with using Amarasiri to reference the similarity, and even to say it might have health benefits - so long as there is an accompanying disclaimer that these links are purely speculative. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Added info from Amarasiri, specifying the connection through lauric acid. Yobol (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

This section has been populated basically only material that paints coconut in a positive health light. I think this needs some trimming and some weight balancing. Yobol (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the further reading section is quite problematic. Based on the newer review articles, it really, really, really looks like the general consensus is coconut oil is probably bad for you because of the saturated fat, but there are reasons to think otherwise. Having a bunch of FR that's blatantly promotion is problematic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I say remove it all. It all promotes a single pov on a sub-topic of the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Please provide the sources that indicate so. A random Google book search shows overwhelming information to the contrary. Of course there are other considerations but there are many facets to coconut oil and the popular literature does not seem in synch with the sources you seem to prefer. Feel free to provide more pertinent sources if you can find them. Lambanog (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
What are you responding to? --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Removed again material that is outdated (really, over 20 years old - how relevant could it be now)? And for weight purposes. I'm inclined to agree with Ronz that most of this material should go. Yobol (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem is there may not be a better set of sources. Coconut oil is primarily a tropical food, while modern science arose in nontropical areas and focussed on topics that were closest and most relevant to those influences. Coconut oil appears to be substantially under-researched compared to say, olive oil, fish oil, essential fatty acids and the like. Irrespective, many of the "current" further reading selections are problematic:
This book is now 33 years old; age alone isn't a reason to discount certain facts but it is a reason to discount books that aren't considered "classics". In addition, the word "coconut" appears only five times. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
North Atlantic Books appears to be a popular, if not outright nutty. It describes itself as a publisher of "alternative health". Not a solid, scholarly choice. In addition, the main topic is fat in general, not coconut oil [12]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
All three of the above are sets of conference procedings; Wikipedia:MEDRS#Other sources discourages the use of conference abstracts because they are often preliminary and we're always better off citing sources that are later published in peer-reviewed articles. If they don't, if an abstract only appears in a set of conference procedings, it's quite probable we shouldn't cite the conference procedings! It's possible we could include one, the most recent, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
This is a twelve page journal article that is nearly 30 years old. It's about a specific type of fat, not coconut oil overall. They're originally from coconuts, but this is an appropriate source for a different page since not all coconut oil is treated this way to produce MCT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
  • Blackburn GL, Kater G, Mascioli EA, Kowalchuk M, Babayan VK, Bistrian BR. (July-September 1989). A reevaluation of coconut oil's effect on serum cholesterol and atherogenesis. Journal of the Philippine Medical Association 65: 144-152.
Another brief (8 pages) journal article, best used as a source, not further reading. I'm also not clear on the impact factor. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
  • Laureles, Lucita R.; Rodriguez, Felicito M.; Reaño, Consorcia E.; Santos, Gerardo A.; Laurena, Antonio C.; Mendoza, Evelyn Mae Tecson (2002). "Variability in Fatty Acid and Triacylglycerol Composition of the Oil of Coconut (Cocos nuciferaL.) Hybrids and Their Parentals". Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 50 (6): 1581–1586. doi:10.1021/jf010832w. PMID 11879040.
This doesn't even mention coconut oil; it doesn't even mention the order coconut palms fall into. It does not seem to be related. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
  • Nevin, K. G. and T. Rajamohan. (September 2004). Beneficial effects of virgin coconut oil on lipid parameters and in vitro LDL oxidation. Clinical Biochemistry 37 (9): 830-835.
This is a primary, in vitro study. I woudln't recommend using it as a source, let alone a further reading. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
  • Norton D, Angerman S., Istfan N., Lopes S.M., Babayan V.K., Putz M.C., Steen S.N., Blackburn G.L. (June–December 2005). Effect of dietary fats and fatty acid chain length on plasma lipids and lipoproteins in healthy men. Philippine Journal of Coconut Studies 30 (1 and 2): 1-12. ISSN 0115-3463.
Another primary source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
At best, I would suggest citing Adkins, 2006 and no more. Further reading is for book-length, scholarly expositions on the page topic. It's not for primary, popular or unreliable sources and based on the topic of the page it probably shouldn't include anything more than 10 years old. It's possible that coconut oil is more healthy than it is percieved to be - certainly these sources make it look that way (which is part of the problem). But the mainstream opinion hasn't caught up to this minority opinion and we shouldn't be presenting coconut oil like it has been proven to be as healthy as olive or fish oil. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If in your view there is a dearth of appropriate material to use as a reference proper then there is all the more reason to be flexible in further reading. If there are only a few sources, then having a list of the pertinent sources is even more valuable to a researcher looking into the topic. Lambanog (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Whole-heartedly disagree that we should allow less reliable sources when what's available isn't truly scholarly or appropriate for our article. Further reading sections aren't repositories for sources that don't quite make the cut for sources in our articles. Agreed with WLU that Adkins is really the only appropriate source of this list provided. Yobol (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't think of a situation where "there's not enough good information" is addressed by lowering the bar for quality of information. We are not supposed to have an extensive list of further reading. Our target audience isn't researchers (who would presumably have the sources anyway, and no matter what probably wouldn't start with wikipedia), it's the average reader who needs good quality information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the further reading except for Adkins, 2006. Hegde is problematic in my mind - it's very short, it's published in the "Journal, Indian Academy of Clinical Medicine", it's an opinion piece, it features the words "cancer breast" (which makes me question the editorial review!), it's intensely against the contemporary opinion regarding the link between fat and cardiovascular disease, it fosters a conspiracy theory to this end, for some reason it invokes astrology (?), it calls coconut oil a "low calorie fat" (even if the health effects are different, all fats have the same calorie count per gram), it claims that frying in coconut oil has fewer health effects, claims without reference that it's a powerful anti-pathogen and invokes Ayurveda. I really don't think it's a good further reading item and am dubious about it being used as a source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hegde is an interesting source of information and should not be removed. You may not like it but it is coming from a notable person with a different viewpoint. On the basis of its sociological value alone it should be kept. Not everyone researching coconut oil may be looking for health information. A reader may well be looking into the social aspects of coconut oil and its place in different societies. Hegde fills that role better than other sources. Also coconut oil is far more well known in society in tropical countries; NPOV in this article is grossly violated by presenting only a Western perspective. Indeed given the prominence of the subject in non-Western countries this article could be predominantly weighted to a non-Western viewpoint and it would not be undue. Lambanog (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, at four pages, it's not an appropriate length for further reading. Please don't claim I don't like the source out of some personal idiosyncratic preference - I've given a variety of reasons. I don't understand where "sociological value" comes in or how that impacts its reliability or value as a text in the further reading section. If it's being used for social aspects of coconut oil, I have no problem with it being used as a source - but I am reluctant to think it is OK for use for health claims. You are claiming a broad-based NPOV due to western concerns, but most of the discussion is about health aspects which transcends "western concerns". Just like we don't accept the "western" concept of homeopathy or other forms of traditional healing for medical issues without very good sources, I see no reason to lower the bar merely because coconut oil is under researched. Please feel free to integrate Hegde throughout the article, with the exclusion of the "health" section. I would prefer its use in "Health" be discussed first. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Book by Dr. Dayrit

The source removed with the explanation "scholarly only, thanks" is one by Dr. Conrado Dayrit, who was one of the leading experts on coconut oil, and was written in part for a medical audience. He was a cardiologist, part of the team to perform the first open heart surgery in the Philippines, and professor emeritus at the University of the Philippines in the field of pharmacology. Aside from teaching, performing experiments in the lab and in clinical studies, and publishing papers and giving presentations, he was a practicing doctor in a country with a population that uses coconut oil on a daily basis. You're not going to find many experts with a better background from multiple perspectives on the subject. A book by him on the subject meets RS, so I have a hard time wondering on what basis you'd be opposing its inclusion. I will restore the source to further reading. Lambanog (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Was the book by a scholarly publisher? Scholarly comes from review and editorial oversight as well as expertise - particularly in the case of dramatic health claims. It's quite possible for even an extraordinarily well-respected scholar to oversell, overstate and make inaccurate claims about their pet belief. Please do not restore it without consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The book was an award winner in the Philippines. Anvil is possibly the biggest Philippine publisher; it publishes school textbooks for all levels. The author made presentations to professional and government groups and was a consultant to the World Health Organization. He published papers on coconut oil specifically and worked with the leading experts on coconut oil both local and foreign. If you can identify a more recent scholarly work on coconut oil by a more qualified expert I'd like to know what it is. Lambanog (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
If he's such a prolific researcher and expert, why don't we cite his reviews in the peer reviewed literature he's published instead of yet another promotional book with fringe medical claims - from Amazon.com review "the recent and continuing explosion of new knowledge on coconut oil's energizing anitobesity effects; and for the first time, the revelation of its anti-inflammatory and immuno-regulating actions as shown by its remarkable control of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, auto-immune diseases and cancer."? We are not here to promote these fringe views.Yobol (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The FDA admits it has not done a proper review of coconut oil. Neither have any of the other health bodies suggesting its reduction in diet from what I can tell. Their view of coconut oil is based on studies of saturated fat—a different topic altogether—and I would note the saturated fat studies are pretty selective in what they present and have increasingly been undermined by newer research. Claims on coconut oil are supported by research, as you should know because you've been removing many of them. The book by Dayrit is a secondary source. Perfectly valid. Find a better source that contradicts it if there is one. If you cannot I would suggest it is not fringe as you would claim. Your supposed view of mainstream might be though. Lambanog (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
School textbooks aren't scientific periodicals, and this isn't a school textbook. If coconut oil is only considered healthy by the scholarly community in the Philippines, then it's probably undue weight to give it much text, as well as a form of systemic bias. Science is world-wide, if coconut oil is actually healthy for people it should be easy to demonstrate scientifically. So far all I've seen is opinion piece extrapolation from in vitro and small-group primary studies published in regional, low-impact journals. I don't think that's adequate or appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I've presented the opinion of doctors from India, Sri Lanka, and the United States, along with studies from the Philippines, Malaysia, and Canada. You want something from Europe even though they aren't big coconut producers? Is there systemic bias? Indeed the publication bias against studies from developing nations would seem to indicate that. Strange that studies done in a lab in the United States about coconut oil should automatically be given more weight even though it doesn't produce it in great quantities and people working with it aren't very familiar with it. Should it be a surprise that so many early studies didn't differentiate between partially hydrogenated and unhydrogenated coconut oil? Being published in a high impact journal apparently didn't prevent such questionable interpretation of such data. Neither did it prevent the trans fat fiasco, nor the lowfat fiasco, nor the embarrassment of the AHA recommended diet versus the Mediterranean diet. But it seems the Western scientific establishment is having a hard time swallowing its setbacks and is making excuses and engaging in weird rationalizations. In the face of a recent Japanese cohort study that showed that saturated fats had an inverse relationship to cardiovascular disease I saw commentary that trotted out the lame excuse that it doesn't really apply because Japanese have a different culture and dietary habits. I guess Western results apply universally until it is inconvenient. I was shocked at the exhibited mindset. So much for objectivity. Tell me do you know what the current consensus is on fats? What's the best diet? Lowfat or low-carbohydrate? Atkins diet or Ornish diet? Paleo diet or Mediterranean diet? The flimflammery of the medical establishment on this for the past 40 years has been ridiculous. Can you give me a clear answer based on studies? But people with blind faith in the establishment swallow its recommendations hook, line, and sinker. Shocking really since this was all resolved for the better part of a hundred years before the current scientific fad er...consensus took hold. Country with the lowest incidence of CVD and reliable data at one time was Sri Lanka. Country with lowest cancer incidence out of 50 studied was Thailand. What frying oil do they use? Hmmm...could it be olive oil? Lambanog (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Clearly there is no consensus in the medical community in general that coconut oil is of any use whatsoever in controlling diabetes, heart disease, cancer, autoimmune diseases, etc, and widespread and clear recommendations to avoid it by international organizations such as the WHO. Whether the WHO is right, or if the AHA is wrong, or if it will be wrong in the future, is not for us to say. The clear consensus, right now, is that coconut oil is to be avoided due to saturated fat, as seen by the relevant reliable sources; yours (or my) personal opinion really doesn't factor in here, and trying to push your own personal agenda is a big no-no. Yobol (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I would dearly love to know the method that allows us to know the results of scientific investigation before we've done the research. The only thing I can think of is pseudoscience.
Wikipedia reports the current consensus, not what will be the consensus in the next 40 years. See WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SOAP, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. The scientific consensus could very well be wrong, and when the scientific consensus changes, when the opinion of the scientific community is different, we will document that. Until then we document the current consensus. Please take comfort in the fact that if you are right, if virgin coconut oil genuinely does have health benefits that other fats do not, and none of the risks that normally accompany saturation, then you can rub our faces in it. After there is clear evidence that this is the case. The difficulty in comparing cultures that vary widely in their exposure to sunlight, intake of fresh fruits and vegetables, consumption of animal protein, daily exercise, exposure to different types of pathogens, genetic background and death rates from different causes doesn't justify ignoring the rules. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The current consensus is that coconut oil is suitable in infant formula. The current consensus is that coconut oil is suitable in nutritional products. Yet when I add such information it is removed without suitable explanation. I would say that indeed WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SOAP apply—but not as you would suggest. Instead you, Yobol and Ronz are using using dated opinions based on flimsy discredited associations to suppress other scientifically backed information on the topic of coconut oil and are engaging in dietary propaganda to promote an anti-coconut oil point-of-view. Even if the AHA, which has a questionable record on its supposed topic of expertise, is taken as reliable their expertise is limited to CVD and addressed principally to the needs of an American audience. The AHA isn't the only one with an opinion on the topic. Health isn't limited to CVD. Americans aren't Wikipedia's only audience. The AHA has its say in the article but those who hold a different view have not and are systematically being blocked by you three. I suggest you read WP:NPOV taking into account a worldwide view of the subject, WP:UNDUE considering that the views of people who don't use coconut oil and that don't review it (such as the FDA) should probably have less significance than those that do, WP:SOAP realizing that you are propagating a dietary dogma despite acknowledging scientific views on the topic are unclear and also WP:EDIT lest you forget Wikipedia values the addition of information and that removal of information should be well-considered and not handled in the slapdash manner currently being employed. Lambanog (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Any recent, high-impact review articles to substantiate your points? Any statements by prominent scientific or nutritional organizations? Infant nutritional needs are very different from the sort of diet that an adult would require. Note for instance, the substantial difference in recommendations for dietary fiber. Coconut oil is certainly a source of calories, that doesn't mean it's good for you. "Dogma" is what we report, per NPOV and CRYSTAL. It's incumbent on you to provide the sorts of high quality sources required to substantiate claims, not editorials, cursory sections in tangential articles and primary sources. It's quite possible that coconut oil cures cancer and heart disease - but that's not what most people believe. Please provide the high quality sources required by WP:MEDRS rather than popular books. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:MEDRS that vitiates against the Dayrit book. Nor is the Dayrit book solely about health aspects. In any event WP:NPOV takes precedence over WP:MEDRS and there is most certainly more than one significant opinion on the topic. The equivocal nature of the Western stand against it based on associations to saturated fats that are currently under question and not direct analysis of the subject itself further necessitate a fuller explanation. I also see no applicability of WP:CRYSTAL. The properties of coconut oil are the same now as they will be in the future. Differing opinions on them are already in the open. The addition of sources serve to the current significant perspectives on the subject. Lambanog (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Steinberg D (2006). "An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy, part IV: The 1984 coronary primary prevention trial ends it - almost". J Lipid Res. 47: 1–14. PMID 16227628.
  2. ^ from NIH Consensus Development Conference, JAMA 1985, 253:2080
  3. ^ Hemat, R. (2004). Principles of Orthomolecularism. Urotext. pp. 158–160. ISBN 1903737060.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coconut_oil/Archive_2&oldid=789365133"