Talk:Coconut oil/Archive 1

Archived discussions
--- Uh..... is this information all completely factual? It's still under debate and we don't want to give false information... Xknight 02:24, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) --- This whole article is a total crock. I'm with Xknight. Ludicrous health claims (complete with bogus research articles) abound everywhere, and an article on coconut oil which has nothing to say except vague and unsubstantiated health claims is useful as tits on a bull. I wouldn't trust the philipine govenment to run a hamburger stand, but people want to accept the too-good-to-be-true claims of one of their bureaucrats. Hello, coconut is a backbone of their economy, and the place is a hotbed of corruption. I'm offended. I don't believe wikipedia articles should read like health food supplier brochures. I'd just delete the whole sorry mess if I didn't think it would be immediately resurrected. --- this discussion was interesting: http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/healthy-food-269-nuts-and-seeds-are-excellent-foods.html --- Second only to specialized aromatherapy oils for backrubs, coconut oil is perhaps the greatest substance produced in nature. It smooths, but doesn't get absorbed like lotions do. And it makes the skin measurably stronger and healthier after a few applications. It is good. --- Um, I have to ask, if coconut oil is saturated, how can it be hydrogenated? I am a biochemist, and I know that a) saturated when refering to lipids means it is saturated with hydrogen (ie, no more hydrogen can be added to the fatty acids), and b) hydrogenation is a process where hydrogen atoms are added to a fatty acid to increase its level of saturation. These two definitions make the current statements in the article false, and make the entire article's factual accuracy suspect. Gentgeen 03:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) --- I wonder if processing of Virgin Coconut Oil provides more health benefits. A study by the Govenment of the Philippines found there to be some encouraging news in regard to Virgin Coconut oil. But I wonder about the veracity of such claims... 
 * Actually, the link you are mentioning in the Philippine government website does not mention the words "virgin", "unrefined", "refined" or "processed". All they say is that coconut oil was used in the studies. As far as I'm aware studies comparing both types of oil are lacking.

--- I've been using coconut oil for a week now and the symptoms of what I think was a thryoid problem have mostly dissappeared. But what Gentgeen says about hydrogenation makes sense to me. That is a very subtle point that seems to have escaped most of the claims I've read. Is the glass full or even fullerer? :-D --- My understanding is that coconut oil is over 90%, but not completely, saturated. Source: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/wh-wmnnu.html So hydrogenating the remaining unsaturated fat would make a worse fat. ---
 * Incorrect. Unsaturated fats have double bonds in their fatty acids. When hydrogenated, the double bond gains two hydrogen atoms and becomes a single bond, becoming saturated. Hydrogenating a poly-unsaturated fat gives you a mono-unsaturated fat or (usually) a saturated fat. hydrogenating a mono-unsaturated fat always gives a saturated fat. There are no poly-unsaturated fats in coconut oil, and hydrogenation will never change non-trans fat to a trans fat because it does not alter the cis-trans orientation of double bonds. Also, I don't doubt coconut oil is fine if you don't consume a lot of it, but it is made of mostly saturated fats, and no one has ever shown that saturated fats have health benefits beyond the small amount of fat recommended.

---
 * I know about the difference between saturated, unsaturated and trans. Coconut oil is not completely saturated though. It's 92% Saturated, 2% Polyunsaturated and 6% Monounsaturated. Source: --RainR 04:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * From Trans_fat: Trans fatty acids are made when manufacturers add hydrogen to vegetable oil, in the presence of small amounts of catalyst metals such as nickel, palladium, platinum or cobalt -- in a process described as partial hydrogenation. If the hydrogenation process were allowed to go to completion, there would be no trans fatty acids left ... Do you disagree? If so, I suggest changing that article before this one.  24.80.5.120 21:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, how is coconut oil extracted from coconuts? ---
 * This site: [] describes a (the?) traditional method: grating the coconut, soaking it in water, waiting for oil to separate.

--- Found an interesting, impartial source of information about the Coconut Oil debate, in case anyone feels it's worthy of inclusion in the main article: Traal 06:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC) ---
 * Good find--It looks neutral and informative. Thanks for passing it along. I've added it to the list of links. If there's material in there that you think we should have in the article, then be bold and add it. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

xxxxx

''I was disgusted by the biases I read in this section... why dont read this instead?'' "Is Coconut Oil Bad For You? Absolutely not." by Monica Perro.

also Dr. Conrado Dayrit's piece at www.doh.gov.ph/sars/coconut_oil.htm

Made up stuff
It appears that most of the content added by an anonymous user was simply made up - I have found contradictory information about factual stuff such as the smoke point. Namely, everything in this paragraph (which has since been edited):

"Non-hydrogenated coconut oil melts at 74 degrees F.It is the most stable of all oils and has the highest smoke point of all cooking oils.Contrary to popular belief it is a very healthy oil to consume unless it is hydrogenated.Non-hydrogenated coconut oil will speed your matabolism and cause you to lose weight.It is metabolized in the body very quickly.Studies show that coconut oil consumption reduces a womans chances of getting breast cancer."

I'll just go and remove it from the article. Scott Ritchie 23:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok I removed some of the stuff but I'm still a bit uncertain about this statement: "It is among the most stable of all vegetable oils" - what does it mean for an oil to be stable? Is this a reference to the high melting point? 24.4.148.240 05:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"Stable" is referring to an oils ability to become oxidized. Most vegetable oils become oxidized when the temperature is raised even slightly, however coconut oil being mostly saturated, can be heated to very high temperatures with out becoming oxidated and rancid.


 * Coconut oil has also been shown to cause severe cellular damage when applied on the skin in rats.

I've pulled this sentence, which was marked as "dubious". I did a quick search and couldn't corroborate it. Does anyone have a source for this? Thanks, -Willmcw 19:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Rat Study
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=070AB52E-BD83-93EB-0E12218BE5A17FDC The above link will take you to the rat study mentioned. I didn't fully understand it all but feel that any problems came from the amount and perhaps the application of dosing. If you use a supplement to take care of a given problem but if used in excess can cause that particular problem. Coconut oil has been used in soap and cosmentic products for hundreds of years. When I elected to make my own soap to avoid the unnecessary chemicals added commercially I read a book by an expert on soap making,The Soapmaker's Companion, page 99 which mentioned that coconut oil is very good for the skin but when used to excess can cause drying. It may also be that the amount given to the rats may have been enough to dose an elephant. ??? In this article they were appling coconut oil acid diethanolamine condensate. Is this pure coconut oil or just a part of coconut oil. It is to the publics advantage to learn the benefits of coconut oil in topical form as well as ingested form. Do your reasearch. Tropital Traditions.com gives a good summary of whys and wherefores. Thanks for listening. Moonyean F.


 * It appears that the substance tested was Cocamide DEA, which is a derivative of coconut oil. http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/chemhealtheffect.php?chem_id=3511 Even so, the health effects do not seem to be of great concern.  Thanks for providng that link and the background info.  -Willmcw 21:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Personal experience, June 2006 I put refined coconut oil on my baby son's eczema yesterday, and also on my own face. Today, his eczema is gone, leaving only a trace of red under the skin. The rough, dry and scaley patches are all 100% cleared. We tried everything on this skin problem, including two prescriptions from our pediatrician, and the refined coconut oil worked perfectly. Also, on my face I have had some kind of lump for years. Nothing worked to eliminate it, so I tried the same coconut oil on my face that I put on my baby. Today, 24 hours later, that lump is almost completely gone. It was small, and centered on one large pore beside my nose. - Jerry Davis

uncourced "studies"
This is contrary to the one source that we have listed, and to prevailing views. We need to have references for these studies and critics. -Willmcw 20:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Critics of these studies contend that they did not differentiate between saturated fats and trans fats, which they say are to blame. Studies have found that virgin coconut oil increases metabolism and weight loss, and recent research has found that consuming coconut oil actually reduces cholesterol.

Coconut oil as anti-viral agent
I have moved the following item from the article page because the source does not meet Reliable sources, which means that the item itself does not meet Verifiability and can be deleted. "It has been suggested that virgin coconut oil may have a potential as an anti-viral agent. In the first clinical trial involving HIV patients, treatment with coconut oil for 8 months resulted in reduced viral load in 8 or 15 patients, and favorable increase in CD4/CD8 counts in 5 of 15 patients." --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  22:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Water extract obtained from coconut husk fiber and fractions from adsorption chromatography revealed antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus. The crude extract and one of the fractions rich in catechin also showed inhibitory activity against acyclovir-resistant herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1-ACVr). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12558183&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum --Ryan Wise 05:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The polyphenolic-rich extract from the husk fiber of Cocos nucifera Linn. (Palmae) presents antibacterial and antiviral activities...as shown by our group in previous works. The minimal inhibitory concentration of the polyphenolic-rich extract from C. nucifera to completely abrogate parasite growth was 10 microg/ml. ...These results provide new perspectives on drug development against leishmaniasis, since the extract of C. nucifera at 10 microg/ml is a strikingly potent leishmanicidal substance which inhibited the growth of both promastigote and amastigote developmental stages of L. amazonensis after 60 min, presenting no in vivo allergenic reactions or in vitro cytotoxic effects in mammalian systems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15059625&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum

Edit messing up article formatting
Could somebody please append this to Health effects section:

A study performed by the Wynn Institute for Metabolic Research found positive associations between serum, adipose and aortic plaque omega-6 polyunsatured fatty acid content. No associations were found between serum, adipose or aortic plaque saturated fatty acid content:

"We compared the fatty-acid composition of aortic plaques with that of post-mortem serum and adipose tissue, in which essential fatty-acid content reflects dietary intake. Positive associations were found between serum and plaque omega 6 (r = 0.75) and omega 3 (r = 0.93) polyunsaturated fatty acids, and monounsaturates (r = 0.70), and also between adipose tissue and plaque omega 6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (r = 0.89). No associations were found with saturated fatty acids. These findings imply a direct influence of dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids on aortic plaque formation and suggest that current trends favouring increased intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids should be reconsidered."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7934543&dopt=Citation

Need help - can someone add this information (don't have time to learn how to edit it right now)
This is regarding the statements on the health research controversy:

Here are the original statements:

"The above study involved only 14 subjects, and it is unclear how the coconut oil used for the study was processed. The conclusion that coconut oil is unhealthy is consistent with prior concerns raised by the AHA.

The study has been criticised as misleading. The participants in the study consumed refined coconut oil, which is regarded by some as dangerous because of the added chemicals to make the oil colorless and odorless. In contrast to the study done by the AHA, a more recent modern study 1 showed coconut oil reducing LDL and improving HDL."

Now I had emailed the authors of this study to ask them exactly what type of coconut oil they used (I too was wondering if they were using the refined or hydrogenated stuff).

This is the reply I got from Jason Harmer:

Thank you for your interest in our research study into the effects of saturated fats on the anti-inflammatory properties of HDL-cholesterol and blood vessel function.

Below you will find some additional information about the fats used in this study.

I do apologize if I have not been able to answer all of your questions.

Best wishes, Jason Harmer

COCONUT OIL:

By Melrose Laboratories Pty Ltd

4 Redland Drive

Mitcham 3132 Victoria AUSTRALIA

Tel (03) 9874 7800

www.melrose health.com.au

Sold as 300 g NET:


 * Virgin
 * Cold-pressed
 * Unrefined
 * Organic (ie: Australian Certified Organic)
 * High in Lauric Acid (~48%)
 * Product of the South Pacific and East Timor
 * Bottles describe that the oil is produced using the Direct Micro Expelling (DME) process.
 * This oil is WIDELY available in “heath food” stores within Australia.

SAFFLOWER OIL:

Biogenic Health Foods

By Select Health Products

2 Tarlington Place

Smithfield NSW 2164 AUSTRALIA

Sold as 500 mL v:


 * Virgin
 * Cold-pressed
 * Free from chemicals and preservatives (but no specific mention of this product being “organic”, or Australian Certified Organic) – though it is self-described as “pure” and “natural”
 * Packed in Australia
 * This oil is also WIDELY available in “health food” stores within Australia

Clearly, they did their homework and used the good stuff. Can someone kindly incorporate this info into the main page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spacediver (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

A New Look at Coconut Oil
Anyone read this paper? A New Look at Coconut Oil It's got plenty of referencing, though I'm no researcher, just someone who wants to believe the anti-coconut oil rheteric was based on lies and using partially-hydrogenated oil, rather than virgin. --TheRedFall 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For one, stop using alternative healing web sites as cited sources- if they cite anything, refer to that. These citations are so very, very old, mostly 60s and 70s preliminary work. Better controlled work published in the last 20 years continues to support claims that high saturated fat negatively impacts cholesterol profile and increases the risk of heart disease. I've included most of my info in the article itself. 152.3.61.244 23:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Will higher temperature damage it?
"Coconut oil is best stored in solid form - i.e. at temperatures lower than 24.5 °C (76°F) in order to extend shelf life. However, unlike most oils, coconut oil will not be damaged by warmer temperatures." If, therefore, kept at temperatures higher than 24.5 °C, coconut oil's shelf life is shortened, i.e. some chemical processes will occur. Therefore, some damage WILL happen. The paragraph is self-negating.


 * I removed the second sentence, as it is uncited and also most likely untrue. The previous one is common knowledge - when kept cooler, triglycerides keep better.  The temp given is arbitrary, and should be removed and replaced with a more appropriate general statement r.e. temps and storage. Halogenated (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

% Saturated Fat?
The Hormel Foods link says "Coconut oil contains a high level of saturated fat (92%)", whereas the article presently says "86.5% saturated fatty acids". As a human-processed product derived from a natural source (a plant) that comes in several varieties, it seems inaccurate and misleading to give a single % saturated fat content number precise to a tenth of a percent. Something more like "approximately 90 percent saturated fat" would probably be more appropraite. 24.85.239.188 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Update, May 22nd, 2006
After doing some non-experimental research on this subject, I decided (correctly) that this page needed a major overhaul. Forgoing clinical aspects for a second...journalistically, this page is woefully biased. This is partly due to poor article organization, which I've revised to make this article a) linear, and b) counter-balanced. Asides from reorganization however, it needed a few additions regarding the consensus of the OTHER side of the debate (oh, that!) as well as some subtractions, which should remain so until someone substantiates them. One of my favorites:

"Populations consuming large quantities of coconut oil, eg Sri Lanka, Kerala and the Philippines, have far lower rates of heart disease than Westerners eating polyunsaturated oils [citation needed]."

Yes indeedy.

This statement is not only unfounded, it's selectively presumptive -- who ever said that Westerners consumed primarily polyunsaturated fats? Every medical and dietary article I've ever read declares that the Western diet is susceptible to health consequences because of its high amounts of trans and saturated (mostly animal-derived) fats. Until someone demonstrates otherwise, the above quoted statement should stay out.


 * The statement isn't presuming westerners eat primarily polyunsaturated fats; it's stating that westerners eat more (but not necessarily primarily) polyunsaturated fats than the mentioned countries. My understanding of the larger point is that it's claimed that after some lab tests on hydrogenated fats, various western researchers concluded that any saturated fats were bad, and that the western food oil industry has promoted this belief to further its own goal of selling more unsaturated vegetable oils.  The fact that medial or dietary articles (still) claim that there is too much saturated fat in the western diet does not contradict this theory; it is the (supposed) cause of the current situation, not a (contradictory) consequence.  ... which is all nice, but not terribly useful for the article without some references, I realize.  24.85.239.188 05:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * More to the point, I think, is that these comparisons seem to be between a sedentary population with huge calorie intake, and the complete opposite. Regardless of our confidence that westerners eat more polyunsaturated fats, these alleged results are irrelevant 64.85.160.49 07:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

Also, I removed the "Oiling of America" article, since its lack of focus on coconut oil simply reveals it to be, in its current state, an outright polemic against several people and industries. The Raymond Peat article link, for similar reasons, was changed to specifically his article on coconut oil, since that is, after all, what this article is about.


 * This Raymond Peat article seems to be the source of much rampant online linking of coconut oil to stimulating the thyroid and raising the metabolism, but without citations, which seems to then be speculated elsewhere to be because of coconut oil's high lauric acid content, without citations (including lauric acid). However, I did some moderate searching around and couldn't find any citations or hard research studies regarding any of this, and the Peat article is vague, or maybe deliberately lacking citations, regarding the studies it mentions. (link to Peat article in question: ) mmortal03 (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And lest any particularly zealous coconut oil proponents attack me over this revision, enjoy this small confession: I happen to have a jar of coconut oil in my cupboard and I joyfully spread some on my toast everything now and then. It's delicious, and I hope my doctors are wrong about everything they've told me. Now sod off.

-JQ, 2006.05.22 2h55

Removed the following entry:

"Some people have reported improvements in skin conditions such as eczema when using coconut oil. [citation needed]

I scoured several large medical journal databases -- not one turned up a study reporting any such correlation, so this statement remains hearsay.

-JQ


 * I found one that states that it's as effective as mineral oil for treating xerosis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15724344:

Health effects
Due to the controversy over the health effects of coconut oil (is it bad or is it good), EVERY statement in the "health effects" section, for and against, should state references and sources. The current second paragraph of this section does not do this to my satisfaction, and I am considering removing it. Of the three assertions made here, only 1 is referenced. Massjit 22:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to remove claims that look like facts that are made without reference. However, right now, the health section reads very poorly because it is a collection of unrelated comments backed by references.  It has no flow.  I think the health effects section should be re-written in such a way that it gives the reader a sense of an overall theme.  Since we can't agree that it is overall good or bad, the theme should be that there is controversy over the health effects of coconut oil; we could then group the statements into a paragraph supporting, one opposing, and add some discussion about why it is difficult to establish relative harm / benefits.  Just a few sentences would be necessary to do this I think.  Cazort 04:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cazort's comments, but personally I find the plethora of unreferenced claims and statements to be a much bigger concern than the flow of the paragraph. I plan to delete all of the unreferenced claims in this section unless someone can provide solid references. Personally I would be thrilled if there is objective support for these statements, but I am opposed to including this information based on mere belief or hearsay. Massjit 18:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it would be better to Fact-tag first. --Ronz 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism? the statement "During the 1980s, the American Heart Association issued statements indicating that coconut oil's high saturated fat content was detrimental to cardiovascular health and promoted heart disease." is followed by references (11 & 12) that say nothing of the sort - these links are to yet more crackpot sites that disagree with the general scientific view that coconut oil are unhealthy. I think we can all agree that the internet is chock full of amateur opinion that we are all being had and that coconut oil is terrifically healthy. none of this appears to be supported by actual research that doesn't originate in the philippines, but it's everywhere so it must be correct, right? ffs why are people so hellbent on "proving" coconut oil is a health product? get a life, freaks 124.190.6.202 13:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl


 * Chill  Shot info  22:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV problems
I tagged the "Effects on health" section, but the problems are larger. Many of the sources are poor and are used to give undue weight to certain points of view. --Ronz 18:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, citing the American Journal of Nutrition in a peer-reviewed study of saturated fats is a "poor source" and gives "undue weight"?? So you remove it giving only one side of the saturated fat issue - that's neutral alright. You also removed FACTUAL information about the "wonderful" Australian study on the carrot cake and milkshake "meal." I am glad you tagged this section as not being neutral anymore, because you have removed factual content (uncivil comment removed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.225.198 (talk • contribs)


 * Please read the edit summary that was made with the edit you're so concerned about. There is no mention of poor sources nor undue weight in it, so I don't see any problem.  You might also want to review WP:NPOV. --Ronz 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are that the "criticisms are unfounded." However, anybody can review the edits and see that they were not points of views, but factual statements meant to balance the assertions made regarding saturated fats and the incomplete data on the Australian study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.225.198 (talk • contribs)


 * No, the comments are "removed pov and off-topic sentences" . Your efforts to "balance the assertions made regarding saturated fats and the incomplete data on the Australian study" are pov edits.  Thanks for admitting your motives.
 * Please note that WP:NPOV violations are a serious matter and an editor can be blocked for repeatedly making them. --Ronz 03:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me how I am "repeatedly violating WP:NPOV" by participating in this discussion? I have made no further edits to the document. (Refactor, removing personal attack) I don't think I made a pov edit. A study was cited and I added further information from that study, including a quote, and you chose to edit it out (removed personal attack). The fact remains that the "meal" in that study was a piece of carrot cake and a milkshake, and that the conclusions of the authors of the study do not match the conclusions the popular media made. (removed uncivil comment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.225.198 (talk • contribs)


 * No one said you're repeatedly violating WP:NPOV. I am encouraging you to read WP:NPOV.  NPOV is a very complicated but important policy. I think this article has multiple, serious NPOV violations in it, so I started this discussion. --Ronz 04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He, as well as others, may have felt you were strongly insinuating (N)POV and that the comments such as about blockingand the "unfounded" part were more harsh than he expects (accusation removed). From my perspective edits were not so off topic, as not encyclopedically focused and well phrased on current nutritional science controversies that are still contaminated by the 1950s-1990s transfat debacle as well as carb/insulin/"metabolic syndrome"/CRP issues. I have left some constructive suggestions for the new editor.--TheNautilus 12:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to clarify anything I've written.
 * There's ample evidence here that editors aren't bothering to even read what I've written, and instead attack me for what they assume I have. We aren't going to get anywhere if this continues. --Ronz 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have gone over the article and Talk contribution records synchronously, starting with the article here and the Talk (NPOV} here. Newbie 68.114.225.198 correctly (in mainstream literature too) pointed out the specific junk food composition of the Australian test meal, which is *very* high in sugars and carbs(where other studies show ~1/4 of the population will be *highly* BADLY reactive to sugar, ~1/2 fairly negatively reactive to carbs, with unknown(?) modulation by fats), and correctly stated the (unfortunately) long "conventional medicine/nutrition" history of transfats that had been (mis)promoted for cardiovascular "benefits" for decades (ca 1950s-90s). He then cited a 1981 epidemilogical study from a high impact journal, AJCN, with very favorable evidence for lifetime diets heavy in coconut oils, citing the authors' conclusion, "Vascular disease is uncommon in both populations and there is no evidence of the high saturated fat intake having a harmful effect in these populations."  He then removed some bits too commercial to him. and improved text.  Then you (removed exaggeration) criticized his edit, deleted & tagged his edits as POV and admonished him (removed exaggeration) (removed personal attack) all where your edits (refactor) suggest your own pov which we have discussed before, among others.


 * The newbie, now in Talk, appears a little concerned he is being erroneously dismissed or lightweighted (about a study that is not even in true contradiction, lifetimes of coconuts vs hours of carbs with or w/o some coconut). After (refactor) you adjust the section headers, you characterize his relatively conventional conversation (a very new IP) as uncivil while you delete in toto his edit , rather than give some helpful hints, a selective {(cn}} or minor phrase deletions, where he makes three factual citations (14 person test, cake & milkshake meal, authors' conclusion), but he trips some on summarizing the (un?)documented coconut oil processing (composition)  and the study's consistency with AHA positions, where help with more careful writing may handle the issue. (There appear to be some misunderstandings, over your edit summary, "your criticisms are unfounded", over *which* criticisms, the facts or newbie summary phrases that read as synthesis/technical editorial).


 * Newbie 68.114 then responds that he is citing facts, partly  correct but phrasing / presentation needs guidance. He's citing coconut centric lifetime studies on longevitivy and you are supporting a compositionally much different junk food test containing + coconut oil for several hours, claiming his edits are "off topic", "pov" and "can be blocked", when he simply needs a little help.  His response seems cool but is wrestling with the problems of your statements. You accuse the newbie of incivility again (refactored - removed harassment for not taking other action).  (Refactor - removed large personal attack)--TheNautilus 14:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note above you're accusing me of deleting anothers edit when I in fact deleted my own in an effort to be more clear and reduce the hostility that has escalated here. I've bolded the part for easy identification and request that it be considered for retraction. --Ronz 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No accusation, statement of fact. My point about “deletion in toto” in the article  is (doubly) correct where you actually had two sequential deletion examples. I simply did not paste in the correct content dif and had accidentally left in your previous "pointing" comment dif (the original text & phrasing removed as causing a run-on sentence) noting  your original comment on this particular matter in Talk,    '882244,  instead of the deletion '824“next”) that I thought you meant.  I avoided (left out) your  immediately preceding deletion 824 “prev” that I perceived as ill-informed and/or POV about current conventional science literature that may concern substantial subpopulations (e.g. diabetics) and/or complex dietary interactions (various ill-defined fatty acid sources with carbs, etc) that merit better mention in the content newbie 68.144 was attempting to contribute.


 * As for "heavily criticized", "too heavily criticized" is (would have been) longer, more accurate writing, not an exaggeration.


 * IMHO, this discussion could not be followed if I had tried to pull apart & follow these threads from the Coconut Oil article, its Talk edits *and* your content vs policy claims on different WP pages. The discussion (and editing) is already hideously complex enough. I will address more points on your various refactoring, (mis)characterizations, continuing policy claims and editing at my/your Talk pages later.--TheNautilus 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify 68.114's precise contribution in Ronz' deletions, 824 prev & 824next, these are 68.114's contribution history records for these two edits,  &  that subsequently were totally deleted by Ronz, discussed above.--TheNautilus 09:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you're done venting and are actually interested in working on this article instead. --Ronz 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unused references
I've removed the unused references as they've been tagged as such since this edit: 20 July 2006. --Ronz 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, with this kind of (lack of) civility, I don't think I'll ever work on an article here. Jeez.

It could actually be a slightly larger article. Hey, and what is that orange solid coconut oil? Gingermint (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with References
--Ronz 22:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Coconut Oil Miracle, Bruce Fife, C.N., N.D, (2004) - appears inappropriate as a source for medical and nutritional claims.
 * www.mercola.com/2001/jul/28/coconut_health.htm & www.newstarget.com/001587.html - inappropriate sources for AHA statments.


 * Completely agree with you! Stick to well-reputed sources and scientific studies in peer reviewed scientific journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.61.244 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 2 May 2007

Coconut oil is the healthiest oil to consume and this in confirmed by solid science.

The medical system is the #1 cause of death in the USA, responsible for the death of 10,000 to 40,000 people PER DAY. Why in the world would anyone beleive those terrorists over independant scientific research? If you want to beleive people who kill 40,000 a day and claim coconut oil is bad go ahead, but I eat coconut oil daily for it's numerous health benefits in large quantity and am in perfect health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.146.135 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 May 2007
 * Let's try to keep the discussion on topic please. See WP:TALK. --Ronz 02:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * apparently the people who like to invoke a mythical entity called "solid science" are people who aren't familiar with actual references. I think they must be the same people who say "Ask any member of [group about which I'm making sweeping assertion] and they'll tell you that [same sweeping assertion]" 64.85.160.49 08:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

"Effects on health" section
What's the point of having the first paragraph which begins, "There is widespread misunderstanding about coconut oil?" Why not just start with a summary of the health effects, if we have good sources that provides it? --Ronz 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz - I put "widespread misunderstanding" there - ask anybody you know, and I think about 9 out of 10 people will tell you "coconut oil is bad for you" or "coconut oil is high in cholesterol" - this is based on the erroneous press on coconut oil. I've even seen this article edited with the simple "fact" that coconut oil is high in cholesterol (it was promptly removed, not by me). (By the way, thanks for your positive comments about the citations I've added.) The fact is, it's difficult to try to refute urban legend or other common misunderstanding without seeming to be treading on the NPOV line. Gekritzl 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've been researching it more and don't see any good solutions.  Saturated fat hasn't made much headway either.  All these small-sample studies are red flags, but they'll have to do 'til we find better or some nice research reviews. --Ronz 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am doing some edits on the "Effects on Health" section. I am finding that some of the scientific literature has been referenced incorrectly. I am simply making the statements more accurate. I removing the following sentence (that references 3 studies): "In contrast, other studies found a protective role for coconut oil on heart disease markers." I looked up the citations and only one of the three studies is actually about coconut oil. One is about different types of fat (saturated, monounsaturated, etc.) and the other is about medium chain triglycerides. Neither one is the same as coconut oil. I will add back the epidemiological study that is actually on coconut oil, as well as another epidemiological study that I found.--Little Flower Eagle (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Study is on palm oil
I looked at reference [19] (Edmond K. Kabagambe et al) and this study has nothing to do with coconut oil:
 * A study examining the types of cooking oils used by Costa Ricans found that those who used palm oil were more likely to suffer a heart attack than using other oils.

Any point in its being there? Nunquam Dormio 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now removed this Nunquam Dormio 08:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Philippines it's called VCO?
Several studies have been done/are ongoing in philippine hospitals on the effects of Virgin Coconut Oil (VCO) also the National government is standardizing the the manufacturing process along with the PNS see ref. The Country Finally Adopts Philippine National Standards (PNS) for VCO

but I don't feel that I can provide a NPOV on this subject at this point in time.

--Mkouklis 11:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Frying with it
Mum fried up some hash brown patties in coconut oil, and I couldn't breathe. The oil vapour was like trying to breathe water... yet I've never had problems with other vegetable oils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

live saving!
someone please include research by bruce fife, n.d. he researched and wrote several books about the benefits of coconut oil. he explained saturated fat better than i've ever read before: imagine a bus wherein every seat is filled to capacity--or "saturated" with riders. that's what a saturated fat molecule looks like; its complete and intact and can't let anything in. polyunsaturated oil molecules, and to a further extent trans fat, is like a bus with only a few seats filled. after a while it oxydizes, attaches to free radicals, bonds to other molecules, and is otherwise dangerous. i know i'm supposed to discuss the article, not the subject, but coconuts, and especially their oil, are so vilified by their competition [for backstory check out http://www.wholesoystory.com/ and dont get me started on canola] that countries are thinking of turning a wholesome food into feul, but feeding us oil that oxydizes in our bodies and causes cancer. VCO, when used properly, stays fresh, cooks beautifully, tastes great, and best of all, wont kill you. sorry for soapboxing, but cancer is worth preventing :) 76.217.125.14 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fife's work doesn't even come close to meeting our standards here. --Ronz 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Negativity and Health Effects?
Everything I have heard recently about coconut oil is that it is not anywhere as bad as it has been made out to be. The reason why it has such a bad reputation is because the Soybean lobby got their way in the 80s and 90s to push their product on consumers. Due to this, many people are having coronary problems from fats like Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil and such. If anything, this article should examine the soybean lobby's effects on the success of coconut oil and the truth about coconut oil being healthier than other fats should be stressed on wikipedia. --Barinade2151 00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sources attribute..."
"Sources attribute different characteristics to coconut oil's saturated fat fraction, as compared to other food products, such as those derived from animal fat." I do not know what this is supposed to mean. Starting with "sources" comes across as WP:WEASEL. "Saturated fat fraction" is not easily understood. "Characteristics" is not used or explained elsewhere, so it is also confusing and comes across as WEASEL. --Ronz 17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources are those references at the end of the sentence. "Saturated fat fraction" is the quantity of the lipid that is saturated, as opposed to unsaturated. If this sounds too much like chemistry, there may be other ways to phrase it. "Saturated fat component"? The whole controversy, though, is about whether or not laurate, caprylate, and other medium-chain lipids have different physiological effects than the longer-chain lipids of animal fat like stearate and palmitate. (Hence, the characteristics.). What do you (or others) think? Frankg 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to identify one or more of the sources in some way rather than saying "Sources attribute". Seems like "saturated fat fraction" can be rephrased to something more readily understood.  It's just the ratio of saturated to unsaturate fats, correct?  I'm still not sure what to do about "characteristics". --Ronz 16:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, rephrase to maybe, "Researchers such as Enig, Kurup,...attribute..." etc.? Meanwhile, the composition of the saturated fats (the particular type of lipids) is different from other well-known heavily-saturated fats, hence the dispute. (Let me know if I should clarify this point, I don't mean to leave out details if an expanation is appropriate.) Frankg 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of it is simple rephrasing, but it needs to be specific and clear. "Researchers" is better than "sources".  I don't know if it's necessary to name them since there are references.  I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'm thinking it would be beneficial to refer to what is currently in the article rather than introducing new terms and phrases. --Ronz 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding sources of information, but postdating the above discussion by some two years... I wrote what follows, without much hope of response, in user page of the IP address which left the potentially useful table in the physical properties section during July 2009:

Looking at an edit performed from an IP address as of 21:43, 27 July 2009 by 75.163.133.150 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coconut_oil&oldid=304555824 at that time

someone added a much needed table for the Fatty Acid Profile of coconut oil. Thanks!

Please could they add a citation to the source of this table and, if it is not an on-line resource, any more information available on what the source of samples was - ie. region, processing.

thanks for that - if you are unable to do the edit yourself at present, if you'd like to post me the information to my talk page, I'll try to get round to it,

if you're that person or know them by other than an IP address can you move this along or let me know, thanks Trev M (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Coconut oil ever tried it?
It's frustrating many times trying to access Philippine governmental servers you have typhoons, volcano eruptions, earthquakes in Taiwan(under sea cables from here to there), people stealing the wire going to offices from the road, comp-virus's, old equipment, old software, sun spots, more... that means lots of reasons for broken links even for more than two months (post Taiwan earthquake). So just because a link don't work today doesn't mean it's no valid. And point two many hospital studies are not readily available(free) on the internet but hard copies can be purchased it takes money to publish that isn't always available. BTW I hadn't checked my watch list in over 6 weeks and just happened across your edit's looking for something else of mine watched. --Mkouklis 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC) "Resurrect Pages" https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2570
 * If you are a Firefox user then I suggest you try this add-on for locating dead pages:


 * Moved from my talk page to discuss here...
 * Mike, the link I deleted (PNS for VCO) and you reinstated really did seem to be non-functional. When I checked, the the source website was fully functional (see: Parent website) so I tried to find a valid link to this verification information on the host site, but was unable.  However now both the host site and link are not functioning.  I left the non-functional link you reinstated but it would be nice to have a link that works when the host site is working. OccamzRazor 00:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not contributing to this article but would like to point out that those were a whole lot of excuses about the Philippines government servers. I emphasize the term 'excuses'. I have lived here in the PI for a while now and the only thing wrong with the government servers is themselves. They have not, to this day, figured out how to create a proper system. If they did something as simple as getting a free copy of phpnuke with sentinel, they would be exponentially better off. The links they provide will change from day to day or simply disappear sometimes, even the press releases. It is not a matter of connecting to them. Me thinks you give them too much credit.210.5.75.10 (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the servers cannot reliably reproduce pages, they are not appropriate for citation.Halogenated (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims about promising treatment for AIDS, etc.
Claims about studies showing that coconut oil is a promising treatment for AIDS, HIV, dental care, peptic ulcers, benign prostatic hyperplasia, genital herpes, and hepatitis C do not cite references that meet the Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. One verification source, cited twice, is to http://www.doh.gov.ph/SARS/coconut_oil.htm – a “page not found” on an otherwise functional website for the Philippine Department of Health. The URL also seems to specify “SARS” instead of HIV or AIDS. The other reference citation is to a paper published by http://www.coconutoil.com, not a valid scientific publication, especially when it comes to claims about treatment for diseases as serious as AIDS. Therefore, I have removed the claims. If someone can provide valid reliable sources, feel free to reinsert. OccamzRazor 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That link should be all lower-case: http://www.doh.gov.ph/sars/coconut_oil.htm works just fine. Argonel42 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Profile of Conrado Dayrit
This man was the premier researcher on coconut oil until his recent death. This page is lacking without a mention of him. Unfortunately, some of the pages he's on have trouble loading (the above link is a cache), but hopefully that will clear up in time. OptimistBen (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He's mentioned, but should not be discussed in detail. His research r.e. HIV/AIDS focusses on 7 case studies, three of which developed AIDS while consuming coconut oil, one of which died within 2 weeks - hardly groundbreaking, and not even remotely statistically significant.Halogenated (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusing
The grammar in this article makes it almost impossible to read. It's almost impossible to work out what is being claimed. I think the first part of the article is in favour of coconut with the last part being against it. The trouble is that the bit that is for the coconut is written in such a way that it appears to be against it. I think somebody has ham-fistedly edited it. It would be better if one of the original writers edited it... as only they can truly say what they intended to write. Slick12 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I agree this article needs to be revised, I don't see what you're talking about in terms of favoritism. The article has been pretty well edited to remove POV statements, particularly in the health section.  It would be useful if you could point out some specific examples.  Halogenated (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hypertension
The article abstract for noting the association of hypertension with coconut fat intake is confusing. It states that saturated fat intake was significantly associated with hypertension, followed by that consumption of coconut oil and butter was weakly associated with hypertension, and then followed by "Significant determinants of hypertension were higher saturated fat, particularly coconut oil". Can someone with access to this journal:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167-5273(96)02842-2

read this over and provide some clarification? Halogenated (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Coconut Oil Article Unconscionably Biased and Inaccurate
I found Wikipedia very helpful to me during my medical studies, especially in studying pharmaceuticals. But this article points up the problems with permitting anyone, including those with vested interests, to post whatever they please with little objective review. Plainly those who are selling coconut oil, either for profit or just because they are True Believers, are going to be more motivated to alter it and to keep changing it to suit their prejudices than are public spirited citizens with a little basic science knowledge to make it accurate.

In the case of coconut oil this is a serious matter as the article is implicitly encouraging the consumption of a very unhealthy product. The article contains a great deal of misinformation, one notable one being that “monolaurine” can only be found in coconut oil and mother’s milk. What could be healthier than mother’s milk? The article actually contradicts itself on that point, telling us that, in fact, the monolaurine is produced in the human body FROM lauric acid. Lauric acid is, in fact, one of the most common of fatty acids in nature. According to the Cyberlipid Center: “It occurs extensively in Lauraceae seeds (Laurus nobilis) where it was discovered (Marsson T Ann 1842, 41, 329). It is dominant in cinnamon oil (80-90%), coconut oil (40-60% as trilaurin) and is found also in Cuphea species (Umbelliferae).”

I hope someone at Wikipedia will take this article in hand and lock out the misinformed and/or greedy exploiters who are seeking to use Wikipedia to further their own ends. Consult a REAL nutritionist or an organic chemist to learn why coconut oil, with its very high percentage of saturated fat, is almost as bad for you as lard.

JohnFMayer (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)John Mayer

Hello JohnFMayer: I would like to defend myself and also point out a contradiction in your statements. I was the one who added the bits about lauric acid and monolaurin. First, I want to assure your that I am not selling coconut oil, not do I work for the coconut oil lobby. I started researching coconut oil to see if I could determine the truth about it. Second, the points that I added to the article about lauric acid and monolaurin were taken from an article in a journal indexed on PubMed. That was not information from the internet or a commercial group. It may not be correct, but it supposedly came from a scientific source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Flower Eagle (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To continue my comments to JohnFMayer...I agree that my use of nomenclature was confusing. I followed the example of the author of the article that I was referencing and used the terms "lauric acid" and "monolaurin" interchangably. Yes, you are correct - lauric acid is converted into monolaurin in the body. Having said that I must question your assertion that "lauric acid is one of the most common of fatty acids in nature." Who eats Lauraceae seeds or cinnamon oil? From your own list coconut oil is the only meaningful source of lauric acid. I don't know if there are other sources. The Wikipedia article on lauric acid lists the sources (besides coconut oil) as palm kernal oil, mother's milk, cow's milk and goat's milk, but there is no reference for that data.

I haven't come to any conclusions yet about the virtues or evils of coconut oil. However, my impression is that these medium chain triglycerides do have some health benefits. There also appears to be at least some epidiemiological data suggesting that consumption of coconut oil does not increase the incidence of CVD. I suspect that coconut oil is neither a panacea nor a monster - that it has its pros and cons and should be used in the right amounts in the right ways. I don't know the specifics yet, but I'll keep you posted. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I removed the statements about lauric acid, monolaurin and mother's milk. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ignorance on this Talk Page a Good Example of How a Wikipedia Article Goes Bad
“Everything I have heard recently about coconut oil is that it is not anywhere as bad as it has been made out to be. The reason why it has such a bad reputation is because the Soybean lobby got their way in the 80s and 90s to push their product on consumers.“

Sadly, I’m sure that “everything you’ve heard recently” IS pro-coconut oil. The coconut oil lobby - which includes agents of the Phillipines, Malaysia and the processed food industry which LOVES coconut oil for its cheap price, long shelf life and palatable taste - have been campaigning for decades to obscure scientific fact. Now that we have the Internet they have the perfect tool to do so. No, the soybean industry was not able to manipulate scientists to their evil ends; the facts about the dangers of saturated fats were well established by a variety of chemists, nutritionists and researchers totally irrespective of the benefits to soy oil producers or other producers of polyunsaturated fats. I see there are some on this page, sure enough, who are going further and proclaiming the health benefits of saturated fats in general. All in all, this discussion page is starting to sound like one of Dr. Mercola’s pages - Dr. Mercola sells coconut oil - except that Mercola censors out most challenges on this and other false nutritional claims.

The original article here on coconut oil was accurate and scientific. It has now been cobbled up by scammers and the ignorantsia to the point that it does more harm than good. If only Wikipedia articles had the shelf life of coconut oil.

JohnFMayer (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)John Mayer

John, Coconut oil is good for you, as is lard if you eat meat. These natural saturated fats will provide your body with energy and keep you healthy. Avoid man made unnatural fats, such as hydrogenated oils and you will do fine. Previous studies have lumped these natural and unnatural fats together and this has caused the confusion. cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been a few months since I looked at this article, and I have to say that overall I agree with JohnFMayer. There are even more unsupported claims about coconut oil in the article now than there were before. It seems that the article has definite neutrality issues; it comes across as an article written to promote coconut oil, rather than an article meant to review the current scientific knowledge about this substance. There is almost no substantiation for most of the statements that are made here. I guess I'll start by adding tags for much needed citations. If I can figure out how to do it I will also add a tag questioning the article's neutrality.--Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and tagged the article as having an NPOV dispute. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Useful tags: rs for sources that may not be meet WP:RS, self-published inline for sources that are self-published, fact for statements that need a source for verification, POV-statement for biased information. List of inline templates here. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I like eating shredded coconut at a local restaurant here in the Seattle area. My wife warns it's not heart-healthy. I came to the wikipedia coconut oil article to find more information. I was quite disappointed. Perhaps the information in the article is correct. But it reads so much like a promotion that I'm quite skeptical. I'm used to reading scientific literature. The health section of this article sounds like an advertisement. So I concur with JohnFMayer. 97.126.95.118 (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gutted large sections - it cited in vitro studies, single studies, old studies, books of dubious repute, sales sites, coconut promotion bodies and the like as if they were scholarly sources.  The claims were generally not attributed to medically reliable sources.  You can throw anything at a cell in a petri dish and the cell will die.  You can measure any correlate of heart attacks and show a change, that doesn't mean it'll prevent heart attacks.  These sorts of preliminary, exploratory data should not be used on wikipedia.  This page attracts a lot of spam and should be policed vigorously.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with some of the WLU's edit. However, this edit is inaccurate. It says it is removing poorly-sourced in vitro research, but it removed some good PubMed-indexed scholarly information. Notably, in this edit WLU removed a review article discussing the novel antimicrobicidal effects; the abstract states that "based on studies of the microbicidal activities of lipids, both in vitro and in vivo, the possibility of using such lipids as active ingredients in prophylactic and therapeutic dosage forms is considered". You also removed the conference abstract of a human trial. WLU is also misrepresenting MEDRS, which doesn't say that in vitro, animal, or other early research are "forbidden" on Wikipedia. This was discussed not long ago at MEDRS (Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_3) and the consensus was certainly not what you're saying. Also, no offense, but it's not true that "you can throw anything at a cell in a petri dish and the cell will die" - WLU might want to word things more carefully, because statements like that seem remarkably ignorant. It is tantamount to saying that the numerous researchers who do or have done in vitro research are idiots. II  | (t - c) 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's a review article, I have no problem but there was so much bad text I used a pretty rough measure. I wouldn't want to include a conference abstract, as they are often preliminary and incomplete reports.  If it's in vitro or animal, they should be portrayed as such and not "coconut oil has antimicrobial effects", it should be "in vitro and animal studies have suggested that coconut oil may have antimicrobial effects in petri dishes and in animals but these results do not mean the same will occur in humans."
 * I'm not saying in vitro studies are stupid and in vitro researchers are idiots - my more nuanced opinion would be in vitro studies are a hugely valuable part of basic biochemistry research and for research on cellular metabolic pathways, but are far, far less useful for predicting or understanding action in the human body and certainly shouldn't be used to defend the conclusion or statement that coconut oil will necessarily have an antimicrobial effect inside the human body. But that's a long and unnecessary statement for a talk page when all I was doing was justifying a lengthy removal of unnecessary spam and inappropriate research conclusions pushing the idea that coconut oil is a miracle cure for anything :)  I certainly have no problem with replacing an appropriately summarized review article.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Health Effects Section
Reference 10 to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7270479 does not show that they have normal lipid profiles. It explicitly states that the Tokelauans, who consume more coconut oil have a higher cholesterol level compared to the other group that had a lower saturated fat intake. Sirrecneps (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the section to talk in case editors want to use some of this information and these sources, after sources that follow WP:MEDRS are found. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is further proof of Dr Mary Enig's work: that cholesterol is not the cause of vascular disease. If you purchase her book "Eat Fat, Lose Fat" she explains it all. A more thorough and scientific explanation is written by Dr Malcolm Kendrick in his book titled: "The great cholesterol con: the truth about what really causes heart disease and how to avoid it."

High cholesterol leading to vascualr/heart disease is known as the Lipid hypothesis. Dr Mary Enig has shown evidence that processed saturated fats (such as processed palm oil and processed coconut oil) elevates the lipid profile, while fresh palm oil or extra-virgin coconut oil lowers the lipid profile. See here: Ultimately it is the quality of the saturated fat that causes vascular disease and not the cholesterol found in the fat itself. Consumption of large amounts of unprocessed (i.e. virgin) saturated fats may elevate lipid profiles (along with HDL 'good cholesterol') longterm but this will have no detrimental health effects as shown in the study you have mentioned.

The coconut oil article itself in Health Effects also alludes to the fact that processed MCFA of MCT (or processed fractionated coconut oil) creates a negative lipid profile.

I have found some excellent ncbi sources that relate to the above mentioned ideas and can be added to this article or maybe the palm oil article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767885 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1345319 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14506002 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19437058 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17180807 122.107.141.196 (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15329324 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17004906 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809454 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883511 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472790 122.107.141.196 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting far too promotional and off-topic for an article talk page. I'm collapsing the comments. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this off-topic?? I have provided more than enough information (backed by citations) which points to the fact that processed coconut oil is bad for you and extra-virgin coconut oil is good for you. The Lipid hypothesis may not need to be mentioned within the article but at least it gives an explanation as to why virgin is better versus processed. It also explains why the study of Pacific Islanders which have a high consumption of extra-virgin coconut oil (and high cholesterol) have no vascular disease. 122.107.141.196 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Yes, this is further proof of Dr Mary Enig's work" Seems you're more interested in proving Enig's work than anything else. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If Dr Mary Enig's work confirms reality, then this is your problem. Wiki's aim is to present verifiable evidence which Dr Mary Enig has done. 122.107.141.196 (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "If..." That's a big "if" with the evidence overwhelmingly in opposition. That's why we follow WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Health effects
Historically, many populations within the tropics have used coconut medicinally as a treatment for a wide variety of ailments.

A study into the effects of a "diet rich in.." medium-chain fatty acids (it should be noted that the study uses the processed MCFAs of MCTs (66% 8:0 and 34% 10:0) [i.e. Caprylic acid-C8 and Capric acid-C10 respectively] which is similar to processed fractionated coconut oil [see above]) concluded that "MCFAs in the form of MCTs significantly increased plasma triacylglycerol and LDL-cholesterol concentrations and the ratio of LDL to HDL cholesterol and thereby resulted in a less beneficial lipid profile overall."

The lack of negative effects of a diet rich in coconut oil on cardiovascular health is born out in studies of Polynesian populations who consume as much as 65% of their calories in the form of coconut oil and yet, have almost no incidence of heart disease and normal blood lipid profiles.