Talk:Coconut oil/Archive 4

reliable source?
Yes, FDA, WHO, DHHS, American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, National Health Service, Dieticians of Canada and a peer-reviewed journal are all reliable sources. In fact, they are all WP:MEDRS compliant. Yes, they are all remarkably stupid organizations using data that wasn't collected from a health food blog two weeks ago, instead relying on something they call "data" collected over years. Yes, they are all part of an international conspiracy between the overwhelming majority of medical professionals, various governments, the producers of canola, soy and other oils (who also produce coconut oil, bacon, veggie burgers, butter, margarine and every kind of food imaginable), the Illuminati, space aliens and, of course, the shadowy organization known simply as "Corporations". While we must expose the Truth about this massive conspiracy against this all-natural (and, therefore, good for your body and soul) product holy issue from the womb of Mother Earth, we are kinda stuck with the issue of WP:WEIGHT. The overwhelming consensus in published MEDRS sources is that coconut oil is not health food. Perhaps that consensus will change. It hasn't yet. Until it does, to present the contrarian view, you will need MEDRS sources discussing that view. Be prepared: If such sources exist, they will describe it as being unproven. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

dear summerPhD. thank you for helping to make the coconut oil article compliant with science. last time i looked it was a grab bag of information culled from vitamin magazines and intuition. i wish more people could understand that, if you cannot get multiple major science organizations to agree with you, you will have to live with that until the science culture changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.57.184 (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, that paragraph doesn't belong to the heading.
 * Second, until you find a source outside the Anglosphere, the info here is highly suspect. Where's the source from Asia? Japan? South America? Brazil? Africa? Non-English-speaking European countries? Germany? Until these regions are represented bias is suspect. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also looking for a study that was done in the last couple of years. I don't think the 1996 study should be considered as valid. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagging the article for lack of worldwide view when one of the sources used is the World Health Organization would seem to be unwise. Yobol (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yobol. As far as studies, we need stuff that meets WP:MEDRS no matter where it comes from for health claims.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, some old data turns out to be incorrect. No, we don't remove the widely accepted consensus because we think an extensive list of international scientific bodies is using data from (horrors!) the late 20th century.
 * Yes, we can certainly stand to add reliable sources from "outside the Anglosphere" (yes, WHO would be one of those, as would "Recommendations for the prevention of coronary artery disease in Asians: a scientific statement of the International College of Nutrition" by Singh, Mori, Chen, Mendis, Moshiri, Zhu, Kim, Sy, Faruqui (check their CVs)). No, this does not make the material "highly suspect"; I know of no reason to believe that English language sources are automatically subject to the supposed "corporate incentive for Western countries to villify this product since it poses as a conpetition to their oils." Heck, where's your magnifying glass looking for threads to tropical nations saying good things about the product?
 * We can verifiably state that "Many health organizations advise against the consumption of high amounts of coconut oil due to its high levels of saturated fat." If you can find WP:MEDRS sources that discuss alternative theories... - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why don't who do what? I have no idea what you mean, could you be more specific please?  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As highlighted. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have undone your bolding of portions of my comment. Please do not edit other users' comments, as outlined at WP:TALK. ( had bolded "Yes, some old data turns out to be incorrect." and "Yes, we can certainly stand to add reliable sources from 'outside the Anglosphere'".
 * If you would like to include WP:MEDRS sources, feel free to do so. I am not particularly interested in chasing those particular geese at the moment. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Two days back, I added a statement that was first removed saying it is an advertisement (for coconut oil). I use my real name and anyone can find where I am from, my interests, type of work and even my telephone number. So, since the reason given for deletion was not fair, I put it back. Next time it was removed by giving more acceptable reasoning. Now I am back to researching. It is indeed a very good thing that statements are vigorously checked before allowed into the encyclopedia. I wrote my statement assuming the earlier slack standard.

I came here only to check the melting point of coconut oil because the second jar I bought of the same brand name did not solidify as the first one did. Now I know that the second jar is not truly pure coconut oil as claimed. I was born in Sri Lanka and lived there during the time coconut milk was the base of every dish. There was only one cooking oil, coconut oil. Then in 1970s there was a campaign warning against use of coconut oil in favor of imported vegetable oil (and also margarine over butter). In those days, heart disease and diabetes were called "rich people's diseases". In my second half of life in America, we did not use coconut oil. Then when my memory started to fail, the doctor prescribed Donepezil HCl tablets after seeing steady decline in two visits. That caused waking time and dreams to fuse in me. He then asked me to read on coconut oil -- not a prescription. My med student daughter watched on with no comment. I found and read Dr. Bruce Fife's book on Alzheimer's. I took 3 teaspoons of it daily for about a month with remarkable results. Two of my friends older than me started to do the same saying it is better to die with dignity than to become walking trees.

I told this story to illustrate that science authorities may not be the best and only source of useful knowledge, and that knowledge has wider utility. Social control is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. (What are we saying in the 'god' page?) May be top of each page can give links to scientific authorities to tell people that if they are looking for advice, those are the places they ought to go to. I would prefer the encyclopedia to be more open about showing available knowledge with ample hints that some are not scientifically affirmed.

Thank you. JC (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You will need MEDRS sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * JC (talk): I reverted your second edit because the source is not compliant with the most trustworthy scientific evidence, as explained by WP:MEDRS. The source you used (B. Fife, not a real board-certified doctor or scientist) is a pseudoscience quackery site intended to mislead consumers into purchase and use of products that actually have no scientific foundation or scientifically proven value. At Wikipedia, we are constantly on the watch for such charlatan sites, and are diligent to remove them from the encyclopedia. Kind regards -- --Zefr (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought the matter was closed, but here you are again. I understand the words quackery. charlatan and pseudoscience. Board Certified applies to US only... Just reminding. As I said, I have no objection to keeping the site respectable. Now, did you make a warning by saying "At Wikipedia, we"? Are you a member of some super editorial censor board? I did not know that. Don't you think it it best to be explicit about your position of power, so I give due respect? The language used does not sound very friendly, but threatening.


 * So, again may I ask, if truth and pure verified truth is the goal, instead of doing God (disambiguation), God (word), God in Buddhism etc., and redirecting to deity. why not say just one thing in the god page and say, Churches are all Charlatan organizations, and most advocates of the idea also use pseudoscience? If not, you seem to apply a different standard to coconuts from far away countries as if they need to be disciplined?.

JC (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this conversation spun so far from the issue, I'll try to keep this focused. There seem to be two different issues being discussed here.
 * The original issue seems to be this addition by Ahangama/JC citing the Coconut Research Center saying that the "notion" that coconut oil's high saturated fat content increases the risk of cardiovascular disease is disputed by the Coconut Research Center "with compelling scientific arguments."
 * The "notion" is a scientific consensus.
 * The "Coconut Research Center" does not seem to be a notable entity. That they dispute anything is not a significant enough statement to include in a encyclopedia. There are hundreds of thousands of organizations in the world that dispute or support the scientific consensus on various topics. Their opinions are generally not significant.
 * That you feel their arguments are "compelling" and "scientific" is irrelevant.
 * If you would like to add that the Coconut Research Center has whatever opinion, you will need reliable sources that are independent of that organization saying what their opinion is. Otherwise, we have no indication that their opinion is meaningful.
 * If you would like to add that there is scientific debate as to whether or not the high level of saturated fat in coconut oil is harmful, you will need WP:MEDRS sources stating that. (The Coconut Research Center does not seem to be a reliable source, much less a WP:MEDRS source.)
 * The second issue, referred to by, is this addition by an IP, discussing "coconut oil pulling" (some kind of magic cure-all "detox" for the mouth). The source cited there is Dr. Axe. Yes, Dr. Axe pushes this and other ideas. Yes, he sells a lot of stuff from his site. That one particular guy pushes this particular idea is not noteworthy.
 * I see no particular indication that any of the sources being cited are "Christian" or what that has to do with anything here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First, I did not say anything about Christianity -- show me. Second, you confuse user Zefr and user Dbrodbeck. The former said I am advertising coconut oil. That is false, so I reversed. Dbrodbeck deleted it the second time and gave the proper reason for it. I agree. You don't have to repeat him, but there may be some points to be gained in some hidden system.

I had no reason to read the talk page until the second deletion happened. Still, what has transpired earlier is not my concern. Then, may be because I said I am researching, and perhaps to forestall me writing, or childishly to have the last word, Zefr unnecessarily threatened invoking his special privilege at Wikipedia (that I have no way of knowing) saying 'we at Wikipedia' are going to come down on quackery, charlatan and pseudoscience or something to that effect.

That got me thinking. If this is really the policy, the god page has only one line as I suggested. God, Allah, Brahma (same idea in different languages) and Deity have no scientific basis, right? Or, am I wrong? Debatable? What are we to do in applying a uniform standard? A reasonable standard is to show all sides of an issue to let the discerning reader come to their own conclusion. That is why they prefer the encyclopedia, at least I do. What the god page says is perfectly alright. That is the point. True or false, if an idea has a reasonable number of supporters it should be stated with appropriate caution. So far as I see, the advice on coconut is to be prudent and be wary of depending only on FDA or research now questioned in the scientific community. Search nih.gov. Here's a neutral one: Is Coconut Oil a ‘Miracle’ Food?

I think, a good idea to learn is to be reasonable, not provocative, do not condescend, don't be haughty, don't underestimate others judging by their looks or other attributes. Also perhaps, war and peace in discussion, are both options for the reasonable as well. JC (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WebMD Source
I am currently being road-blocked, at least it feels that way, by editor Zefr. I installed information from a cited source, WebMD. Zefr then removed my edit along with information that had been already prior entered. The excessive sourcing seemed proper to remove (it was not entered by me). I revisited my edit trying to conform to the cited policy they asked for. They then stated my entry was “non-sensical,” “minority,” and “inappropriate,” but they then kept my source! The source I took the information from! At this point, I suspect I am being blocked. I also am concerned about article Ownership they feel they have, and I am also concerned about this article being used as a Coatrack, mainly for views they want to purge. I have installed a POV tag until this is resolved and started the process here to avoid edit warring. Basileias (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The following was your edit on 26 Dec: "Coconut oil's saturated fat is in the medium chain triglycerides. These fats operate differently than typical saturated fat. Many use it for food, body applications, medicinal purposes and despute it's high calories, some claim it can help with weight loss. Research on this chain of fats is currently incomplete."
 * Although you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, your statement is poorly written, contains careless spelling, uses the WebMD source non-specifically and is unclear in various ways making it inappropriate for the lede: 1) you mix messages between coconut oil and saturated fats; 2) fats don't "operate" - your meaning in that sentence is vague and non-sensical; 3) stating that "many use it..." is woeful as WP:PEA and WP:FRINGE, and wouldn't meet WP:RS; 4) your subsequent revisions were also unclear and inappropriate as lede material. You have added article headers contesting NPOV and undue weight, but the article's history shows that minority points of view have come mostly from unregistered users who don't cite reliable sources, leading to a conclusion that fringe opinion applies.
 * If you feel that a more substantial statement should be made, source(s) such as these should be summarized for the article, but note that randomized clinical trials and/or meta-analyses on supposed health benefits of coconut oil don't seem to exist, so WP:MEDRS is not satisfied. --Zefr (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. That is a start. You called me an “experienced Wikipedia editor” so let me impart some advice. Referring to contributions as “non-sensical,” “minority,” “inappropriate,” “poorly written,” “careless spelling,” etc. when they’re experienced and with that kind of barrage is unfortunate. There are other ways to commutate disagreement that is more in line with proper behavior.


 * It looks like we have agreed the WebMD source I provided is appropriate. I was trying to consolidate points and not plagiarize word-for-word, but I will except improvement. If we run with your very strict interpretation of what an article lead is, probably most articles in the wiki are out of compliance. I would like to propose items of interest from the WebMD source. If we can start with a consensus, then hopefully we can move to inserting them into the article. Agreed? Basileias (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The WebMD source is a staff summary reviewed by a physician, so is a relatively low-quality WP:SECONDARY reference not subjected to external review, not inclusive of high-quality clinical trials (which appear to not exist) and probably not suitable to highlight in the lede. It may warrant being retained in the article because there seems to be no better summary by a reliable expert source. Although it provides references (under "View clinical references..."), some of which are for human studies, the background is preliminary and does not give sufficient evidence for medicinal or health effects. Possibly the strongest part of the WebMD source is the brief section on side effects which I specified in the source edit. By my own literature review, there isn't WP:MEDRS-quality research on coconut oil to justify including a comment in the lede or referring to its potential medicinal applications, except possibly for skin disorders. This is why I edited the lede to state the majority expert interpretation (sources under "Health effects"): as a significant source of saturated fat, regular intake of coconut oil (as seems to be a current fad) may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Hopefully, other editors will comment to help form a consensus one way or another. --Zefr (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The WebMD uses the term “concern” in side effects. It also says “there is contradictory evidence that shows that coconut oil might actually increase levels of “good” cholesterol and have little to no effect on total or “bad” cholesterol levels.” What you have in the article does not completely reflect WebMD.


 * I had also entered information from these statements, which you removed, “Coconut oil is high in a saturated fat called medium chain triglycerides. These fats work differently than other types of saturated fat in the body. However, research on the effects of these types of fats in the body is very preliminary.”


 * Will you allow information from this source to be entered into the article? It does not have to be the lead. Basileias (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the effect of coconut oil to increase body weight, there seems to be no adequate study to properly cite. For the discussion about fat composition (already well-presented in one section) and cholesterol effect, the 2nd paragraph under Health effects seems to already cover this point sufficiently. The WebMD reference doesn't provide enough verifiable information (WP:V) for any of the statements you wish to make, in my opinion, and the article should remain focused on coconut oil, rather than diverting to a discussion about triglyceride metabolism. You could use some of the stronger references under Health effects to make general statements.--Zefr (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested. Can someone state a civil concise question? Much of the discussion above isn't civil, and much of the discussion above isn't concise. What is the question?


 * I am road-blocked through reverts from Zefr from entering information from a WebMD source. Zefr has referred to my edits as “non-sensical,” “minority,” “inappropriate,” “poorly written,” “careless spelling,” etc. It is hard to have clarity when that is going on, though when I pointed out to him that behavior is unnecessary, they did quit.


 * Here is the edit that caused the issue. I will accept from his perspective it could have been written better, but that is what follow-up editing is for.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coconut_oil&type=revision&diff=696825597&oldid=696503990


 * Thoughts? Basileias (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you want to discuss article content, or personal attacks? If you want to discuss article content, please civil and concise, even if the other editor isn't.  If you want to discuss personal attacks, third opinion is not the place; try WP:ANI.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the added content was reasonable. If there is a question about whether the source is reliable, go to the reliable source noticeboard.  Please do not confuse a content dispute resolution process by making your post mostly about allegations of personal attacks.  These are ignored in third opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon, thank you for your time. I will propose potential edits on the talk page here before inserting them. Basileias (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally, we shouldn't be using sources like WebMD at all. However, anything in WebMed sources that supplements better MEDRS sources should be fine. Because it is a poor MEDRS source, anything unique to it should be considered carefully and doesn't belong in the lede or given high prominence elsewhere. Anything from such a source that contradicts better MEDRS sources almost never should be included at all.
 * So what does the source supplement, what's unique, and what does it contradict? --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ronz, let me create a new section to address your questions. I am willing to look at, and for, other sources. Basileias (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

WebMD Source - part 2
I will start with 2 query's.

1. Currently the opening of the article states this, "Health authorities advise against regular consumption of coconut oil due to its high levels of saturated fat (similar to that of animal fat) having potential to increase risk of cardiovascular disease."

The WebMD article states this, "Coconut oil is high in a saturated fat called medium chain triglycerides. These fats work differently than other types of saturated fat in the body. However, research on the effects of these types of fats in the body is very preliminary." This seems a bit different. I am willing to search for other sources.

2. Standard medical knowledge appears to be saying what is currently in the article. Alternative medicine, like Naturopathy seems to say something different. Are Naturopathy sources barred from an article like this? Basileias (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perspectives other than MEDRS aren't barred, per WP:NPOV, but they need to be qualified in at least three ways: They need to identify the group making the claims. They need to make it clear that the claims contradict the science. The current science must be mentioned. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Largely agree with Ronz, except to mention that material that seems to deviate from high quality sources needs to itself come from a high quality source to include here, per WP:DUE. Since we have numerous high quality sources that have actively discouraged consumption of coconut oil due to the saturated fat content, I think we need a high quality source to dispute it. Yobol (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Tags
Caballero1967, you had installed the following tags.


 * This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (December 2015)
 * This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2015)
 * This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (December 2015)
 * This article is outdated. (December 2015)

I wanted to see about removing some of them and wanted to hear your thoughts. Specifically I am referring to the accuracy, additional cit., and the outdated. Thank you. Basileias (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As per your request, I have re-read all the conversations in this TP, various of the diffs, and re-evaluated each of the sources concerning the debate (and more), and I appreciate the recent turn toward good practices. More of your patience, resolve, and good manners would certainly benefit Wikipedia.  However, I strongly support the conventional position on scientific sources articulated by editors like user: SummerPhD, user:Zefr, user:ronz and user:yobol.  To even suggest that sources other than scientific reviews should be used here for the subtopic of “Health Effects” is but a dilution of the article’s content—this goes even for WebMD articles that are promoting a minority view.  Editors here have done well in withholding the increasing tide of pseudoscience and quackery.  The problems are that even while WP:MEDRS’ suggested guidelines are regularly invoked, the article, with its outdated references and broken links, is not yet following them, and in the efforts of guarding against charlatanism and poor science the article is not yet reflecting the scientific (and medical) shift in consensus. Add that the “third opinion's" suggestion is still missing nor is there an improved version of it.  Moreover, perhaps because some clumsy argumentations, several of the non-conventional concerns expressed in this TP have been dismissed as simple ignorance or intentions of pursuing a personal agenda.  Though these troubles are often common among them, users expressing minority views may also communicate valuable ideas for the article’s improvement.  For example, while the literature is increasing on these topics, there is neither a space for traditional (world) health usages nor of Naturopathy (both are different).  True, it is not easy to write a cohesive article with sections like these in the middle of increasing disputes, shifting grounds and dubious interest without falling into traps like the “criticism gambit,” but a good article would look rounded by considering the controversies about the subject and updating its bibliography.  For now, my view is that each of the tags I placed (and renewed), are still in force; I would gladly explain how they still apply.  The good news is that with the recent (apparent) spirit of collaboration, this article could in a few days (even hours) reach the point that would merit taking them down.  Caballero / / Historiador    ☊  19:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Caballero1967, you have worded my intentions more eloquently than I have. I was noticing a shift in accepted uses for this product. While I want to believe there is a spirit collaboration, I am doubtful. I do not understand the reversion of my recent edit here or trim. The lead does not summarize the article. My query would be why not include summary information from "composition and comparison," "other health effects," "uses" (my additions here were reverted as inappropriate for the lede by another editor), etc. I suspect anything additional I do will be road blocked. I know with solid sourcing I would win arbitration, however its more time I do not want to spend on a pastime. At this juncture, I do not believe there is an acceptance for a rounded article considering controversies and popular uses (whether they are legitimate or not). The tags should probably stay and at minimal, acts as a warning the article is incomplete. I thought there was a break, but the last revert indicated otherwise. Basileias (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Health benefits section
What if the health benefits section was renamed health claims? I know there is research being done on coconut oil and there are new findings that could potentially be beneficial.

Isacab0613 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)isacab0613Isacab0613 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS applies regardless.
 * If there are third party sources available for verifying common marketing claims, then those should be considered for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Calling the section "health claims" rather than "health benefits" seems ok to me as it addresses both sides of considering coconut oil harmful if consumed internally (a reasonable assumption based on saturated fat intake, but not proven directly) and safe if used externally for skin or hair. The current content and references under Personal use address these two external applications. Having reviewed the published clinical literature on coconut oil, I see no other indications of its benefit supportable by WP:MEDRS for the article. This recent review, for example, is not sufficient by MEDRS standards to indicate a benefit of internal coconut oil consumption on cardiovascular disease risk factors. --Zefr (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

DELETE the whole section - it makes no sense. Butter has also high levels of saturated fats - but no references to health organisations in WIKI. A link to wiki page saturated fat is enough. there is no proof especially coconut oil should be unhealthier then any other fat containing saturated fat. /David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:88:6831:1902:28C5:351:D3A6:B043 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Percentages of fatty acids add up to 114.3%?
Can someone please fix the percentages of fatty acids? They appear to add up to 114.3% instead of 100%??

Fatty acid content of coconut oil

Type of fatty acid  pct Caprylic saturated C8 9% Decanoic saturated C10 10% Lauric saturated C12 52% Myristic saturated C14 19% Palmitic saturated C16 11% Oleic monounsaturated C18:1 8% Other/Unknown 5.3% black: Saturated; grey: Monounsaturated; blue: Polyunsaturated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:4D02:F6B6:ED0D:D83D:29ED:8B15 (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed, using the middle value from the range provided by the source. --Zefr (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder about the figure for the smoke point, since coconut oil is commonly used for frying in cooking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.206.26 (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversial health claims
has repeatedly added similar renditions of health claims previously discussed here. The material being added this time cites authoritynutrition.com, drawing material selectively from some of the primary studies cited there. The site, authoritynutrition.com, is not a WP:MEDRS source. This leaves the individual studies. Individual studies are primary sources: Dr. Smith tests a theory and publishes results. Saying Dr. Smith or the study found anything is reporting on a primary source, which is not acceptable in this context. First and foremost, Wikipedia uses primary sources for only the most basic and non-controversial claims (an uncontested birth date or number of employees, for example). For health claims, we will need a reliable secondary source. The gold standard here would be a meta-analysis in a peer-reviewed journal. We might also accept a general statement from a respected magazine or newspaper, in some contexts. Several of the studies here report no significant difference between intervention and control groups after 14 days. Others lacked control groups, blinding and/or objective outcome measures. A decent meta-analysis would examine these and similar issues. Without such a study, we are left with primary reports arguing against the current consensus advising against regular consumption of coconut oil. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I didn't realize that the site I provided as a source didn't qualify. I will then directly cite the studies done on coconut oil because many of those studies were published by ncbi which is peer reviewed and a well respected authority. Balisong5
 * Balisong5: please read WP:MEDRS. As stated above, "we will need a reliable secondary source. The gold standard here would be a meta-analysis in a peer-reviewed journal." Among the articles listed on Authoritynutrition.com, none qualifies for making the case of health benefits by consuming coconut oil. --Zefr (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That, unfortunately, will not solve the problem. You would still be using primary sources. Yes, one study (uncontrolled, without blinding) found that "oil pulling" with coconut oil reduced oral inflammation. One study found that men who use electric razors are more likely to develop leukemia. One study found that breath mint users are up to 50% more likely to develop lung cancer. Further study found the razor thing was a statistical fluke and breath mint users are more likely to be smokers. Maybe rinsing with plain water for 15 to 20 minutes would be as effective as doing the same with coconut oil. Maybe those told to rinse with coconut oil hated the taste and brushed their teeth more as a result. Perhaps you are missing studies linking coconut oil use to spontaneous human combustion. Who knows? "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information". WP:MEDRS


 * To bypass at least some of the bad results from individual studies, WP:MEDRS states that "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." As a result, we are not using individual studies for the cardiovascular and weight gain claims. We are citing expert bodies. (WHO, FDA, etc.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, are not the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and The International Journal of Obesity respected sources for gathering data on studies? Surely there is merit on the information put forth by these sources. And secondly why is the "health claims" section unbalanced, tilting much more negatively than on the positive. Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue is not the reliability of the specific journals. The issue is using primary sources: authors publishing reports on their own individual trials.


 * The "Health claims" section tilts heavily toward the negative side because the WP:MEDRS sources tilt heavily to the negative side. "The World Health Organization, United States Food and Drug Administration, International College of Nutrition, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, British National Health Service, British Nutrition Foundation and Dietitians of Canada advise against regular consumption of coconut oil." Yes, there are primary studies that found something different. Citing them against WHO, FDA, etc. is not "balance", it's a WP:WEIGHT problem. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see how that makes sense. Balisong5

I know this was already discussed earlier but I think it would be reasonable for me to add the individual studies cited in authoritynutrition.com touting the benefits of coconut oil provided I explain that these are individual studies and non secondary sources that deviate from the majority consensus. I say this because I only think it's fair that dissenting voices on the subject not be shut out completely. I think it's only right that people are aware that these studies are taking place even if they are not recognized by organizations like WHO or FDA. Balisong5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * We do not seek to be "fair" to minority viewpoints. We seek to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Every major health or dietary organization we have a statement from says to strictly limit consumption of coconut oil. This overwhelming consensus is clearly covered in the article. The tiny minority of anomalous findings has not made it into secondary sources. We do not have the sourcing we would need to include them.- Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Off topic, this is not a forum
Health benefits of coconut oil

Regular consumption of coconut oil helps in maintaining healthy levels of serum HDL. It prevents cardiovascular diseases. This is attributed to lauric acid, which forms 44 to 52 % (w/w) of pure coconut oil. Capric acid (Decanoic acid) which constitute about 6 to 10 % of coconut oil is a non competitive AMPA receptor antagonist, responsible for anti-seizure effects. The effect of coconut oil in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease is proven. Coconut oil is so safe that it can be administered even to infants, and the fatty acids are directly converted to ketones by the salivary enzymes. (The infant cannot produce pancreatic juices).Ragavanrs (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I disagree with you. The current discussion under Health claims is accurate as the state of scientific understanding per WP:MEDSCI. Consuming coconut oil 1) does not prevent cardiovascular disease, 2) is not suitable as an anti-epileptic therapy, 3) is not effective for treating Alzheimer's disease, and 4) is not suitable to be given to infants. You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to fabricating your own facts. The encyclopedia requires sources based on WP:MEDRS; please review this for the evidence quality needed. --Zefr (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Coconut oil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829220231/http://www.apccsec.org:80/about.html to http://www.apccsec.org/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Zefr (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Various health authorities' recommendations
"Due to its high levels of saturated fat, the World Health Organization, United States Food and Drug Administration, International College of Nutrition, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, British National Health Service, British Nutrition Foundation and Dietitians of Canada advise against regular consumption of coconut oil."

Recently, changed this to "...advise against excessive consumption." I have reverted this as a temporary measure.

The various sources seem to advising that use of coconut oil be reduced or avoided: "...restrict your use of...", "...should be kept to a minimum...", "...replace...", "...in moderation only", "...only in small quantities", "...leave these on the shelf!" This, to my reading, is at odds with avoiding "excessive" consumption and avoiding "regular" consumption is fairly weak relative to the sources.

(I am quite aware that there are those who feel coconut oil is a healthy choice, with numerous claimed benefits. However, several of the very sources cited for the above statement directly and emphatically deny this.)

I am proposing that we change the above text to "..and Dietitians of Canada advise that coconut oil consumption should be limited or avoided."

Thoughts? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since there are several organizations advising about saturated fat and/or coconut oil consumption, perhaps the first sentence should be reworded to include your revision and just state (retaining all the sources): "Many health organizations advise that coconut oil consumption should be limited or avoided due to its high levels of saturated fat." Further, should we change the section title? I suggest it be more specific to state "Saturated fat consumption". --Zefr (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The subsection is still named "health claims" but no longer appears to contain questionable health claims. Perhaps that "health", or "health issues" may be more appropriate? 76.10.128.192 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Subtitle revised. --Zefr (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 76.10.128.192 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

International College of Nutrition
Along with numerous blue-link notable organizations (FDA, WHO, US Health and Human Services, American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, British NHS, British Nutrition Foundation and Dietitians of Canada) we currently include the redlink International College of Nutrition I haven't a clue who they are. The cite is to an article in the Journal of Cardiovascular Risk. The journal's impact factor is quite low (0.42). The organization publishes the open-access International Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which I am unable to find an impact score for. (Hardly relevant, but fun to note: Their website, icnhealthfoods.com, has five main tabs. "Health Foods" takes us to a page recommending that people consume "400g/Kg body weight" of whole grains daily (40% of your body weight).)

I'd suggest that the notable, respected organizations listed cover the topic quite nicely and the International College of Nutrition doesn't make the cut. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. Alexbrn (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"International College Of Nutrition (canada) is a company governing under the Canada Corporations Act - Part II - 20 April 2009 (Monday). It was incorporated on 20 April 2009 (Monday) in Canada and as of 10 February 2016 (Wednesday) is an active - dissolution pending (non-compliance) company." (emphasis added).

I'm pulling it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Dermatitis sourcing
per your revert, I believe this meets WP:MEDRS. The article cited is a review article rather than a primary source. Is your issue with the source: Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy? Shaded0 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The journal has marginal impact factor (2.3) and the abstract statements about anti-disease activity infer conclusions derived from alternative medicine observations. Such evidence is not present elsewhere in the literature from higher-quality reviews in high-impact journals. --Zefr (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. Just a little side question, do you know why this would appear in the PubMed search results, or if there's a good way to filter out these sort of results? Shaded0 (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As a comprehensive listing and search service (26 million citations, 2017), PubMed doesn't screen out low-quality publications, so an editor has to do some analysis for quality screening of sources. In the report in question here, 1) the low journal impact factor (Google journal name with 'impact factor'; 2 is low), 2) 'natural herbal medicines' (i.e., traditional medicine where research quality is usually poor) in the title and abstract, and 3) healthy skepticism combine to question source quality. This is a list of the highest quality journals for human clinical research. To inspect in PubMed what other studies might be relevant, one can search "coconut oil systematic review dermatitis" and retrieve only one study - the one in question - but points 1 and 2 above eliminate it, leaving no WP:MEDRS-quality literature to support the content you intended. --Zefr (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha, appreciate the tutorial on it. WP:NOOB, WP:DONTBITE. Thanks! Shaded0 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Fat composition
Note that values in the section on fat composition and comparison does not agree quantitatively with the nutrient section and table, a result deriving from differences in values between USDA Release 24 (from years ago, but the basis for the composition data) and Release 28 (current as used in the nutrition table). I would like to reconcile these, but the table for the former derives from here, which is non-editable. Does anyone know how? --Zefr (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

There are apparently major errors in this page. Because Lauric Acid IS a MCT (go look at the MCT page!) - and that's %48 of the fat. Caprylic and Decanoic are also MCTs, so that's %65 of the fatty acid composition. The page has internal contradictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

New study
this systematic review was published in 2020, do you have any suggestions of where to put it on the article? I rarely add modern medical content to articles so I would rather someone else could help adding it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good source. Made this edit to include it. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead, re. Edit April 2021
More succinct: certainly. But more succinct isn't better. This is a physical substance and fungible good, so a physical description is all but mandatory in the lead. It's the sort of information that someone asking "what even is coconut oil?" would be looking for.

Healthline is a poor quality source, but I cited it for a very incontrovertible piece of info: coconut oil smells like coconut until you deodorize it. http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/vg1067711.html is a better source, but there's a lot of organoleptic jargon tied up in "Odor: characteristic".

Lastly, the previous lead wasn't entirely correct. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/coconut-products-market The global market for food oil is smaller than the cosmetic market (which includes detergents). Nor was it grammatically correct; the "and" in the opening sentence shouldn't be there since the previous list is all parts of the fruit.

Additionally manufacture methods were removed due to undue weight, and since it doesn't add substantively to subject. (It's unclear what it even means out of context.)

Barefootwhistler (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of the word "acid"
Many readers find the use of the words "acid" and "fatty acid" confusing when they are used in the context of vegetable oils that have essentially no carboxylic acid content. They mistakenly interpret the text to mean that there really are fatty acids in the oil in the amounts listed. This problem happens because of the nonconventional usage of the term "acid" in the vegetable oil literature, where the word "acid" refers to both the carboxylic acid content and the ester content. Because edible vegetable oils have negligible carboxylic acid content, the word "acid" is referring entirely to esters, not acids. This contravenes the established definition of the word "fatty acid" which is a long-chain carboxylic acid (not ester). A reader who is unaware of this unconventional usage of terminology is therefore tricked into thinking that there really is that much carboxylic acid content in coconut oil. Some of my students have been tricked by this, not just by Wikipedia but also by other vegetable oil literature. While my first attempt at adding this information was rejected, I believe it is important for the reader to understand this point, because without this clarification the rest of the content in the "composition" section is effectively wrong. The same issue exists in other pages about various vegetable oils. If there is a more appropriate way of clarifying this point for the reader, please put it in.--Kermitchemist (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First, please sign and timestamp your talk page comments by ending with four tildes or by clicking on the sign icon at the top left of the edit box. I reverted your edit here because a) it was written as advice or a guide, WP:NOTGUIDE, and b) you provided no scientific source, WP:SCIRS. Today, you improved the edit with a source, which would be even better if there was a full-article URL available for a more recently published source, WP:MEDDATE (within 5 years). Thanks for the contributions. Zefr (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok I added a URL and DOI to the reference, and signed the comment. (I'm still learning about these procedures.) I don't have a more recent reference but I doubt that the fatty acid content of coconut oil has changed.--Kermitchemist (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmenczer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)