Re: Coconut Oil: You Want a Food Loaded with Real Health Benefits? You Want Coconut Oil 3/24/01

[Guest guest]

Mercola is a known quack who has been reprimanded by the FDA about his claims.

If you want to throw some real fuel on the fire..

How about an analysis of coconut oil showing some adequate level of a known

healthful nutrient(s) " per calorie "

(of which there is none)

Or some peer reviewed published studies documentin its known benefit...

Regards

jeff

[ ] Coconut Oil: You Want a Food Loaded with Real Health

Benefits? You Want Coconut Oil 3/24/01

http://www.mercola.com/2001/mar/24/coconut_oil.htm

Just to throw some more fat on the fire...

[Guest guest]

There is a group that advocates whole eggs, coconut oil, butter

and lard and a number of other things for getting rid of candida.

I don't eat whale blubber as much as eskimos and I know they survived

on it but I can't see how clogging up your ateries is a good thing?

eh? The arguements for some things are a bit far fetched.

Moderation (tongue in cheek) is a good thing. I have done some

studying since I offered the suggestion of Salmon cakes and coconut

fried in coconut oil! LOL! Hang out and enjoy the thread...<grin>.

It wasn't bad to the tastebuds...However, can't say what it did to my

heart! I decided a more moderate approach was best and enjoyed things

a lot more since then. The damage that may yet come from over eating

coconut produts is still out. It will definately fatten BABIES though.

Bob

--- In , Stobbs <greenmantoo@...>

wrote:

>

> http://www.mercola.com/2001/mar/24/coconut_oil.htm

> Just to throw some more fat on the fire...

>

[Guest guest]

Per your request, a listing of peer-reviewed studies on coconut oil

is listed here:

http://www.coconutoil.com/peer_reviewed.htm

(For the record, I am not a proponent of coconut oil.)

-Dave

>

> Mercola is a known quack who has been reprimanded by the FDA about

his claims.

>

> If you want to throw some real fuel on the fire..

>

> How about an analysis of coconut oil showing some adequate level of

a known healthful nutrient(s) " per calorie "

>

> (of which there is none)

>

> Or some peer reviewed published studies documentin its known

benefit...

>

>

>

> Regards

> jeff

>

> [ ] Coconut Oil: You Want a Food Loaded with

Real Health Benefits? You Want Coconut Oil 3/24/01

>

> http://www.mercola.com/2001/mar/24/coconut_oil.htm

> Just to throw some more fat on the fire...

>

[Guest guest]

As we have seen before, just listing a bunch of citations does little to prove anything. And, as we have seen many times, often, the real issue, is looking closely at studies and analzing what was done, to make sure the study is concluding what it really is. Many studies listed as supporting something, dont often support is (as we saw with Gregg and Omega 3s, and ratios). These are two things this list, and those who post freguently, do. I didnt ask for someones list of studies, especially from a website promoting coconut oil, , which in and of itself, shows extreme bias. I asked for someone to post.. "some peer reviewed published studies documenting its known benefit..." If you would like to pick one of them, and take it apart, and see that is actually does

show some benefit specifically from the coconut oil, and then post the info, I would be glad to discuss it. But, as you will see, and as I mentioned already, there is often much more to the picture as is the case with coconut oil and often some of its purported health claims, are just pseudo science. Or maybe there is just another conspiracy Thanks Jeff PS, if you do an analysis of coconut oil yourself, you will see, as I also said, that it contains virtually no known nutrient we need, let alone any appreciable amount of most any nutrient, other than saturated fat. And, it is one of the highest in myrisitc acid, one of the most damaging saturated fats there is. PSS you can also go to Tonys website and use his formula (actually the Hegsted formula) to

predict the impact of adding coconut oil and again, you will see its impact. http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/fattyacids2.html#cholest1

[Guest guest]

Hi Dave:

Jeff's point (below) about the discussion of omega 3s and ratios is

referring to a number of posts here some months ago, of which perhaps

the most pertinent is post # 24558. If you were to reread that post

you should get a clear understanding of why it is Jeff finds a simple

listing of multiple citations to be less than useful. In fact, almost

invariably, useless.

Normally, in competently authored written material, when a claim is

made in the main text a numerical notation is attached to it which

refers to a specific paper in the attached list of references. That

way it is simple to verify that the claim truly is supported by the

reference because one needs read only one abstract to confirm it.

It is one of the oldest tricks in the book to write some long tirade

making all kinds of extravagant claims, and then attach, at the end,

literally hundreds of scientific references that supposedly support

the claims made - but without specifying which of the hundreds of

references supports which claim. Of course the author does this

knowing full well that, in order for anyone to verify/refute any one

claim, no one is going to read all of the hundreds of references to

make sure none of them are relevant.

In my experience, as post # 24558 indicates, when an author making

extravagant claims fails to specify which reference supports which

claim it is a near guarantee that none of the references have any

relevance to the subject matter. At least that has been my experience.

Rodney.

--- In , Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...>

wrote:

> As we have seen before, just listing a bunch of citations does

> little to prove anything. ............ Many studies listed as

> supporting something, often don't support it (as we saw with Gregg

> and Omega 3s, and ratios). .................