Talk:Coconut oil

Archives /Archive 1

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)

Cholesterol Myths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: [1]) 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)

External links

I'm going to clean up the external links following WP:EL and related guidelines rather strictly. I hope no one is upset by this. --Ronz 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I read all the articles, and looked at the websites hosting them. --Ronz 00:12, 28 March 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" [2]. 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[3][4] and that the comments such as about blocking[5]and the "unfounded" part[6] 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[7], 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"[8] 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[9], 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[10][11][12]. and improved text[13][14]. Then you (removed exaggeration) criticized his edit [15], deleted[16] & 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[17] (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 [18][19], you characterize his relatively conventional conversation (a very new IP) as uncivil[20] while you delete in toto his edit[21][22], 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[23], "your criticisms are unfounded", over *which* criticisms, the facts or newbie summary phrases that read as synthesis/technical editorial).

Newbie 68.114 then [24] responds that he is citing facts, partly correct but phrasing / presentation needs guidance. He's citing coconut centric lifetime studies on longevitivy[25] 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"[26], 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[27] (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[28] 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"[29], "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 & 824^next, these are 68.114's contribution history records for these two edits, [30] & [31] 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

• The Coconut Oil Miracle, Bruce Fife, C.N., N.D, (2004) - appears inappropriate as a source for medical and nutritional claims.
• http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/28/coconut_health.htm & www.newstarget.com/001587.html - inappropriate sources for AHA statments.

--Ronz 22:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

Steinberg D (2006). "An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy, part IV: The 1984 coronary primary prevention trial ends it - almost". J Lipid Res. 47: 1–14. PMID 16227628.

from NIH Consensus Development Conference, JAMA 1985, 253:2080

Edmond K. Kabagambe, Ana Baylin, Alberto Ascherio, and Hannia Campos The Type of Oil Used for Cooking Is Associated with the Risk of Nonfatal Acute Myocardial Infarction in Costa Rica J. Nutr 135:2674-2679, November 2005

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.

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." [32] 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/enwiki/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)

If you are a Firefox user then I suggest you try this add-on for locating dead pages

"Resurrect Pages" https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2570

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)

Doing real research

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

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

Although I certainly agree the material warrants further consideration, the sources are not exactly the most reliable sources. The National Academy of Science and Technology is a stricly Filipino organisation, and not the same as the National Academy of Sciences [[33]] as the western world knows it. The claims made are HIGHLY controversial because they have poorly credible scientific basis. However, that being said, I again say they warrant further investigation. Halogenated (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to see well-sourced material in this article. Unsourced claims don't belong here any more then they belong in any article. This article has had a number of exceptional claims added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Much as I love what "medical science" has to say, I've re-worked that section to conform with what the references say somewhat more closely. Regards, WLU (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was some good work there. My only concern is that it might be fairly difficult for a lay-person to interpret, and the re-write uses some terminology not in common usage. Personally it reads fine to me, but I have a degree in biology, so I may not be typical. Halogenated (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn the general public and their lack of knowledge regarding advanced biology! I've tried writing it a bit more simply; the polynesian part really seems to belong in the coconut page rather than this one about just the oil. WLU (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I would be reluctant to cite a 21 year old review on a rapidly changing medical topic. Based on II's pubmed search it appears that the subject of coconut oil on health is extremely minor, so I would recommend avoiding making a big deal out of the subject. Jefffire (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There are nearly 1200 primary articles, which I think should be looked into closer. Here is one suggesting negative effects on memory. I don't agree with the general practice of putting health effects at the bottom. As I said, I think the average reader is interested in health effects, and as the world, and esp. the developed world, is currently facing a health crisis, this interest is prudent. I think it would be nice to have some more information on the heart disease relationship, as well. That review is positive, but it would be interesting to see if there were more negative studies, esp. considering the widely-accepted conclusion that saturated fats cause heart disease. II | (t - c) 10:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are recent reviews published in high impact journals then those would be extremely useful to base the health effect section on. Assessing the state of the primary research is not our job, even if any of us were sufficiently expert in medical expertise. To do so runs head long into WP:SYNTH. Jefffire (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy explicitly says that you can use primary studies. Since authors' of primary studies generally state their conclusions in plain language, there is no SYNTH problem. II | (t - c) 10:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

But dredging through pubmed to advance a minority position is. Such behavior was the result of the arbcom on the Dana Ullman case. Primary papers can be found to advance virtually any position, regardless of it's scientific acceptance or accuracy. Pubmed dredging to find them, and then presenting them as being reliable, is simply not acceptable. If there are recent reviews in high impact journals, lets see them. If not then that's just tough and we've not got anything reliable to discuss the healing powers of coconut oil with and we'll just have to wait for medical science to catch up. Jefffire (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

No, I'm not suggesting that we remove all primary studies from Wikipedia. I'm saying that pubmed dredging though all the small studies on the database is a dreadful, dreadful way to write an article. Primary sources are fine, if they can be confirmed as authoritative or influential (ie. heavily discussed, published in high impact journals, discussed favorably by reviews). To date you've done none of that, you've only gone through pubmed with a superficial search and expect an article to be written based on what you found there. I recommend you take a look at the arbcom on Dana Ullman, you'll see how well that exact same approach went done on homeopathy. Jefffire (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with Jefffire here. If what you say, "We have no idea what the minority position is", is true, then it follows we have no idea what the majority position is. Therefore, we should say nothing. If the health effects of coconut oil are truly known and notable (positive or negative) then they will have been written about in reliable secondary sources. I disagree that "the average reader is interested in health effects" wrt this article. This is a general encyclopaedia, not a medical encyclopaedia. To repeat some policy from WP:NOR:

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

A primary source, especially one involving basic science such as rats and in vitro experiments, limits what you can say, if you can really say anything at all. One must take care even repeating the usually enthusiastic conclusions. Remember, that medical journals are not written to be read by Joe public; the intended readership knows when and if any claims must be taken with caution. Colin°^Talk 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You're both assuming bad faith, and I suspect you're not even reading what I wrote. First, I already admitted that I didn't read the studies as closely as I should have; I skimmed them. I didn't dig through PubMed for them, either -- they were in a list of abstracts which was already referenced on this page. As far as SYNTH allegations, Colin would do well to read the NOR section on primary sources -- when the findings are stated in plain language, you can repeat them just fine. Second, I just said it would be nice to find more negative studies on heart disease and coconut oil. I'm open to any and all decent studies. There is a lot of controversy surrounding coconut oil and it would be good to give the reader a picture of the research on it. The section as it stands, however, appears fairly informative to me: coconut oil is associated with hypertension, so it is probably bad for your heart; however, epidemiological evidence so far isn't strong. If you're going to consume coconut oil, your heart may be better off on the unprocessed stuff, but you're better off using polyunsaturated fats. II | (t - c) 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No-one is saying that we can't use primary sources, there are just certain conditions which need to be satisfied before we do. We've gone over this point in detail. Jefffire (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not assuming bad faith and please don't accuse me of this or of careless reading of your words. If we disagree, that's fine, but it doesn't mean I have any particular opinions about you. Nowhere on WP:NOR does it say "when the findings are stated in plain language, you can repeat them just fine." The point I made about "repeating the usually enthusiastic conclusions" is that such conclusions must be taken in context (using material out-of-context is repeatedly forbidden in WP:NOR) and represents the view only of the author(s) of the paper (at that point in time). The context of a paper in a basic science journal is to inform other researchers and professionals in the field. This context means the conclusions in such a paper cannot be used to inform medical or societal opinion. That just isn't what those journals are for. There are quite separate published journals for that purpose (medical guidelines, or consensus reports, etc). So even if a rat researcher writes that he believes he's found a potential treatment for obesity, for example, we mustn't directly repeat that claim as though it has any clinical relevance. This is why it is so important to use reviews (secondary sources) for claims -- as a review of even basic quality would not make the mistake of interpreting basic or limited research as though it was of general relevance to humans, for example. Colin°^Talk 10:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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#Casting_it_in_stone) 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)

Dr Mary Enig

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