How bad is coconut oil for your arteries?

[Binkie The Clown]

[dchill]

1. It's so bad that if you don't eat it,

You will live forever.

[Binkie The Clown]

2. LOL! That's bad. n/t

[SwissTony]

3. Dr Harriet Hall on Science-Based Medicine

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/coconut-oil/

"It is probably safe to use it in reasonable amounts to replace other oils in the diet, and doing so may have a favorable effect on lipid profiles; but it’s not clear whether that will actually reduce the risk of cardiovascular events."

[Binkie The Clown]

4. Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine: "as bad as animal fat"

If you really like coconut oil you can find someone who says it's O.K.
If you really like smoking, you can find someone who says it's O.K. This I know, because many years ago when I was a smoker, I found plenty of "scientific" research that "proved" that smoking wouldn't harm you.

A review published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology analyzed the evidence behind recent food trends and myths. Despite egg industry efforts to make dietary cholesterol look safe, it is a clear-cut contributor to higher cholesterol levels, and coconut oil is as bad as animal fat in its effect on cholesterol levels. Research also shows that consumption of animal protein and saturated fats (found in meat, eggs, and some oils) increases heart disease risk. Diets focused on green leafy vegetables and plant-based and antioxidant-rich foods, including berries, eggplants, and red cabbage, promote healthful weight and blood pressure levels, reduce inflammation, and lower type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk factors.

http://www.pcrm.org/health/medNews/physicians-address-food-myths

[Binkie The Clown]

5. "Science-Based Medicine" is a cult?

https://selfhacked.com/blog/a-critical-review-of-science-based-medicine/

I wanted an article to list some of my grievances with “Science Based Medicine”

I’m a skeptic. I read “skeptic” blogs sometimes because many times they have valid points and I like to see a diversity of opinions. Sometimes SBM has valid points and can be a source of information, but people need to be skeptical of SBM as well.

About SBM

SBM is a cult organization that is highly dogmatic. However, much of what they write I agree with such as when they debunk stuff that is just loaded with crap.

They will take a “quack” that is completely ridiculous and debunk him. But in the process, they often throw the baby out with the bathwater since even quacks often have some truthful aspect.

True Skepticism vs Selective Skepticism

Science-Based Medicine is an organization that tries to portray itself as skeptical, but I say it’s selectively skeptical.

This is because they are not willing to entertain certain ideas and they form strong beliefs that certain treatments have no value outside of what your doctor recommends.

---More at the link---

[SwissTony]

6. I wouldn't call this guy skeptical.

"If you read SBM posts, you will see they are skeptical of ‘alternative’ remedies, but they believe that these remedies don’t work." No, they ask "What is the evidence that they work?" and, sure, they usually start off from the premise "I've got my doubts" and that's fair enough because they haven't seen any evidence. And it's evidence that is crucial. If you've got it, present it. If you haven't, don't make claims you can't back up.

Almost all the writers at SBM are doctors with a great deal of experience. There are a couple of lawyers who contribute their views on how medicine is legislated. Joe on the other hand seems to have no formal background and is selling products such as Hydrogen water. What is that? The solubility of Hydrogen in water is very low. So, molecular Hydrogen won't do it. Ionised Hydrogen? Then we're talking acid (not the drug). But you're going to struggle to get much of that into water.

But, despite these difficulties, Joe claims the following benefits from Hydrogen water...

The Health Benefits of Hydrogen Water
1) Hydrogen Water is an Antioxidant and Prevents Brain Damage
2) Hydrogen Water May Improve Mood Disorders
3) Hydrogen Water Suppresses Inflammation
4) Hydrogen Water Reduces Muscle Fatigue, Motor Deficits, and Muscle Degeneration
5) Hydrogen Water Prevents Metabolic Syndrome
6) Hydrogen Water May Help in Weight Loss
7) Hydrogen Water Enhances Mitochondrial Function
8) Hydrogen Water Treats Diabetes
9) Hydrogen Water May Treat Metabolic Acidosis
10) Hydrogen Water May Prevent Cancer
11) Hydrogen Water Reduces Side Effects of Cancer Treatments
12) Hydrogen Water Boosts Skin Health
13) Hydrogen Water Enhances Would Healing
14) Hydrogen Water Limits Damage of Transplant Organs
15) Hydrogen Water Improves Bladder Dysfunctions
16) Hydrogen Water is Cardio-Protective
17) Hydrogen Water Protects the Eye
18) Hydrogen Water Prevents Hearing Loss
19) Hydrogen Water Combats Allergy
20) Hydrogen Water Ameliorates Kidney Disease
21) Hydrogen Water Protects the Liver
22) Hydrogen Water Promotes Gut Health
23) Hydrogen Water Protects the Lung
24) Hydrogen Water is Radioprotective
25) Hydrogen Water Relieves Pain
26) Hydrogen Water May Prolong Lifespan
27) Hydrogen Water is Antibacterial and May Promote Oral Health

And you wonder why the "default" position on SBM is "skeptical"?

[Binkie The Clown]

7. Yup. He sounds like a whack-job. However...

There is a vast difference between those who are out to "debunk" everything they don't agree with, and those who follow the evidence. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine follows the evidence wherever it leads, while the SBM seems to follow the evidence that leads to where they want to go, petitio principi.

Dr. Greger, in the video, quotes many studies and shows their results graphically as well. The SBM article on coconut oil quotes the New York Times, and Snopes, not the finest examples of refereed medical journals. Also the SBM article has some misleading claims. For example:

Coconut oil contains lauric acid, which raises both HDL and LDL cholesterol levels. This may improve the cholesterol profile, although there are concerns that it may promote atherosclerosis by other means. Virgin coconut oil contains medium-chain triglycerides, which are not as risky as some other saturated fats.

Note that it says "contains medium-chain triglycerides", but leads one to believe that it contains ONLY MCTs, which as Dr. Greger points out, is not the case at all. Again SBM neglects to mention the facts that contradict it's pre-drawn conclusions.

SBM IS, however, correct when it says:

There are a lot of claims that coconut oil may have health benefits, but there is no concrete scientific data yet to support this,” said Dr. Daniel Hwang, a research molecular biologist specializing in lauric acid at the Western Human Nutrition Research Center at the University of California, Davis.

The hype comes from unreliable sources. Joe Mercola says it is the smartest choice for cooking, is good for your heart, contains the kind of fat found in mothers’ milk, enhances immunity, and helps with weight loss by stimulating metabolism. And of course he sells it. Dr. Oz says it is a heart healthy food that helps resist viruses, bacteria, yeast, fungi, and candida; boosts thyroid function; improves blood sugar control and reduces the need for insulin; increases energy and endurance; increases digestion and improves absorption of vitamins; lowers cholesterol; helps control weight; has anti-aging effects; is good for skin and hair; and is quite safe to take in reasonable amounts. The Wellness Mama website lists 101 uses for coconut oil, including treating sunburns, athlete’s foot, Alzheimer’s disease, nasal allergies, arthritis, insomnia, autism, heartburn, hemorrhoids, depression, acne, cellulite, mosquito bites, and lice.

And they quite correctly classify Dr. Oz and Joe Mercola as highly dubious sources of dietary information. Anyone who believes what Dr. Oz has to say is being pretty foolish, in my book.

In short, I get the impression that SBM's goal is to "prove" whatever is the conventional practice of the present moment, and if newer legitimate research comes along, it should be ignored, debunked, and resisted for as long as possible. Famed Heart surgeon Dr. Esselstyn of the Cleveland Clinic cures his cardiac patients by doing things quite differently from "conventional practice". Other cardiologists may say he's wrong, but quite a few cardiologists have gone to him when they, themselves have heart disease, because what he does, works, and what conventional medicine does, doesn't work. Conventional medicine "treats" heart disease, and "manages" symptoms, but doesn't cure it. Dr. Esselstyn cures it.

[SwissTony]

8. I don't get the feeling that

"In short, I get the impression that SBM's goal is to "prove" whatever is the conventional practice of the present moment, and if newer legitimate research comes along, it should be ignored, debunked, and resisted for as long as possible. "

Just the reverse. Bring on new ideas and developments. But bring along the evidence to support them. My background is Medical Statistics (retired, now posting on DU ) and my approach was always "Show me the evidence".

Evidence! Evidence! Evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is new research bullshit? Is it actually research or is it some guy claiming his magic water will enable you to levitate, Then, yeah, ignore, debunk and resist!!

Do doctors ever get it wrong, are too slow, misinterpret...? Of course they do and have done and still will. Some of them are human beings!

I'm very interested in your comments on Dr Esselstyn. I'll have a look on PUBMED tomorrow - it's past my bedtime here in The Netherlands.

[Binkie The Clown]

9. My background is in Engineering, (now retired).

We get a lot of science training, but we always tend to be more pragmatic, going with what seems to work, whether we can prove it rigorously or not.

[SwissTony]

10. Esselstyn...interesting guy.

I've read a couple of his papers and some of his conclusions seem pretty plausible.

He's an MD, so he's put the work in. He advocates a tough diet ("Don't eat anything with a mother or a face&quot . The diet cuts out lots of crap. So, there goes my beer and my Big Mac.

That approach is pretty plausible. Every diet expert will tell you something similar. Esselstyn gets some criticism because others consider he goes too far e.g. don't eat fish. Some people point to the benefits of eating fish.

But what he does do is present evidence. Some people criticise him because of the way his data was collected. His first study was small (n=22), his later study was bigger (n=198) and he admitted the limitations of the latter study (the participants were self-selected and "very determined&quot . But, at least he had actual patients.

Is he right? I strongly feel there's something in what he says. Does he go too far? I'll leave that to cardiologists.

Contrast that with Joe. He offers no proof. Maybe there's some testimonials, but he could write them himself. e.g. "I drank some of his Hydrogen water and I could immediately teleport myself to Sydney, Australia" - Barbara, San Francisco. I wrote that myself. My apologies to all Barbaras in SF.

If half of what Joe claims for Hydrogen water, he would win the Nobel Prize for Medicine every year for the next decade.

And you seem to like the evidence side of things..."going with what seems to work" i.e. stuff that has worked in the past. Evidence!

Edited: I seem to have unintentionally included a couple of smilies. They add nothing to the post, but I'll let them stay.

[Binkie The Clown]

11. There's no doubt that the "hydrogen water" guy is a crackpot.

But there are a lot of studies showing a correlation between eating animal protein and fats with increased all-cause mortality. The idea that you can characterize "vegan" as a universally good diet, however, is mistaken. A diet of potato chips, gummy bears, and Coca Cola is "vegan", but it certainly could not be called a healthy diet.

There are "ethical vegans" and "dietary vegans" (although the ethical vegans like to think they are the only "true vegans" ) It wouldn't surprise me to discover that dietary vegans, as a whole, get a healthier diet than ethical vegans, since I've known a handful of "ethical vegans" who eat crap, just because it's vegan, whereas "dietary vegans" are a lot more particular about what they DO eat, rather than focusing on what they DON'T eat. I prefer the newer label "whole food plant based" to "vegan" anyway, since "vegan" carries a lot of same kind of negative connotations as "fundamentalist", having been pushed too hard by too many crusading zealots over the years.

[SwissTony]

12. Much to my wife's delight, I'm becoming vegetarian in my old age.

My wife and two of our three daughters became vegetarian about 20+ years ago. One daughter and myself remained meat eaters. I gave up cooking at that time because I hated making two different meals. But these days, when I cook (I started again some time ago) it's all veggie based. I rarely eat meat - so, please excuse the Big Mac joke.

I just don't enjoy meat anymore. The only explanation I can give is "It's too MEATY!!". It tastes like meat.

Will I become vegan?? I'd have to give up milk. I'd give up beer before I give up milk. But I haven't found a substitute that's palatable - suggestions welcome!!!

[Binkie The Clown]

13. I really enjoy almond milk.

I was always a big milk drinker when I was younger, but think about this: cows milk was fine-tuned by natural selection to put a couple hundred pounds on a baby calf in a short period of time. I'm not a baby calf, and don't want to put on a couple hundred pounds.

Couple with that the correlation between milk consumption and various forms of cancer, and that convinced me to drop it from my diet. The biggest milk drinking, cheese eating, ice cream eating person I ever knew was my father, and he died of esophageal cancer at too young an age.

[SwissTony]

14. OK, I'll check out my local Albert Heijn tomorrow.

AH is the biggest supermarket chain in The Netherlands.