![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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... [2]
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.
'Paul Dudley White was President Eisenhower's personal physician in the fifties when the president had two heart attacks. White was a Harvard educated heart specialist. He'd published a textbook titled Heart Disease in 1943. In that book, Dr. White wrote, "When I graduated from medical school in 1911, I had never heard of coronary thrombosis." Now this was the President's doctor. The reason he'd never heard of coronary thrombosis in 1911 was because the first article about it, detailing four unusual cases of this new phenomenon, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1912. Coronary thrombosis is a heart attack. This is a modern disease that is caused by refined foods. We don't call these problems the "diseases of civilization" for nothing! http://www.drrons.com/weston-price-traditional-nutrition-2.htm SO we had heart disease being a new phenomena in the early 20th century..VERY uncommon...While coconut oil was being consumed by millions around he globe...strange isnt it! Jalusbrian ( talk) 05:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
WP:MEDRS states
Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies.
Further it states
A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. Literature reviews, systematic review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources, as are position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed. Do not confuse a scientific review (the thing) with peer review (the activity).
Dr Mary Enig represents a major health organization the Weston A Price Foundation, does literature reviews and is an expert in her field of nutrition. Her work is also peer reviewed [2]. Please tell me how this does not meet WP:MEDRS. 122.107.141.196 ( talk) 00:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE states that examples of fringe theories are:
conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.
The foundation has presented scientific support for their ideas which is not novel in anyway. Neither do they present hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.
Further, WP:FRINGE states:
However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy.
Even though the foundation has ideas which "are widely held to be wrong", it's ideas by the scientific community are not considered "absurd or unworthy".
WP:FRINGE also states:
One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research.
Not only has Dr Mary Enig engaged in peer reviewed research, independent peer reviewed studies such as these corroborate her work: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7270479 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19437058 122.107.141.196 ( talk) 04:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
However, WP:FRINGE still states:
"ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." 122.107.141.196 ( talk) 01:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
You are using WP:FRINGE to the letter of the law and not in the spirit it was written. WP:FRINGE was written for topics like The Face on Mars which science considers "absurd". Dr Mary Enig's hypothesis are fringe but scientifically plausible. But not to worry. If Dr Mary Enig is too much for you to stomach, I will add some coconut-oil ncbi citations that are even more crazier than the Face on Mars. 122.107.141.196 ( talk) 07:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL! You want to block me? You are not even an administrator to block me. Further, I must warn you that Wikipedia:Gaming the system is strictly forbidden:
"Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden."
So your continued insistence that Dr Mary Enig is WP:FRINGE when she has no association with The Face on Mars, Bigfoot or UFO's shows your lack of understanding of the issues at hand. Her ideas are a minority opinion rooted in the scientific method.
Further, this wiki article [3] states:
"Articles that discuss the existence of a controversy (be it scientific, interdisciplinary, popular, political, or religious) should clearly identify proponents of minority views and explain the extent and reasons for their marginalization. It is important that articles which discuss such controversies neither exaggerate nor minimize the proportion of experts in the field who advocate minority views." 122.107.141.196 ( talk) 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
For those interested in the background to the demonisation of coconut oil and other saturated fats, here is Dr Enigs article: the Oiling of America: http://www.drcranton.com/nutrition/oiling.htm .. Jalusbrian ( talk) 05:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What makes coconut oil different from most other dietary oils is the basic building blocks or fatty acids making up the oil. Coconut oil is composed predominately of glyceryl esters of medium chain fatty acids (MCFA). The majority of fats in the human diet are glyceryl esters of long chain fatty acids (LCFA).
MCFA and LCFA differ in the length of the alkyl chain that makes up the backbone of the fatty acid. MCFA have a chain length of 6 to 14 carbons. LCFA contain 16 or more carbons. The length of the carbon chain influences many of the oil’s physical and chemical properties. When consumed, the body processes and metabolizes each fatty acid differently depending on the size of the carbon chain. Therefore, the physiological effects of the MCFA in coconut are significantly different from those of the LCFA that are more commonly found in the diet.
MCFA and LCFA can also be classified as saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fatty acids. Coconut oil contains 92% saturated fatty acids. All of the MCFA in coconut oil are saturated. They, however, are very much different chemically from the long chain saturated fatty acids found in animal fat and other vegetable oils.
Because coconut oil has a high amount of saturated fatty acids it also has a relatively high melting point. Above 76°F (24°C) coconut oil is a colorless liquid. Below this temperature it solidifies into a pure white solid.
{{ POV-section}}
The multiple issues banner has been up at the top of the article page for a while. Has it served any purpose? It would certainly help me – and probably other editors – address specific issues (there are only specific issues) if any regulars with concerns about neutrality etc. placed a {{POV-section|talk page section name}} at the section or even para – illustrated at the top of this section – containing a specific controversy, and {{fact|march 2010}} citation needed or this cheeky item {{dubious}} dubious – discuss at the specific statements they contend. And take that flag off the top at the same time. Thanks, Trev M ~ 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why no mention of its use as hair oil? 69.116.203.143 ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC) R.E.D.
Some valid sources have been removed. Please indicate the objection with them. Absent an explanation I will restore them.
Lambanog ( talk) 16:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
A WP:RSN discussion has been started here -- Ronz ( talk) 18:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Please explain the removal of the source and how it fails WP:MEDRS. Without clearer explanation I will restore. Lambanog ( talk) 18:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Restored version that apparently had copyvio was from September 2009. Was reverted. Will modify the information.
Moving some disputed citations here until more thorough review of their appropriateness:
{{
citation}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1=
(
help)Lambanog ( talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It's possible they don't exist and we should simply not try to expand a section on health benefits without better quality sources. The best place to start is pubmed by typing in "coconut oil" then selecting only review articles from the list of options in the right hand column. We must also be aware of policies like undue weight that state minority views (i.e. coconut oil is healthy) must not be given more prominence than majority views. Looking into pubmed, I've only found two articles that really mention coconut oil in a meaningful way in the abstracts - both are brief, both are negative. [6] [7] (I stopped looking before 1996, 15 years is a reasonable but relatively arbitrary cut-off). Searching on google books will doubtless be tedious and unhelpful - the first set of books come up with the word "miracle" in the title an awful lot [8]. Google books is more of a crap shoot because you get a ton of popular books and these tend to be gushy, representing a predetermined opinion based on an overextension of primary research rather than a solid scholarly consensus. Google scholar is a bit better, but the results are still a mixed bag with a lot of non-medical stuff in it. Since we are bound by our policy on neutrality to represent the opinion within the relevant scholarly majority, it's quite possible that we can't write a section on the health benefits of coconut oil because it's not supported as a healthy fat. Though it's possible coconut oil may be healthier than other saturated fats because of it's lauric acid (as suggested in this article) or some other reason, until we can demonstrate that a significant number of scholars believe this (in the form of review articles advancing this conclusion) we shouldn't try to make the conclusion ourselves.
An example of a non-coconut review article that would be acceptable would include something like this or this for olive oil, this for eggs, this for fats in general, this for trans fats. In the absence of high-quality evidence and secondary sources, we are better off saying nothing than assembling a conclusion ourselves from primary literature. See WP:RS and WP:MEDRS in particular for the relevant guidelines. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the "Medicine" section (4.3.3) from its old position under "Uses":"Personal uses" to a new position under "Health." — Jay L09 ( talk) 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following statement (which makes the novel claim that Human Immunodeficiency Virus is a protozoan): "Monolaurin has been found to have antimicrobial properties capable of killing lipid-coated viruses, bacteria, and protozoa like herpes, cytomegalovirus, influenza, HIV, helicobacter pylori, and giardia lamblia. [3]" from the section on Cardiovascular disease — Jay L09 ( talk) 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the irrelevant and nearly meaningless statement: "Lauric acid is also turned into monolaurin in the human body." As used in this context, lauric acid means "any glyceryl laurate". Monolaurin is a glyceryl laurate. The statement therefore reduces to the claim that lauric acid is also turned into lauric acid in the human body. — Jay L09 ( talk) 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have once again clarified the weasel-like construction: "newer studies have indicated there may not be as strong a link" by re-wording it to "newer studies have failed to clarify whether there is or is not as strong a link." It should be understood that, unless it is conveying permission, the word "may" has the same meaning as "may not." Due to the prevalence of advertisement in our culture, together with the threat to advertisers of being held accountable for making false claims, we have become accustomed to gratuitous use of the word "may" to suck the meaning out of sentences, much as the animal was once believed to suck the contents out of eggs. Advertisers continue to use "may" before their claims because many people will take the resulting claimless sentence to be a real claim, while the advertiser can point out that no claim was made, false or otherwise. If new studies have indeed proven that the link is not so strong, the article should say so clearly. If they have not, we should make it clear that they have failed to do so. If "the mark" is to convey misinformation while maintaining plausible deniability, the "may" construction should be retained. Misinformation, however, is not the goal of Wikipedia. — Jay L09 ( talk) 17:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the recent discussion over MEDRS is missing an easy alternative solution, one which NPOV requires anyway.
Instead of trying to prove through inadequate studies that coconut oil has certain beneficial properties, let's just report that many people in the nutrition/natural health/fitness community think it does, and are increasing its place in their diets. We can also say that these people think that coconut oil is different than other saturated fats because 'virgin' coconut oil does not have hydrogenated transfats and coconut oil is made of medium rather than long fatty chains, under the assumption that they are more easily digested. We can even say that people in the natural health community think that coconut oil may have anti-bacterial qualities which help ward off heart disease. We can then report that the scientific community has not shown any of this to be true, that studies which originally grouped coconut oil in with other dangerous saturated fats have not been superceded, and that clinical nutritionists and doctors still recommend limiting coconut oil due to its high saturated fat content.
This way we can report on what is actually going on, from all sides, without denying the interest or the claims, and without substantiating them. NPOV permits and even requires we report on these issues when they are significant, of course MEDRS only permits stating the claims as fact if there are quality secondary studies--which there are not.
Here are some sources along the lines of what I am thinking. Note that they are RS for attributing the POV of those interested in coconut oil not MEDRS for the claims being supported by evidence.
I don't think there are really RS objections here, so the only issue would be Weight. I'm open to a slightly shorter phrasing, although I don't think there's good reason not to address the details. They're out there, and we aren't helping anyone by glossing over them here. We can be both comprehensive and verifiable, as long as we craft the presentation to match the sources. WP:Pseudoscience is clear that non-mainstream claims should still be described so long as they are not totally fringe. These claims have entered the mainstream and we should report on them where they have received significant attention, and summarize the current scientific position, which is that the claims are not supported. Ocaasi ( talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Among the problems with recent edit:
The removal of such information does not help to build a better article or encyclopedia. Given all the above drawbacks, an explanation on why the all the above was performed should be given. In the absence of such explanation or convincing rationale I call for the restoration of the earlier version that contained significantly more information. Lambanog ( talk) 15:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I added a {{ vague}} tag to the phrase though the implications of this for coronary artery disease are not known; Yobol removed it: Diff. I am concerned that due to the wording in the article it might appear that a favorable total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol has unknown ramifications and that people unfamiliar with the science might be led to believe that regarding favorable total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol "the implications of this for coronary artery disease are not known". It is vague, it is misleading, and it needs to be changed to something clearer. I suggest the wording in my preferred version but I am being opposed. So it is incumbent on those reverting my edits to come up with a better solution. Lambanog ( talk) 04:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yobol has also just removed a classic study with over 600+ citations since 1993: Diff Google Scholar results. I have asked that editors discuss their changes before making them. Yobol does not seem to be exercising care in his edits nor attempting to fully understand the inclusion of certain sources, but simply removes them. Tagging the source or asking here on the talk page before precipitously removing sources is the proper procedure. I ask that the source be promptly reinstated and that in the future Yobol seek the reasons for the inclusion of any sources he is inclined to remove before doing so. WP:MEDRS does not authorize the automatic removal of primary sources. All such contemplated removals should be discussed first. Lambanog ( talk) 04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
So the line " Despite its saturated fat content, coconut oil is a better alternative to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil when solid fats are required due to the high proportion of lauric acid" has been disputed as POV. I don't believe this is the case, since a high saturated fat intake is clearly considered a health risk. It may be wrong as a factual statement as revealed by subsequent research, but the neutral presentation is to give the mainstream point of view precedence. The issue is apparently that this is contradictory because lauric acid is itself a saturated fat. I don't see this as
Lambanog has suggested replacing it with " Despite its saturated fat content, coconut oil is a better alternative to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil when solid fats are required due to the high proportion of lauric acid". I have absolutely no problem with this. However, in an effort to better represent the possible benefits and downsides, I've edited a couple sentences. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Added info from Amarasiri, specifying the connection through lauric acid. Yobol ( talk) 15:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
This section has been populated basically only material that paints coconut in a positive health light. I think this needs some trimming and some weight balancing. Yobol ( talk) 16:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the further reading except for Adkins, 2006. Hegde is problematic in my mind - it's very short, it's published in the "Journal, Indian Academy of Clinical Medicine", it's an opinion piece, it features the words "cancer breast" (which makes me question the editorial review!), it's intensely against the contemporary opinion regarding the link between fat and cardiovascular disease, it fosters a conspiracy theory to this end, for some reason it invokes astrology (?), it calls coconut oil a "low calorie fat" (even if the health effects are different, all fats have the same calorie count per gram), it claims that frying in coconut oil has fewer health effects, claims without reference that it's a powerful anti-pathogen and invokes Ayurveda. I really don't think it's a good further reading item and am dubious about it being used as a source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The source removed with the explanation "scholarly only, thanks" is one by Dr. Conrado Dayrit, who was one of the leading experts on coconut oil, and was written in part for a medical audience. He was a cardiologist, part of the team to perform the first open heart surgery in the Philippines, and professor emeritus at the University of the Philippines in the field of pharmacology. Aside from teaching, performing experiments in the lab and in clinical studies, and publishing papers and giving presentations, he was a practicing doctor in a country with a population that uses coconut oil on a daily basis. You're not going to find many experts with a better background from multiple perspectives on the subject. A book by him on the subject meets RS, so I have a hard time wondering on what basis you'd be opposing its inclusion. I will restore the source to further reading. Lambanog ( talk) 12:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:MEDRS that vitiates against the Dayrit book. Nor is the Dayrit book solely about health aspects. In any event WP:NPOV takes precedence over WP:MEDRS and there is most certainly more than one significant opinion on the topic. The equivocal nature of the Western stand against it based on associations to saturated fats that are currently under question and not direct analysis of the subject itself further necessitate a fuller explanation. I also see no applicability of WP:CRYSTAL. The properties of coconut oil are the same now as they will be in the future. Differing opinions on them are already in the open. The addition of sources serve to the current significant perspectives on the subject. Lambanog ( talk) 08:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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... [2]
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.
'Paul Dudley White was President Eisenhower's personal physician in the fifties when the president had two heart attacks. White was a Harvard educated heart specialist. He'd published a textbook titled Heart Disease in 1943. In that book, Dr. White wrote, "When I graduated from medical school in 1911, I had never heard of coronary thrombosis." Now this was the President's doctor. The reason he'd never heard of coronary thrombosis in 1911 was because the first article about it, detailing four unusual cases of this new phenomenon, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1912. Coronary thrombosis is a heart attack. This is a modern disease that is caused by refined foods. We don't call these problems the "diseases of civilization" for nothing! http://www.drrons.com/weston-price-traditional-nutrition-2.htm SO we had heart disease being a new phenomena in the early 20th century..VERY uncommon...While coconut oil was being consumed by millions around he globe...strange isnt it! Jalusbrian ( talk) 05:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
WP:MEDRS states
Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies.
Further it states
A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. Literature reviews, systematic review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources, as are position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed. Do not confuse a scientific review (the thing) with peer review (the activity).
Dr Mary Enig represents a major health organization the Weston A Price Foundation, does literature reviews and is an expert in her field of nutrition. Her work is also peer reviewed [2]. Please tell me how this does not meet WP:MEDRS. 122.107.141.196 ( talk) 00:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE states that examples of fringe theories are:
conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.
The foundation has presented scientific support for their ideas which is not novel in anyway. Neither do they present hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.
Further, WP:FRINGE states:
However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy.
Even though the foundation has ideas which "are widely held to be wrong", it's ideas by the scientific community are not considered "absurd or unworthy".
WP:FRINGE also states:
One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research.
Not only has Dr Mary Enig engaged in peer reviewed research, independent peer reviewed studies such as these corroborate her work: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7270479 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19437058 122.107.141.196 ( talk) 04:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
However, WP:FRINGE still states:
"ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." 122.107.141.196 ( talk) 01:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
You are using WP:FRINGE to the letter of the law and not in the spirit it was written. WP:FRINGE was written for topics like The Face on Mars which science considers "absurd". Dr Mary Enig's hypothesis are fringe but scientifically plausible. But not to worry. If Dr Mary Enig is too much for you to stomach, I will add some coconut-oil ncbi citations that are even more crazier than the Face on Mars. 122.107.141.196 ( talk) 07:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL! You want to block me? You are not even an administrator to block me. Further, I must warn you that Wikipedia:Gaming the system is strictly forbidden:
"Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden."
So your continued insistence that Dr Mary Enig is WP:FRINGE when she has no association with The Face on Mars, Bigfoot or UFO's shows your lack of understanding of the issues at hand. Her ideas are a minority opinion rooted in the scientific method.
Further, this wiki article [3] states:
"Articles that discuss the existence of a controversy (be it scientific, interdisciplinary, popular, political, or religious) should clearly identify proponents of minority views and explain the extent and reasons for their marginalization. It is important that articles which discuss such controversies neither exaggerate nor minimize the proportion of experts in the field who advocate minority views." 122.107.141.196 ( talk) 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
For those interested in the background to the demonisation of coconut oil and other saturated fats, here is Dr Enigs article: the Oiling of America: http://www.drcranton.com/nutrition/oiling.htm .. Jalusbrian ( talk) 05:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What makes coconut oil different from most other dietary oils is the basic building blocks or fatty acids making up the oil. Coconut oil is composed predominately of glyceryl esters of medium chain fatty acids (MCFA). The majority of fats in the human diet are glyceryl esters of long chain fatty acids (LCFA).
MCFA and LCFA differ in the length of the alkyl chain that makes up the backbone of the fatty acid. MCFA have a chain length of 6 to 14 carbons. LCFA contain 16 or more carbons. The length of the carbon chain influences many of the oil’s physical and chemical properties. When consumed, the body processes and metabolizes each fatty acid differently depending on the size of the carbon chain. Therefore, the physiological effects of the MCFA in coconut are significantly different from those of the LCFA that are more commonly found in the diet.
MCFA and LCFA can also be classified as saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fatty acids. Coconut oil contains 92% saturated fatty acids. All of the MCFA in coconut oil are saturated. They, however, are very much different chemically from the long chain saturated fatty acids found in animal fat and other vegetable oils.
Because coconut oil has a high amount of saturated fatty acids it also has a relatively high melting point. Above 76°F (24°C) coconut oil is a colorless liquid. Below this temperature it solidifies into a pure white solid.
{{ POV-section}}
The multiple issues banner has been up at the top of the article page for a while. Has it served any purpose? It would certainly help me – and probably other editors – address specific issues (there are only specific issues) if any regulars with concerns about neutrality etc. placed a {{POV-section|talk page section name}} at the section or even para – illustrated at the top of this section – containing a specific controversy, and {{fact|march 2010}} citation needed or this cheeky item {{dubious}} dubious – discuss at the specific statements they contend. And take that flag off the top at the same time. Thanks, Trev M ~ 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why no mention of its use as hair oil? 69.116.203.143 ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC) R.E.D.
Some valid sources have been removed. Please indicate the objection with them. Absent an explanation I will restore them.
Lambanog ( talk) 16:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
A WP:RSN discussion has been started here -- Ronz ( talk) 18:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Please explain the removal of the source and how it fails WP:MEDRS. Without clearer explanation I will restore. Lambanog ( talk) 18:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Restored version that apparently had copyvio was from September 2009. Was reverted. Will modify the information.
Moving some disputed citations here until more thorough review of their appropriateness:
{{
citation}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1=
(
help)Lambanog ( talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It's possible they don't exist and we should simply not try to expand a section on health benefits without better quality sources. The best place to start is pubmed by typing in "coconut oil" then selecting only review articles from the list of options in the right hand column. We must also be aware of policies like undue weight that state minority views (i.e. coconut oil is healthy) must not be given more prominence than majority views. Looking into pubmed, I've only found two articles that really mention coconut oil in a meaningful way in the abstracts - both are brief, both are negative. [6] [7] (I stopped looking before 1996, 15 years is a reasonable but relatively arbitrary cut-off). Searching on google books will doubtless be tedious and unhelpful - the first set of books come up with the word "miracle" in the title an awful lot [8]. Google books is more of a crap shoot because you get a ton of popular books and these tend to be gushy, representing a predetermined opinion based on an overextension of primary research rather than a solid scholarly consensus. Google scholar is a bit better, but the results are still a mixed bag with a lot of non-medical stuff in it. Since we are bound by our policy on neutrality to represent the opinion within the relevant scholarly majority, it's quite possible that we can't write a section on the health benefits of coconut oil because it's not supported as a healthy fat. Though it's possible coconut oil may be healthier than other saturated fats because of it's lauric acid (as suggested in this article) or some other reason, until we can demonstrate that a significant number of scholars believe this (in the form of review articles advancing this conclusion) we shouldn't try to make the conclusion ourselves.
An example of a non-coconut review article that would be acceptable would include something like this or this for olive oil, this for eggs, this for fats in general, this for trans fats. In the absence of high-quality evidence and secondary sources, we are better off saying nothing than assembling a conclusion ourselves from primary literature. See WP:RS and WP:MEDRS in particular for the relevant guidelines. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the "Medicine" section (4.3.3) from its old position under "Uses":"Personal uses" to a new position under "Health." — Jay L09 ( talk) 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following statement (which makes the novel claim that Human Immunodeficiency Virus is a protozoan): "Monolaurin has been found to have antimicrobial properties capable of killing lipid-coated viruses, bacteria, and protozoa like herpes, cytomegalovirus, influenza, HIV, helicobacter pylori, and giardia lamblia. [3]" from the section on Cardiovascular disease — Jay L09 ( talk) 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the irrelevant and nearly meaningless statement: "Lauric acid is also turned into monolaurin in the human body." As used in this context, lauric acid means "any glyceryl laurate". Monolaurin is a glyceryl laurate. The statement therefore reduces to the claim that lauric acid is also turned into lauric acid in the human body. — Jay L09 ( talk) 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have once again clarified the weasel-like construction: "newer studies have indicated there may not be as strong a link" by re-wording it to "newer studies have failed to clarify whether there is or is not as strong a link." It should be understood that, unless it is conveying permission, the word "may" has the same meaning as "may not." Due to the prevalence of advertisement in our culture, together with the threat to advertisers of being held accountable for making false claims, we have become accustomed to gratuitous use of the word "may" to suck the meaning out of sentences, much as the animal was once believed to suck the contents out of eggs. Advertisers continue to use "may" before their claims because many people will take the resulting claimless sentence to be a real claim, while the advertiser can point out that no claim was made, false or otherwise. If new studies have indeed proven that the link is not so strong, the article should say so clearly. If they have not, we should make it clear that they have failed to do so. If "the mark" is to convey misinformation while maintaining plausible deniability, the "may" construction should be retained. Misinformation, however, is not the goal of Wikipedia. — Jay L09 ( talk) 17:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the recent discussion over MEDRS is missing an easy alternative solution, one which NPOV requires anyway.
Instead of trying to prove through inadequate studies that coconut oil has certain beneficial properties, let's just report that many people in the nutrition/natural health/fitness community think it does, and are increasing its place in their diets. We can also say that these people think that coconut oil is different than other saturated fats because 'virgin' coconut oil does not have hydrogenated transfats and coconut oil is made of medium rather than long fatty chains, under the assumption that they are more easily digested. We can even say that people in the natural health community think that coconut oil may have anti-bacterial qualities which help ward off heart disease. We can then report that the scientific community has not shown any of this to be true, that studies which originally grouped coconut oil in with other dangerous saturated fats have not been superceded, and that clinical nutritionists and doctors still recommend limiting coconut oil due to its high saturated fat content.
This way we can report on what is actually going on, from all sides, without denying the interest or the claims, and without substantiating them. NPOV permits and even requires we report on these issues when they are significant, of course MEDRS only permits stating the claims as fact if there are quality secondary studies--which there are not.
Here are some sources along the lines of what I am thinking. Note that they are RS for attributing the POV of those interested in coconut oil not MEDRS for the claims being supported by evidence.
I don't think there are really RS objections here, so the only issue would be Weight. I'm open to a slightly shorter phrasing, although I don't think there's good reason not to address the details. They're out there, and we aren't helping anyone by glossing over them here. We can be both comprehensive and verifiable, as long as we craft the presentation to match the sources. WP:Pseudoscience is clear that non-mainstream claims should still be described so long as they are not totally fringe. These claims have entered the mainstream and we should report on them where they have received significant attention, and summarize the current scientific position, which is that the claims are not supported. Ocaasi ( talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Among the problems with recent edit:
The removal of such information does not help to build a better article or encyclopedia. Given all the above drawbacks, an explanation on why the all the above was performed should be given. In the absence of such explanation or convincing rationale I call for the restoration of the earlier version that contained significantly more information. Lambanog ( talk) 15:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I added a {{ vague}} tag to the phrase though the implications of this for coronary artery disease are not known; Yobol removed it: Diff. I am concerned that due to the wording in the article it might appear that a favorable total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol has unknown ramifications and that people unfamiliar with the science might be led to believe that regarding favorable total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol "the implications of this for coronary artery disease are not known". It is vague, it is misleading, and it needs to be changed to something clearer. I suggest the wording in my preferred version but I am being opposed. So it is incumbent on those reverting my edits to come up with a better solution. Lambanog ( talk) 04:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yobol has also just removed a classic study with over 600+ citations since 1993: Diff Google Scholar results. I have asked that editors discuss their changes before making them. Yobol does not seem to be exercising care in his edits nor attempting to fully understand the inclusion of certain sources, but simply removes them. Tagging the source or asking here on the talk page before precipitously removing sources is the proper procedure. I ask that the source be promptly reinstated and that in the future Yobol seek the reasons for the inclusion of any sources he is inclined to remove before doing so. WP:MEDRS does not authorize the automatic removal of primary sources. All such contemplated removals should be discussed first. Lambanog ( talk) 04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
So the line " Despite its saturated fat content, coconut oil is a better alternative to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil when solid fats are required due to the high proportion of lauric acid" has been disputed as POV. I don't believe this is the case, since a high saturated fat intake is clearly considered a health risk. It may be wrong as a factual statement as revealed by subsequent research, but the neutral presentation is to give the mainstream point of view precedence. The issue is apparently that this is contradictory because lauric acid is itself a saturated fat. I don't see this as
Lambanog has suggested replacing it with " Despite its saturated fat content, coconut oil is a better alternative to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil when solid fats are required due to the high proportion of lauric acid". I have absolutely no problem with this. However, in an effort to better represent the possible benefits and downsides, I've edited a couple sentences. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Added info from Amarasiri, specifying the connection through lauric acid. Yobol ( talk) 15:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
This section has been populated basically only material that paints coconut in a positive health light. I think this needs some trimming and some weight balancing. Yobol ( talk) 16:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the further reading except for Adkins, 2006. Hegde is problematic in my mind - it's very short, it's published in the "Journal, Indian Academy of Clinical Medicine", it's an opinion piece, it features the words "cancer breast" (which makes me question the editorial review!), it's intensely against the contemporary opinion regarding the link between fat and cardiovascular disease, it fosters a conspiracy theory to this end, for some reason it invokes astrology (?), it calls coconut oil a "low calorie fat" (even if the health effects are different, all fats have the same calorie count per gram), it claims that frying in coconut oil has fewer health effects, claims without reference that it's a powerful anti-pathogen and invokes Ayurveda. I really don't think it's a good further reading item and am dubious about it being used as a source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The source removed with the explanation "scholarly only, thanks" is one by Dr. Conrado Dayrit, who was one of the leading experts on coconut oil, and was written in part for a medical audience. He was a cardiologist, part of the team to perform the first open heart surgery in the Philippines, and professor emeritus at the University of the Philippines in the field of pharmacology. Aside from teaching, performing experiments in the lab and in clinical studies, and publishing papers and giving presentations, he was a practicing doctor in a country with a population that uses coconut oil on a daily basis. You're not going to find many experts with a better background from multiple perspectives on the subject. A book by him on the subject meets RS, so I have a hard time wondering on what basis you'd be opposing its inclusion. I will restore the source to further reading. Lambanog ( talk) 12:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:MEDRS that vitiates against the Dayrit book. Nor is the Dayrit book solely about health aspects. In any event WP:NPOV takes precedence over WP:MEDRS and there is most certainly more than one significant opinion on the topic. The equivocal nature of the Western stand against it based on associations to saturated fats that are currently under question and not direct analysis of the subject itself further necessitate a fuller explanation. I also see no applicability of WP:CRYSTAL. The properties of coconut oil are the same now as they will be in the future. Differing opinions on them are already in the open. The addition of sources serve to the current significant perspectives on the subject. Lambanog ( talk) 08:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)