Please destroy this CW article on sat fats?! page

[rockstareddy]

http://www.healthcastle.com/coconut-...ed-heart.shtml

Found in another thread. Says sat fat from coconut is bad.

Can the experts here explain what this study showed and why its wrong?

Just for reassurance it annoying how hard it is to ignore CW advise which tells you you are blatantly wrong. But they never realise we've eaten sat fat for millions of years.

[cerebelumsdayoff]

This article left so many details out, and so much information vague, that I am having a hard time interpreting just how they got their conclusion. Right off the bat, they sully coconut oil as a bad saturated fat; then they automatically label safflower oil as a good polyunsaturated fat. Reading this from a primal perspective is enough to cause inflammation and constriction of blood vessels because this article is already promoting a highly refined, unnatural, and high in omega six oil versus a completely natural oil (they also never mention whether the coconut oil was pure or refined). Best of all, they do not provide citation to the actual study which they claimed as their source.

Bottom line: just another CW-styled bashing based on refutable evidence. What they do best is prime people right away to take the saturated vs. pufa side by claiming saturated is bad and pufa is good. After eating that PUFA-ladened meal, the next healthy step, as recommended by doctors, would take a Lipitor to make sure cholesterol stays low, tylenol for the joint pain you are having lately, Nexxium for all that acid reflux, and finally an Ambien so you could fall asleep through all the bodily signs of diet-realted distress.

EDIT: found the citation. http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.c...13386/abstract

I am really no expert in biochemistry or biology, but there are still some methodological flaws in this study:

1. Very small sample size (14 is tiny; even us psychologists-in-training are taught to get at least 30 to get a half-descent bell curve)
2. They did not state what they ate with the oil during their meals. That could very well be the causation of any inflammation.

I may also be missing a lot of the biological details so I won't even try to pretend I know what I am talking about

[lmyers04]

adding to what cerebelum said, put simply, the study does not tell us what else the coconut oil group ate in their "meal". Blaming the HDL fluctuations on the coconut oil (demonized from the start as "bad" fat) and completly ignoring the potential other causes of the fluctuation/arterial inflammation (hmmmm were grains apart of their meal? other processed foods? unclean meat? who knows.....) and combined with the other well known fact that food studies like this prove absolutely NOTHING is all I got.

CW, for reasons including the mass amount of money grain brands like Kraft, Nestle, Etc are making by marketing their products as heart-healthy, will continue to say saturated fat is evil as long as the average citizen still shells out the dough for the oatmeal, rice cakes, lean cuisines, all-bran cereal, and whole wheat pasta. Studies like these are often funded by biased sources like this. And who can blaim them? The profit margins are astronomical.....when you think about how cheap grain is and the mark ups on the products. But, for those who have chosen to do the REAL research(like Sisson and others) and read between the lines, we know that the universe is a fairly simple place once we remove the financial and marketing complexities of SAD companies. In nature, organisms must consume other organisms to thrive. Why does it make sense to say that our main source of nourishment for thousands of years, the meat and fat of other animals, would also make us sick and cause cancer and disease?

[Athena]

The saturated fats from coconut are completely different (i believe they are called triple-chain-saturated fatty acids??) and its some of the best fat you can eat. Im not a scientist or doctor, but I know that from being primal about 7 months, coconut has not affected me in a negative way....although eating toast makes me want to throw up...and WWtoast is apparently good for you in CW logic....so I just assume anything CW is wrong. Its all topsy-turvey

[Chefgerry]

Here, this should clear up that study: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.co...conut-Oil.html
Another case of confirmation bias................

[tarek]

"Medium-chain saturated fatty acids" is the term you're looking for! And you're right, they're definitely some of the best fats for you. :]

Like others, I'm not a doctor or a biologist or anything, but this study doesn't even bring into consideration what else was eaten. It does tell you that they ate isocaloric meals, which I'm assuming means the subjects ate meals consisting of equal portions of fat, carbohydrate, and protein. No mention is given to whether or not the two groups ate the same meals, what kinds of carbohydrates were eaten, what state of health the subjects were in, what quantities of food they were eating, or what else the subjects had eaten that day. It's possible (and fairly likely) that they took fourteen people (which, as cerebelumsdayoff noted, is a very small sample size) whose bodies were already adapted to the standard fare of rancid fats and refined carbohydrates. Saturated fats, to my understanding, do not mix well with this type of food.

Not only that, but no mention is given to the actual duration of this study. It simply states, "Fourteen adults consumed an isocaloric meal containing either a polyunsaturated or a saturated fat on 2 occasions." Did they simply give fourteen subjects two meals in one day? If so, this study would, in my view, be completely worthless.

[Chefgerry]

They ate carrot cake and milkshakes.

[rockstareddy]

Here, this should clear up that study: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.co...conut-Oil.html
Another case of confirmation bias................

Brilliant. Good find.

Cheers guys

[lmyers04]

"Medium-chain saturated fatty acids" is the term you're looking for! And you're right, they're definitely some of the best fats for you. :]

Like others, I'm not a doctor or a biologist or anything, but this study doesn't even bring into consideration what else was eaten. It does tell you that they ate isocaloric meals, which I'm assuming means the subjects ate meals consisting of equal portions of fat, carbohydrate, and protein. No mention is given to whether or not the two groups ate the same meals, what kinds of carbohydrates were eaten, what state of health the subjects were in, what quantities of food they were eating, or what else the subjects had eaten that day. It's possible (and fairly likely) that they took fourteen people (which, as cerebelumsdayoff noted, is a very small sample size) whose bodies were already adapted to the standard fare of rancid fats and refined carbohydrates. Saturated fats, to my understanding, do not mix well with this type of food.

Not only that, but no mention is given to the actual duration of this study. It simply states, "Fourteen adults consumed an isocaloric meal containing either a polyunsaturated or a saturated fat on 2 occasions." Did they simply give fourteen subjects two meals in one day? If so, this study would, in my view, be completely worthless.

yes, almost all food studies are done on the obese.

[Bisous]

Flow oximetry on the coronary arteries also has nothing to do with blockage there. Blockage occurs over time. You wouldn't get actual coconut oil in the coronary arteries blocking things up that day. It's completely ridiculous. That was the basis of the Ornish studies and itnis utter b.s.