According to FAQ
I have studied the oils and have determined from the findings of reputable nutritional scientists that when it comes to those two oils the reverse of what you say is true. I've also read many of the sites supporting coconut oil (many people bring them to my attention) and they really slant the issues involved. For starters, the fatty acid profile of coconut oil is worse than GRAIN-fed beef! A one-ounce serving of coconut oil has about the same net quantity of Omega-6 over Omega-3 as does a three-ounce serving of grain-fed beef. (Coconut oil contains no Omega-3 Fatty acids, just Omega-6 fatty acids.) In the saturated fat category one-ounce of coconut oil has 24.2 grams of saturated fat versus 5.7 grams in a three-ounce serving of grain-fed beef.
The scary claims about Canola oil being toxic are fabrications and false.
Yes, coconut oil has some positive anti-fungal properties. But I'd rather take those properties in supplement form than use the oil. In this respect coconut oil is like grain. Grain has many positive nutritional attributes. But grain's imbalance of fats makes it a disastrous food for man and beast.
In my opinion a better oil for cooking is macadamia nut oil, which we sell in the condiment section. A better oil for salads is macadamia oil. Far and away the best salad oils are Flax Seed oil and/or Fish oils. I do not use Canola oil because it is a heavy dose of Omega-6 fatty acids. Usually for cooking I use rendered grass-fed animal fats.
I've listed two sites below. The first is using the typical, unverified scare tactics. The second one is using peer-reviewed science. The first is spreading old wives tales, the second is relating proven fact. Also, in the second link we suggest that you proceed on to the link at the bottom of the article that compares corn oil with olive oil. That link also tells the tale about coconut oil. It will be an eye-opener for sure.
I'm a paleo foodie, come check out my recipes: http://strangekitty.ca/
Is there a specific reason why you are posting this?
It was obviously written by someone who subscribes to the ol' lipid hypothesis, if s/he is saying that the saturated fat in coconut oil is a problem - that's why we eat it! Plus, even if you are steeped in the CW, the medium chain triglycerides in coconut oil have been shown to have no adverse effect on metabolic profiles. Here's just one study on the topic: Medium chain triglyceride oil consumption as part ... [J Am Coll Nutr. 2008] - PubMed result
While macadamia nut oil is delicious and very shelf-stable, it unfortunately isn't stable at higher temperatures, so the advice to cook with it is lousy. And anyway, macadamia and coconut are comparable in total PUFAs, and the number is quite low in each. I'd much rather eat some fish once in a while than worry about the 0.2 grams of omega-6 in one tablespoon of coconut oil.
Last edited by theholla; 05-13-2011 at 01:17 PM.
He doesn't subscribe to the lipid hypothesis because he believes the 1:1 ratio of omega 3-6 is optimal. He also goes on to say that all oils are bad and that the only oil used for cooking should be whatever fat the meat contains. Doesn't Loren cordain also say coconut oil is bad?
The lipid hypothesis is the CW theory that saturated fat and cholesterol cause arterial plaques and heart disease. This is a separate issue from omega3:6.
If he doesn't subscribe to the lipid hypothesis, then why is the saturated fat in coconut oil a problem? It doesn't sound like he's saying that all oils are bad, since he does suggest fish oil, macadamia nut oil, and flax seed oil. Loren Cordain has always been opposed to saturated fats, but even he has this to say about coconut oil:
The Paleo Diet: More on Coconut OilThis is not a clear cut issue as it once was. Coconut oil contains high concentrations of a saturated fatty acid called lauric acid (12:0) as well as other medium chain fatty acids (8:0, 10:0) which may have therapeutic effects. Coconut oil also contains other saturated fatty acids which elevate blood cholesterol. However, elevations in blood cholesterol without chronic low level inflammation may not necessarily increase the risk for CHD. My feeling is that coconut oil in the backdrop of a modern day Paleo Diet probably has few negative health implications.
Just in general though, I wouldn't base my diet on nutritional information gleaned from the FAQ of Slanker's Grassfed Meats.
So then why not just use animal fat? I don't think hunter gatherers used any oils and the only oil used was the naturally occurring fat in the meat they did cook. They probably roasted it over an open fire which means they didn't even use animal fat.
Animal fat is great, especially pastured butter and beef tallow. No one is saying you have to eat exclusively coconut fat. No one is saying that you have to eat coconut at all. But, based on experimental studies and observational studies of modern populations with a high coconut fat intake (for example, the Kitivans and other Pacific Islanders), humans do just fine eating coconut, and it may even have some health benefits.
The aim of this way of eating is not to reenact the exact lifestyle and diet of paleolithic humans. Rather, it's to use our knowledge of our evolutionary past to create an appropriate diet for modern humans. Even if hunter gatherers didn't add fat to their food, keep in mind that they were eating the whole animal, including the offal, marrow, and fat deposits - in other words, the fatty bits that most modern humans don't eat.
What exactly are you trying to figure out? I feel like your previous thread should have answered all your coconut-related questions, but I'll be happy to point you to some good resources if you let me know what you're looking for.
Coconuts are actually the EASIEST oils to get from fruit/vegetables. Maybe they wouldn't be eating it from the jar, but you can bet if grok were on an island, he'd be eating coconuts all day long!