Should I eat coconut oil?

>coconut oil
you should eat it, minus the coco.

wat dat is?

examine.com/nutrition/21-of-the-best-arguments-for-and-against-coconut-oil/

Examine.com isn't bad for supplement info but they suck at analyizing diet related things

No. Its saturated fat and not good for you. If you are looking for medium-chain triglycerides, only a negligible part of coconut fat are MCT.

i really don't want to pay another nigger heart surgery, can you please not?

Coconut oil breaks down human fat tissues

bodybuilding.com/fun/the-fat-burning-fat-the-coconut-is-natures-premiere-thermogenic.html

>no scientific references

Just sharing what I read
>MCT stands for medium-chain triglycerides, a type of fatty acid that is derived from coconut oil.
>Consider MCT oil as a super fuel for your cells, because it boosts fat burning and increases mental clarity.
>MCT can also help you lose weight because it is quickly burned and metabolized.
> It gets absorbed directly from the gut into the liver and doesn’t get stored as fat but rather burned quickly and turned into energy.

drhyman.com/blog/2016/02/04/the-secret-fat-that-makes-you-thin/

I only use coconut oil for my hair tho, so I don't know its effects first hand

sciencebasedmedicine.org/coconut-oil-warning/

>drhyman.com/blog

Bruh you gotta learn to differentiate reliable sources from random bullshit on the internet. It's not 1999 anymore, you can't just Ask Jeeves and get all the right information.

70% of the sat fat in coconut oil are mct. How is that 'negligible'?

>2017
>literally citing the AHA who literally have corn oil manufacturers and interests on their advisory panel

Dude the AHA recommended 'heart healthy' trans-fats for fucking years and put their seal of approval on thousands of products containing those fats as safe alternatives to saturated fat. Now the FDA has BANNED trans-fats from food in the USA. In a few years you will not be able to legally put trans-fats into food.

So the AHA, who people cite as an authority on heart matters, recommended people eat something which is now known to be so bad for our heart health that it's fucking illegal.

>appeal to conspiracy

The AHA thought trans fats might be okay based on initial research until more research was done that showed they weren't, at which point they revised their recommondations.

I just stumbled randomly into that site to answer the user who wanted scientifical facts, but I had read the same shit before in a health/fitness French magazine.
Then again, not trying to say I am right, it's just that I've seen the same shit regarding coconut oil being able to reduce fat tissues.
You guys seem more educated on the subject than me, so I'll just shut up I guess

>Should I fall for a meme
>or
>should I pick a reasonably varied healthy diet?
decisions, decisions

It's not a conspiracy.

They observably recommended many products with trans-fats in them as heart healthy foods. There was no tentative action they flat out endorsed them for years.
They have also relentlessly shilled for corn oils. What does american agriculture produce in vast quantities? CORN.

Here come the Monsanto posts.

>They observably recommended many products with trans-fats in them as heart healthy foods.

Where?

heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/PreventionTreatmentofHighCholesterol/The-Skinny-on-Fats_UCM_305628_Article.jsp#.WYxAwlGQyUk

In the 1960s the AHA was absolutely key in promoting the sales of 'low-fat' alternatives to foods. Margarine was touted as considerably healthy than butter, for example, despite being full of trans-fats which have since been shown to be terrible.

They may demonise trans-fats now but they used to push that shit everywhere.

What does that have to do with the modern day? 50 years ago they guessed wrong about something and then changed their mind when better evidence came in, therefore we should never listen to them about anything ever again? We'd have to ignore every science-based organization.

I'm saying how can they be absolutely trusted now if they were so very wrong then?

They kicked off the whole premise of saturated fats being bad for you and their recommendations for alternatives were shown to be total bunk. Why should they be trusted on any of the advice that is built upon this critical error?

Not to mention who they're in bed with, who they receive funding from, who they have partnered with in the past. Are you even aware of the ties between the ADA, for instance and soda giants? These people that are trusted to give American's guidelines on healthy living have been shown time and time again to be nothing but profit driven propaganda corporations shilling for certain agricultural products to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

50 years ago they didn't 'guess' shit. They purposefully misrepresented studies to make money. There's nothing to suggest they aren't still doing it to this day.

did you fuck it first

>how can they be absolutely trusted now if they were so very wrong then?

All the article is taking from the AHA report is some data on coconut oil's effects on the lipid profile

>they reviewed seven clinical trials that looked directly at the effects on lipid profiles of consuming coconut oil. Of the seven trials all seven showed an increase in LDL, six of them to statistical significance. Further, the increase in LDL was comparable to consuming other saturated fats, such as animal fat. That conclude that because of this, and the fact that there are no proven benefits to consuming coconut oil, they recommend people avoid coconut oil as unhealthy.

As you would expect from a highly saturated fat, it's bad for heart health. That would be true whether it's the American Heart Association telling you that, the British Heart Foundation, the American Dietetic Association, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, or any international body of medical experts. There's no use for a conspiracy theory in this case.

That would be worth something if it were an absolute truth that increased LDL is absolutely synonymous with heart disease.
It would also be worth something if the AHA hadn't conveniently ignored several studies that completely ignore their hypothesis that sat fats are inherently bad for you and that pufa are better (these studies being some of the most expensive and extensive clinical studies done of the topic).
It would also be worth something if the AHA and the advisors and chairpeople that run these studies didn't have disclosed ties to the statin and pharmaceutical industries with many individuals literally receiving cash from statin manufacturers.

The AHA routinely cherry picks studies to support their weak hypothesis with money given to them by corporations heavily invested in their outcomes. This is no conspiracy. It's documented public knowledge for any who cares to look.
They always rely on the increase of LDL to state a link to heart disease but never ever ever take into account triglyceride levels or low levels of HDL which have a far more accurate indication of heart health than their intentionally simplistic model.

Of course if you believe that LDL is the sole and most important factor in heart disease you're going to believe people when they say that anything that might raise it is bad for you. But if you actually look into studies conducted that examine LDL with other factors as a whole you'd see that its a criteria cited by the AHA solely because it's the only criteria they can find that supports their nonsense.

Increases in LDL do translate to increases in heart disease risk. Saturated fats do raise LDL and therefore increase heart disease risk.

>Conveniently ignored several studies that completely ignore their hypothesis that sat fats are inherently bad for you

Not ignored, they've been reviewed and found to not be good enough evidence compared to other studies.

heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/Nutrition/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Saturated-Fats_UCM_463756_Article.jsp?appName=MobileApp

>A report appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine that raised questions about the saturated fat-heart disease link. However, that report has been heavily criticized by experts in the scientific community and the authors have issued several corrections and explanations.
>The American Heart Association isn’t the only leading health organization to find a definitive link between saturated fats and heart disease.
>Eleven authoritative bodies – including the World Health Organization; the Institute of Medicine; the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom; and the European Union – independently reviewed the scientific evidence and concluded yet again that saturated fat is associated with heart disease.

>images.fuckfuckno.com(9).jpg

>Margarine was touted as considerably healthy than butter, for example, despite being full of trans-fats which have since been shown to be terrible.
literally wrong on so many levels it's hurting me physically

Shoo shoo, greedy Jew.

LDL-C doesn't cause heart disease though. Correlation =/= causation and that correlation is the only thing the AHA ever uses to justify it's dietary advice.

Yeah, people with heart disease tend to have high LDL-C levels but what else do they have? High insulin resistance, hyperglycemia and genetic factors. Remove those factors and there is no mechanism for LDL-C doing anything to cause heart disease.

But no, just tout LDL levels as the cause all of heart disease, totally ignore the actual causal culprits, keep people dependent on statins (that are almost totally ineffective) and keep money pouring into your coffers.

in the Mediterranean nobody gives a fuck about butter vs margarine vs memecoconut, we just use fucking olive oil since the dawn of ages and I literally can't guess what's the fuss about wandering for alternatives

the import/export coconut cartel is probably stronger than the import/export olive oil cartel
also health&diet magazines need to constantly find some new trends for their audience

Alternatives were sought for and found because america does not produces tons and tons of olives every year.
If the mediterranean didn't grow olives, but grew billions of dollars worth of corn, what exactly do you think the agricultural industry would insist you make your food with?
If America grew billions of dollars of olives every year this wouldn't be a problem because the shills would shill for olive oil which would actually work out for everyone.
But they don't have olives, or coconuts, they've got corn and they've got to sell it somehow or billions upon billions of dollars go bye bye.

>Remove those factors and there is no mechanism for LDL-C doing anything to cause heart disease.

What's that based on? People who have genetically high cholesterol (300mg/dl-1000mg/dl) have a massively increased heart disease risk regardless of any other factors.

thefhfoundation.org/about-fh/what-is-fh

Things like cigarette smoking or diabetes can aggravate heart disease but LDL is causal in initiating and growing it. It's not hard to believe that a disease characterized by cholesterol-filled plaques infiltrating the walls of arteries is directly linked to abnormally high levels of cholesterol-carrying particles circulating in the blood.

Correlation indeed does not mean causation. But if a study's results gathers enough data to form a big enough correlation - big enough that the null hypothesis must be outright rejected, then causation statistically doesn't matter, the correlation is deemed important enough to call for action, and actually figuring out the causation is just grounds for further study.

The correlation with LDL and atherosclerosis is massive.

How exactly does LDL-C cause arterial plaque? Do you know? Do you understand the mechanic by which this happens?

What about the significance of LDL-P, VLDL and triglycerides? What about LDL-C interaction in hyperglycemics and those with insulin resistance?

LDL is the tool by which other actual causal factors cause heart disease. If you remove those factors LDL-c has almost no predictive value for CVD.

As it is tri/hdl ratios are a better indicator anyway, with a tigther correlation to heart disease but the AHA never mentions that a raise in HDL and a drop in triglycerides is beneficial because it doesn't support their hypothesis.

Look, if you eat a lot of carbs and a lot of fat (standard diet) you're putting together all risk factors that will massively increase heart disease risk. So when you look at LDL and you look at heart disease you see a big correlation.

What happens when you restrict carbs and consume fats? Blood lipids improve across all established risk factors except for perhaps a small increase in LDL-C which, in the absence of high carb intake, does not have any mechanistic affect on causing heart disease.

What happens if you eat a low fat, high carb diet? Likewise, the risk factors are generally lowered.

What happens if you eat both in high quantities like the people in almost every single LDL/cholesterol study the AHA will dare cite? You get heart disease because of high triglycerides, high inflammation, diabetes etc...

The correlation between LDL-C and heart disease is purposefully misunderstood/misconstrued to make a buck.

High LDL = heart disease... It is not that simple.

Post your data nullifying LDL as a risk factor

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747394/

It's a risk factor, but the ratio is a better predictor of CVD and is exclusive of LDL levels. You can have high LDL levels but a great tri/hdl ratio and be no more at risk of heart disease than someone with low LDL.
In fact you can be safer than someone with low LDL who also has low HDL and high triglycerides.

All I'm saying is that LDL-C correlation with heart disease is not nearly the best predictor of the condition and the AHA focusing solely on it to dispense all their nutritional advice is totall disingenuous.
If tri/HDL ratio more accurately predicts heart disease, why does the AHA ignore the fact that consumption of high fat, low carb diets reduces fasting triglycerides and significantly raises HDL? Is it because it totally flattens their entire basis for their dietary advice? Is it because it opens the door to the possibility that it's not sat fats that cause issues, it's their combination with other damage causing substances?

nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/atp3xsum.pdf

>LDL Cholesterol: The Primary Target of Therapy
>Research from experimental animals, laboratory investigations, epidemiology,
and genetic forms of hypercholesterolemia indicate that elevated LDL choles-
terol is a major cause of CHD. In addition, recent clinical trials robustly
show that LDL-lowering therapy reduces risk for CHD. For these reasons,
ATP III continues to identify elevated LDL cholesterol as the primary target of
cholesterol-lowering therapy. As a result, the primary goals of therapy and the
cutpoints for initiating treatment are stated in terms of LDL.
>The treatment strategy for elevated triglycerides depends on the causes of
the elevation and its severity. For all persons with elevated triglycerides, the
primary aim of therapy is to achieve the target goal for LDL cholesterol.

You're arguing something different from what you're posting. If LDL/HDL ratio is a better predicter, it wouldn't mean LDL alone isn't causally related to atherosclerosis. Low HDL, like high triglycerides, is associated with diabetes, which aggravates heart disease risk. 2 risk factors are more risky than 1 risk factor. What you were arguing is that the main risk factor actually doesn't matter. Post your evidence.

reminder that high cholesterol is mostly genetic and diet has minimal impact

Not true for most people

If LDL/HDL is a better predictor than high LDL becomes irrelevant so long as the HDL is higher in ratio.
You say high LDL = high risk for CVD. No, high LDL/HDL ratio = high risk for CVD. They're two very different things.

That's what I'm saying. LDL by itself is not the best indicator of CVD risk especially when it is shown that as long as your HDL is high and the ratio is good it is a better indication of heart disease.

So tell me how advocating for diets that 'lower' LDL levels is good when no consideration is taken for tris or hdl levels, which low carb diets improve, when the latter is shown to be a more accurate predictor of heart disease?

Isn't the AHA supposed to be up on the science? Why would they neglect to mention that their criteria for heart disease is less accurate than another?
You do know that the AHA is in no way a state institution right? You know that the AHA is a private group that were basically nobodies until they received millions in funding in the 1960s from the manufacturers of crisco?

>If LDL/HDL is a better predictor than high LDL becomes irrelevant so long as the HDL is higher in ratio.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you're assuming that if your LDL/HDL ratio is better, then you can't develop heart disease. Being a better predictor doesn't mean heart diseases ceases to be in people of a certain ratio, or again, that LDL is not important. From your paper

>an increase in total cholesterol concentration, and specifically LDL cholesterol, is an atherogenic lipid marker, whereas reduced HDL cholesterol concentration is correlated with numerous risk factors, including the components of the metabolic syndrome, and probably involves independent risk

Low HDL is associated with other lifestyle factors and isn't clearly protective in and of itself. It may be a better predictor when looked at as a ratio because that causes it to also include people with aggravating conditions like metabolic syndrome and inactivity. Because raising HDL by nutritional means (usually by dietary niacin) hasn't been shown to be effective, raising HDL is not the main form of treatment. Lowering LDL, the main atherogenic lipoprotein, is the main form of treatment, while things like exercise and smoking cessation is encouraged.

You went from saying LDL isn't causally related to atherosclerosis to saying that it's not the best predictor. That's a huge moving of the goalpost.

>You went from saying LDL isn't causally related to atherosclerosis

Because it isn't. It's correlated, not causally related and as far as using correlation to predict CVD it's inferior by itself compared to taking the LDL/HDL ratio instead.

The whole convo started because the AHA recommends lowering LDL-C over all else when there are more important factors that can be improved on a diet that flies completely in the face of the AHA nutritional guidelines.

Hence their condemnation of coconut oil, on the basis of it's sat fat content, is totally bunk.
Not even getting into what the sat fats in coconut oil consist of, which makes a huge difference in their metabolisation, but that would be moot considering that there's nothing wrong with sat fats anyway.

I'm always amazed by the pamphlets autists write about anything on here
You'd argue over anything just for the sake of it

It very much is, as even your paper points out. As I pointed out, the other predictors like the LDL/HDL ratio can predict better because they indirectly take more than the lipid profile into account. People with a bad LDL/HDL ratio either have LDL that's way too high or have a secondary risk factor that correlates with low HDL. In either case, lowering LDL to a safe range is the first goal of treatment. You can read more about that from the National Institutes of Health