Digest Number 648

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/9/02 7:41:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Ammachi writes:

 

 

> http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/coconut_oil.html

 

I am going to read this. Concerned that it is from 1996 and I don't know who

paid for the research, probably coconut producers...No one has mentioned

coconuts since 1996 till now, so there is reason to doubt. If it was good

for you, then why would it not be popularly known by now? Probably because

there's more research against it that these guys don't want to mention.

 

If true, this would be a boon for Kerala, the land of the coconut. When at

Amritapuri, I was next to a guy who attributed his cardiac condition to the

liberal use of coconut oil. He might be wrong, but so far, theatres have

replaced coconut oil with safflower oil. Even the producers of coconut oil

tell you on the bottle NOT for consumption. They want you to use it topically

only. And that's the makers of coconut oil. So, I will have to take your oil

with a bit of salt, as it were, if you will, if you get my meaning.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ammachi, sprose1@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 11/9/02 7:41:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> Ammachi writes:

>

>

> > http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/coconut_oil.html

>

> I am going to read this. Concerned that it is from 1996 and I

> don't know who paid for the research, probably coconut

> producers...No one has mentioned coconuts since 1996 till now,

> so there is reason to doubt. If it was good for you, then why

> would it not be popularly known by now?

 

People ate margarine for decades before it became known how unhealthy

it is, and it is *still* available in grocery stores in all its

overheated, bleached, partially hydrogenated glory. I first read

about the trans fatty acids in margarine in an obscure health

newsletter about ten years ago; it was another six years before I

ever saw a reference to it in the mainstream press.

 

> Probably because there's more research against it that these

> guys don't want to mention.

 

I believe your skepticism is misplaced and that you've instead

swallowed, hook, line, and sinker the research used by the vegetable

oil industry to trample the tropical oil industry. Believe what you

like, but it makes much more sense that the more chemically reactive

polyunsaturated seed oils and the oxidative stress they put on the

body are the unhealthy oils when consumed to excess or in damaged,

processed form. And, this is supported by the statistics that show

cancer and heart disease to be epidemic when the use of traditional

saturated fats is down and the use of polyunsaturated seed oils is

way up.

 

> When at Amritapuri, I was next to a guy who attributed his

> cardiac condition to the liberal use of coconut oil.

 

Was he eating natural, minimally processed coconut oil or the more

common refined, bleached coconut oil? The research used to show

coconut oil is unhealthy used highly processed coconut oil.

 

> He might be wrong, but so far, theatres have replaced coconut

> oil with safflower oil.

 

Yeah, so what? And, McDonald's is going to put polyunsaturated oil in

their fryers so that they can claim there's less trans fat in the

fries. But, the typical consumer is oblivious to the fact that trans

fats are the result of fragile polyunsaturated fat being subject to

high temperatures. I doubt you'll be seeing any analyses of McD's new

and "improved" fryer oil after it's been sitting in a hot fryer for a

few hours.

 

> Even the producers of coconut oil tell you on the bottle NOT for

> consumption. They want you to use it topically only. And that's

> the makers of coconut oil.

 

That is what you'll find on the labels of highly processed coconut

oil. But, you'll find recommendations for culinary uses on the label

of Spectrum Organics unrefined coconut oil.