Talk:Coconut oil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
Coconut oil is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs. |
 |
Information from Coconut oil (or a previous version of it) is being actively used in the pool of 'Did you know?' facts on the Energy Portal. |  |
|
|
[edit] A New Look at Coconut Oil
Anyone read this paper? A New Look at Coconut Oil It's got plenty of referencing, though I'm no researcher, just someone who wants to believe the anti-coconut oil rheteric was based on lies and using partially-hydrogenated oil, rather than virgin. --TheRedFall 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- For one, stop using alternative healing web sites as cited sources- if they cite anything, refer to that. These citations are so very, very old, mostly 60s and 70s preliminary work. Better controlled work published in the last 20 years continues to support claims that high saturated fat negatively impacts cholesterol profile and increases the risk of heart disease. I've included most of my info in the article itself. 152.3.61.244 23:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cholesterol Myths
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)
- I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. HDL/LDL ratios are consistent predictors of heart attack and stroke- The National Institute of Health held a consensus development conference reviewing the scientific evidence available in 1984, during which a panel of 14 experts unanimously voted "yes" on the questions of whether blood cholesterol was causal and whether reducing it would help to prevent heart disease.[1] The panel concluded:
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.
[edit] Will higher temperature damage it?
"Coconut oil is best stored in solid form - i.e. at temperatures lower than 24.5 °C (76°F) in order to extend shelf life. However, unlike most oils, coconut oil will not be damaged by warmer temperatures." If, therefore, kept at temperatures higher than 24.5 °C, coconut oil's shelf life is shortened, i.e. some chemical processes will occur. Therefore, some damage WILL happen. The paragraph is self-negating.
- I removed the second sentence, as it is uncited and also most likely untrue. The previous one is common knowledge - when kept cooler, triglycerides keep better. The temp given is arbitrary, and should be removed and replaced with a more appropriate general statement r.e. temps and storage. Halogenated (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] % Saturated Fat?
The Hormel Foods link says "Coconut oil contains a high level of saturated fat (92%)", whereas the article presently says "86.5% saturated fatty acids". As a human-processed product derived from a natural source (a plant) that comes in several varieties, it seems inaccurate and misleading to give a single % saturated fat content number precise to a tenth of a percent. Something more like "approximately 90 percent saturated fat" would probably be more appropraite. 24.85.239.188 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Update, May 22nd, 2006
After doing some non-experimental research on this subject, I decided (correctly) that this page needed a major overhaul. Forgoing clinical aspects for a second...journalistically, this page is woefully biased. This is partly due to poor article organization, which I've revised to make this article a) linear, and b) counter-balanced. Asides from reorganization however, it needed a few additions regarding the consensus of the OTHER side of the debate (oh, that!) as well as some subtractions, which should remain so until someone substantiates them. One of my favorites:
"Populations consuming large quantities of coconut oil, eg Sri Lanka, Kerala and the Philippines, have far lower rates of heart disease than Westerners eating polyunsaturated oils [citation needed]."
Yes indeedy.
This statement is not only unfounded, it's selectively presumptive -- who ever said that Westerners consumed primarily polyunsaturated fats? Every medical and dietary article I've ever read declares that the Western diet is susceptible to health consequences because of its high amounts of trans and saturated (mostly animal-derived) fats. Until someone demonstrates otherwise, the above quoted statement should stay out.
- The statement isn't presuming westerners eat primarily polyunsaturated fats; it's stating that westerners eat more (but not necessarily primarily) polyunsaturated fats than the mentioned countries. My understanding of the larger point is that it's claimed that after some lab tests on hydrogenated fats, various western researchers concluded that any saturated fats were bad, and that the western food oil industry has promoted this belief to further its own goal of selling more unsaturated vegetable oils. The fact that medial or dietary articles (still) claim that there is too much saturated fat in the western diet does not contradict this theory; it is the (supposed) cause of the current situation, not a (contradictory) consequence. ... which is all nice, but not terribly useful for the article without some references, I realize. 24.85.239.188 05:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- More to the point, I think, is that these comparisons seem to be between a sedentary population with huge calorie intake, and the complete opposite. Regardless of our confidence that westerners eat more polyunsaturated fats, these alleged results are irrelevant 64.85.160.49 07:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl
Also, I removed the "Oiling of America" article, since its lack of focus on coconut oil simply reveals it to be, in its current state, an outright polemic against several people and industries. The Raymond Peat article link, for similar reasons, was changed to specifically his article on coconut oil, since that is, after all, what this article is about.
And lest any particularly zealous coconut oil proponents attack me over this revision, enjoy this small confession: I happen to have a jar of coconut oil in my cupboard and I joyfully spread some on my toast everything now and then. It's delicious, and I hope my doctors are wrong about everything they've told me. Now sod off.
-JQ, 2006.05.22 2h55
Removed the following entry:
"Some people have reported improvements in skin conditions such as eczema when using coconut oil. [citation needed]
I scoured several large medical journal databases -- not one turned up a study reporting any such correlation, so this statement remains hearsay.
-JQ
- I found one that states that it's as effective as mineral oil for treating xerosis
[edit] Health effects
Due to the controversy over the health effects of coconut oil (is it bad or is it good), EVERY statement in the "health effects" section, for and against, should state references and sources. The current second paragraph of this section does not do this to my satisfaction, and I am considering removing it. Of the three assertions made here, only 1 is referenced. Massjit 22:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is important to remove claims that look like facts that are made without reference. However, right now, the health section reads very poorly because it is a collection of unrelated comments backed by references. It has no flow. I think the health effects section should be re-written in such a way that it gives the reader a sense of an overall theme. Since we can't agree that it is overall good or bad, the theme should be that there is controversy over the health effects of coconut oil; we could then group the statements into a paragraph supporting, one opposing, and add some discussion about why it is difficult to establish relative harm / benefits. Just a few sentences would be necessary to do this I think. Cazort 04:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Cazort's comments, but personally I find the plethora of unreferenced claims and statements to be a much bigger concern than the flow of the paragraph. I plan to delete all of the unreferenced claims in this section unless someone can provide solid references. Personally I would be thrilled if there is objective support for these statements, but I am opposed to including this information based on mere belief or hearsay. Massjit 18:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think that it would be better to Fact-tag first. --Ronz 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
vandalism? the statement "During the 1980s, the American Heart Association issued statements indicating that coconut oil's high saturated fat content was detrimental to cardiovascular health and promoted heart disease." is followed by references (11 & 12) that say nothing of the sort - these links are to yet more crackpot sites that disagree with the general scientific view that coconut oil are unhealthy. I think we can all agree that the internet is chock full of amateur opinion that we are all being had and that coconut oil is terrifically healthy. none of this appears to be supported by actual research that doesn't originate in the philippines, but it's everywhere so it must be correct, right? ffs why are people so hellbent on "proving" coconut oil is a health product? get a life, freaks 124.190.6.202 13:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl
[edit] External links
I'm going to clean up the external links following WP:EL and related guidelines rather strictly. I hope no one is upset by this. --Ronz 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I read all the articles, and looked at the websites hosting them. --Ronz 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV problems
I tagged the "Effects on health" section, but the problems are larger. Many of the sources are poor and are used to give undue weight to certain points of view. --Ronz 18:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, citing the American Journal of Nutrition in a peer-reviewed study of saturated fats is a "poor source" and gives "undue weight"?? So you remove it giving only one side of the saturated fat issue - that's neutral alright. You also removed FACTUAL information about the "wonderful" Australian study on the carrot cake and milkshake "meal." I am glad you tagged this section as not being neutral anymore, because you have removed factual content (uncivil comment removed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.225.198 (talk • contribs)
- Please read the edit summary that was made with the edit you're so concerned about. There is no mention of poor sources nor undue weight in it, so I don't see any problem. You might also want to review WP:NPOV. --Ronz 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are that the "criticisms are unfounded." However, anybody can review the edits and see that they were not points of views, but factual statements meant to balance the assertions made regarding saturated fats and the incomplete data on the Australian study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.225.198 (talk • contribs)
- No, the comments are "removed pov and off-topic sentences" [1]. Your efforts to "balance the assertions made regarding saturated fats and the incomplete data on the Australian study" are pov edits. Thanks for admitting your motives.
- Please note that WP:NPOV violations are a serious matter and an editor can be blocked for repeatedly making them. --Ronz 03:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Explain to me how I am "repeatedly violating WP:NPOV" by participating in this discussion? I have made no further edits to the document. (Refactor, removing personal attack) I don't think I made a pov edit. A study was cited and I added further information from that study, including a quote, and you chose to edit it out (removed personal attack). The fact remains that the "meal" in that study was a piece of carrot cake and a milkshake, and that the conclusions of the authors of the study do not match the conclusions the popular media made. (removed uncivil comment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.225.198 (talk • contribs)
- No one said you're repeatedly violating WP:NPOV. I am encouraging you to read WP:NPOV. NPOV is a very complicated but important policy. I think this article has multiple, serious NPOV violations in it, so I started this discussion. --Ronz 04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- He, as well as others, may have felt you were strongly insinuating (N)POV[2][3] and that the comments such as about blocking[4]and the "unfounded" part[5] were more harsh than he expects (accusation removed). From my perspective edits were not so off topic, as not encyclopedically focused and well phrased on current nutritional science controversies that are still contaminated by the 1950s-1990s transfat debacle as well as carb/insulin/"metabolic syndrome"/CRP issues. I have left some constructive suggestions for the new editor.--TheNautilus 12:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm happy to clarify anything I've written.
- There's ample evidence here that editors aren't bothering to even read what I've written, and instead attack me for what they assume I have. We aren't going to get anywhere if this continues. --Ronz 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I have gone over the article and Talk contribution records synchronously, starting with the article here and the Talk (NPOV} here. Newbie 68.114.225.198 correctly (in mainstream literature too) pointed out the specific junk food composition of the Australian test meal[6], which is *very* high in sugars and carbs(where other studies show ~1/4 of the population will be *highly* BADLY reactive to sugar, ~1/2 fairly negatively reactive to carbs, with unknown(?) modulation by fats), and correctly stated the (unfortunately) long "conventional medicine/nutrition" history of transfats that had been (mis)promoted for cardiovascular "benefits"[7] for decades (ca 1950s-90s). He then cited a 1981 epidemilogical study from a high impact journal, AJCN, with very favorable evidence for lifetime diets heavy in coconut oils[8], citing the authors' conclusion, "Vascular disease is uncommon in both populations and there is no evidence of the high saturated fat intake having a harmful effect in these populations." He then removed some bits too commercial to him[9][10][11]. and improved text[12][13]. Then you (removed exaggeration) criticized his edit [14], deleted[15] & tagged his edits as POV and admonished him (removed exaggeration) (removed personal attack) all where your edits (refactor) suggest your own pov which we have discussed before, among others.
-
-
-
-
-
- The newbie, now in Talk, appears a little concerned he is being erroneously dismissed or lightweighted[16] (about a study that is not even in true contradiction, lifetimes of coconuts vs hours of carbs with or w/o some coconut). After (refactor) you adjust the section headers [17][18], you characterize his relatively conventional conversation (a very new IP) as uncivil[19] while you delete in toto his edit
[20][21], rather than give some helpful hints, a selective {(cn}} or minor phrase deletions, where he makes three factual citations (14 person test, cake & milkshake meal, authors' conclusion), but he trips some on summarizing the (un?)documented coconut oil processing (composition) and the study's consistency with AHA positions, where help with more careful writing may handle the issue. (There appear to be some misunderstandings, over your edit summary[22], "your criticisms are unfounded", over *which* criticisms, the facts or newbie summary phrases that read as synthesis/technical editorial).
- The newbie, now in Talk, appears a little concerned he is being erroneously dismissed or lightweighted[16] (about a study that is not even in true contradiction, lifetimes of coconuts vs hours of carbs with or w/o some coconut). After (refactor) you adjust the section headers [17][18], you characterize his relatively conventional conversation (a very new IP) as uncivil[19] while you delete in toto his edit
-
-
-
-
-
- Newbie 68.114 then [23] responds that he is citing facts, partly correct but phrasing / presentation needs guidance. He's citing coconut centric lifetime studies on longevitivy[24] and you are supporting a compositionally much different junk food test containing + coconut oil for several hours, claiming his edits are "off topic", "pov" and "can be blocked"[25], when he simply needs a little help. His response seems cool but is wrestling with the problems of your statements. You accuse the newbie of incivility again[26] (refactored - removed harassment for not taking other action). (Refactor - removed large personal attack)--TheNautilus 14:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Please note above you're accusing me of deleting anothers edit when I in fact deleted my own in an effort to be more clear and reduce the hostility that has escalated here. I've bolded the part for easy identification and request that it be considered for retraction. --Ronz 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No accusation, statement of fact. My point[27] about “deletion in toto” in the article is (doubly) correct where you actually had two sequential deletion examples. I simply did not paste in the correct content dif and had accidentally left in your previous "pointing" comment dif (the original text & phrasing removed as causing a run-on sentence) noting your original comment on this particular matter in Talk, '882244, instead of the deletion '824“next”) that I thought you meant. I avoided (left out) your immediately preceding deletion 824 “prev” that I perceived as ill-informed and/or POV about current conventional science literature that may concern substantial subpopulations (e.g. diabetics) and/or complex dietary interactions (various ill-defined fatty acid sources with carbs, etc) that merit better mention in the content newbie 68.144 was attempting to contribute.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As for "heavily criticized"[28], "too heavily criticized" is (would have been) longer, more accurate writing, not an exaggeration.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- IMHO, this discussion could not be followed if I had tried to pull apart & follow these threads from the Coconut Oil article, its Talk edits *and* your content vs policy claims on different WP pages. The discussion (and editing) is already hideously complex enough. I will address more points on your various refactoring, (mis)characterizations, continuing policy claims and editing at my/your Talk pages later.--TheNautilus 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- To clarify 68.114's precise contribution in Ronz' deletions, 824 prev & 824next, these are 68.114's contribution history records for these two edits, [29] & [30] that subsequently were totally deleted by Ronz, discussed above.--TheNautilus 09:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Let me know when you're done venting and are actually interested in working on this article instead. --Ronz 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Unused references
I've removed the unused references as they've been tagged as such since this edit: 20 July 2006. --Ronz 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, with this kind of (lack of) civility, I don't think I'll ever work on an article here. Jeez.
[edit] Problem with References
- The Coconut Oil Miracle, Bruce Fife, C.N., N.D, (2004) - appears inappropriate as a source for medical and nutritional claims.
- http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/28/coconut_health.htm & www.newstarget.com/001587.html - inappropriate sources for AHA statments.
--Ronz 22:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Completely agree with you! Stick to well-reputed sources and scientific studies in peer reviewed scientific journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.61.244 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 2 May 2007
Coconut oil is the healthiest oil to consume and this in confirmed by solid science.
The medical system is the #1 cause of death in the USA, responsible for the death of 10,000 to 40,000 people PER DAY. Why in the world would anyone beleive those terrorists over independant scientific research? If you want to beleive people who kill 40,000 a day and claim coconut oil is bad go ahead, but I eat coconut oil daily for it's numerous health benefits in large quantity and am in perfect health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.146.135 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 May 2007
- apparently the people who like to invoke a mythical entity called "solid science" are people who aren't familiar with actual references. I think they must be the same people who say "Ask any member of [group about which I'm making sweeping assertion] and they'll tell you that [same sweeping assertion]" 64.85.160.49 08:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl
[edit] "Effects on health" section
What's the point of having the first paragraph which begins, "There is widespread misunderstanding about coconut oil?" Why not just start with a summary of the health effects, if we have good sources that provides it? --Ronz 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ronz - I put "widespread misunderstanding" there - ask anybody you know, and I think about 9 out of 10 people will tell you "coconut oil is bad for you" or "coconut oil is high in cholesterol" - this is based on the erroneous press on coconut oil. I've even seen this article edited with the simple "fact" that coconut oil is high in cholesterol (it was promptly removed, not by me). (By the way, thanks for your positive comments about the citations I've added.) The fact is, it's difficult to try to refute urban legend or other common misunderstanding without seeming to be treading on the NPOV line. Gekritzl 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I've been researching it more and don't see any good solutions. Saturated fat hasn't made much headway either. All these small-sample studies are red flags, but they'll have to do 'til we find better or some nice research reviews. --Ronz 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Study is on palm oil
I looked at reference [19] (Edmond K. Kabagambe et al) and this study has nothing to do with coconut oil:
- A study examining the types of cooking oils used by Costa Ricans found that those who used palm oil were more likely to suffer a heart attack than using other oils. [3]
-
- ^ Steinberg D (2006). "An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy, part IV: The 1984 coronary primary prevention trial ends it - almost". J Lipid Res 47: 1-14. PMID 16227628.
- ^ from NIH Consensus Development Conference, JAMA 1985, 253:2080
- ^ Edmond K. Kabagambe, Ana Baylin, Alberto Ascherio, and Hannia Campos The Type of Oil Used for Cooking Is Associated with the Risk of Nonfatal Acute Myocardial Infarction in Costa Rica J. Nutr 135:2674-2679, November 2005
Any point in its being there? Nunquam Dormio 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've now removed this Nunquam Dormio 08:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In the Philippines it's called VCO?
Several studies have been done/are ongoing in philippine hospitals on the effects of Virgin Coconut Oil (VCO) also the National government is standardizing the the manufacturing process [1] along with the PNS see ref. The Country Finally Adopts Philippine National Standards (PNS) for VCO
but I don't feel that I can provide a NPOV on this subject at this point in time.
--Mkouklis 11:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frying with it
Mum fried up some hash brown patties in coconut oil, and I couldn't breathe. The oil vapour was like trying to breathe water... yet I've never had problems with other vegetable oils.
[edit] live saving!
someone please include research by bruce fife, n.d. he researched and wrote several books about the benefits of coconut oil. he explained saturated fat better than i've ever read before: imagine a bus wherein every seat is filled to capacity--or "saturated" with riders. that's what a saturated fat molecule looks like; its complete and intact and can't let anything in. polyunsaturated oil molecules, and to a further extent trans fat, is like a bus with only a few seats filled. after a while it oxydizes, attaches to free radicals, bonds to other molecules, and is otherwise dangerous. i know i'm supposed to discuss the article, not the subject, but coconuts, and especially their oil, are so vilified by their competition [for backstory check out http://www.wholesoystory.com/ and dont get me started on canola] that countries are thinking of turning a wholesome food into feul, but feeding us oil that oxydizes in our bodies and causes cancer. VCO, when used properly, stays fresh, cooks beautifully, tastes great, and best of all, wont kill you. sorry for soapboxing, but cancer is worth preventing :) 76.217.125.14 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fife's work doesn't even come close to meeting our standards here. --Ronz 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Negativity and Health Effects?
Everything I have heard recently about coconut oil is that it is not anywhere as bad as it has been made out to be. The reason why it has such a bad reputation is because the Soybean lobby got their way in the 80s and 90s to push their product on consumers. Due to this, many people are having coronary problems from fats like Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil and such. If anything, this article should examine the soybean lobby's effects on the success of coconut oil and the truth about coconut oil being healthier than other fats should be stressed on wikipedia. --Barinade2151 00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Sources attribute..."
"Sources attribute different characteristics to coconut oil's saturated fat fraction, as compared to other food products, such as those derived from animal fat." [31] I do not know what this is supposed to mean. Starting with "sources" comes across as WP:WEASEL. "Saturated fat fraction" is not easily understood. "Characteristics" is not used or explained elsewhere, so it is also confusing and comes across as WEASEL. --Ronz 17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- The sources are those references at the end of the sentence. "Saturated fat fraction" is the quantity of the lipid that is saturated, as opposed to unsaturated. If this sounds too much like chemistry, there may be other ways to phrase it. "Saturated fat component"? The whole controversy, though, is about whether or not laurate, caprylate, and other medium-chain lipids have different physiological effects than the longer-chain lipids of animal fat like stearate and palmitate. (Hence, the characteristics.). What do you (or others) think? Frankg 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- We need to identify one or more of the sources in some way rather than saying "Sources attribute". Seems like "saturated fat fraction" can be rephrased to something more readily understood. It's just the ratio of saturated to unsaturate fats, correct? I'm still not sure what to do about "characteristics". --Ronz 16:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, rephrase to maybe, "Researchers such as Enig, Kurup,...attribute..." etc.? Meanwhile, the composition of the saturated fats (the particular type of lipids) is different from other well-known heavily-saturated fats, hence the dispute. (Let me know if I should clarify this point, I don't mean to leave out details if an expanation is appropriate.) Frankg 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Part of it is simple rephrasing, but it needs to be specific and clear. "Researchers" is better than "sources". I don't know if it's necessary to name them since there are references. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'm thinking it would be beneficial to refer to what is currently in the article rather than introducing new terms and phrases. --Ronz 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, rephrase to maybe, "Researchers such as Enig, Kurup,...attribute..." etc.? Meanwhile, the composition of the saturated fats (the particular type of lipids) is different from other well-known heavily-saturated fats, hence the dispute. (Let me know if I should clarify this point, I don't mean to leave out details if an expanation is appropriate.) Frankg 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- We need to identify one or more of the sources in some way rather than saying "Sources attribute". Seems like "saturated fat fraction" can be rephrased to something more readily understood. It's just the ratio of saturated to unsaturate fats, correct? I'm still not sure what to do about "characteristics". --Ronz 16:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Coconut oil ever tried it?
It's frustrating many times trying to access Philippine governmental servers you have typhoons, volcano eruptions, earthquakes in Taiwan(under sea cables from here to there), people stealing the wire going to offices from the road, comp-virus's, old equipment, old software, sun spots, more... that means lots of reasons for broken links even for more than two months (post Taiwan earthquake). So just because a link don't work today doesn't mean it's no valid.
And point two many hospital studies are not readily available(free) on the internet but hard copies can be purchased it takes money to publish that isn't always available.
BTW I hadn't checked my watch list in over 6 weeks and just happened across your edit's looking for something else of mine watched.
--Mkouklis 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you are a Firefox user then I suggest you try this add-on for locating dead pages
"Resurrect Pages" https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2570
- Moved from my talk page to discuss here...
- Mike, the link I deleted (PNS for VCO) and you reinstated really did seem to be non-functional. When I checked, the the source website was fully functional (see: Parent website) so I tried to find a valid link to this verification information on the host site, but was unable. However now both the host site and link are not functioning. I left the non-functional link you reinstated but it would be nice to have a link that works when the host site is working. OccamzRazor 00:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am not contributing to this article but would like to point out that those were a whole lot of excuses about the Philippines government servers. I emphasize the term 'excuses'. I have lived here in the PI for a while now and the only thing wrong with the government servers is themselves. They have not, to this day, figured out how to create a proper system. If they did something as simple as getting a free copy of phpnuke with sentinel, they would be exponentially better off. The links they provide will change from day to day or simply disappear sometimes, even the press releases. It is not a matter of connecting to them. Me thinks you give them too much credit.210.5.75.10 (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- If the servers cannot reliably reproduce pages, they are not appropriate for citation.Halogenated (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Claims about promising treatment for AIDS, etc.
Claims about studies showing that coconut oil is a promising treatment for AIDS, HIV, dental care, peptic ulcers, benign prostatic hyperplasia, genital herpes, and hepatitis C do not cite references that meet the Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. One verification source, cited twice, is to http://www.doh.gov.ph/SARS/coconut_oil.htm – a “page not found” on an otherwise functional website for the Philippine Department of Health. The URL also seems to specify “SARS” instead of HIV or AIDS. The other reference citation is to a paper published by http://www.coconutoil.com, not a valid scientific publication, especially when it comes to claims about treatment for diseases as serious as AIDS. Therefore, I have removed the claims. If someone can provide valid reliable sources, feel free to reinsert. OccamzRazor 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Doing real research
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)
- Although I certainly agree the material warrants further consideration, the sources are not exactly the most reliable sources. The National Academy of Science and Technology is a stricly Filipino organisation, and not the same as the National Academy of Sciences [[32]] as the western world knows it. The claims made are HIGHLY controversial because they have poorly credible scientific basis. However, that being said, I again say they warrant further investigation. Halogenated (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm happy to see well-sourced material in this article. Unsourced claims don't belong here any more then they belong in any article. This article has had a number of exceptional claims added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Profile of Conrado Dayrit
This man was the premier researcher on coconut oil until his recent death. This page is lacking without a mention of him. Unfortunately, some of the pages he's on have trouble loading (the above link is a cache), but hopefully that will clear up in time. OptimistBen (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
