Coconut Oil

The scientists mentioned in the New York Times article I cited, D. Mark Hegsted, former head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture and Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, former chairman of Harvard’s nutrition department, were nutrition scientists.

According to the article, "the sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show. The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry."

Sugar industry representatives paid these scientists to publish a review based on studies handpicked by these reps that minimized links between sugar and cardiovascular disease and calumniated the effects of saturated fat.

In short, nutrition science was manipulated for the sake of the sugar industry.

I don't know of any such manipulation of climate research or coconut oil claims. Who knows, though. Something may come up in the future.

Im from Lebanon. The diet there is completely different from the average American.

I'm not pretending it's innate. I'm saying it's something people have preached for a long time, long before all the progress in science. Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm suggesting that perhaps we have overcomplicated healthy eating as a result of misuse of information.

People died early for other reasons. Diet was the least of their problems. I'd guess... if you want to tell me otherwise, you can provide the sources you constantly require.

I've long been glad to read the takes of perennial.

InfraBlue, I concede the point. It is a fact that in 1967 two scientists at Harvard accepted money from the sugar industry to manipulate data. I couldn't get the original JAMA article (it is behind a paywall and would cost me $30). But, the quote you are making about "5 decades of research" may have been corrupted appears to be the opinion of the journalist, not any scientist.

But even if you are correct, and the sugar industry has been paying scientists... how do you explain the independent research from multiple reputable source suggesting that saturated fats pose a health risk?

And why do you trust the Coconut oil industry so much. They are paying millions for this propaganda that you seem to be swallowing without question.

Lebanon was kind of lucky... the principle fat available is olive oil, which is a healthy unsaturated fat. They had no way of knowing that until modern times, of course, but in that way they lucked out.

Although before modern times, when relatively few people made it past their fifties, this didn't matter very much.

It's not that I trust the coconut oil industry so much as I don't think that saturated fats are bad. They're high calorie nutrients so a little goes a long way.

There is conclusive evidence from reputable, independent sources, that saturated fats increase the risk of heart disease. Whether you believe this or not is your business. There is also conclusive evidence from reputable, independent sources that human activity is causing climate change. As you know, many people choose not to believe this.

My point is that if you are willing to reject science when it comes to diet, you really can't criticize people who reject science about the climate. It is the same thing... in both cases you have a scientific consensus that is accepted by the major scientific institutions that is opposed by a small minority who claims the science has been corrupted.

People tend to accept the science that is in line with their political ideology. This is a shame, because it means that objective evidence-based policy will always have an uphill climb.

Just to point out... you can avoid both processed sugar and saturated fats. This is not an either or proposition. There are plenty of healthy, good tasting foods that are low in both sugar and saturated fats.

I just had a salad with walnuts, dried cranberries and topped with olive oil. Delicious!

You mean we're either with you or against you?

Americans have to question the medical establishment and the food industry. Monsanto's got their money into the AHA, politicians, and who knows where else.

It's profitable for big pharma, the cosmetics industry, the food industry, etc for us to be consuming their products. They make sure we do.

Read the article. Scientists like funding, just like politicians.

Damn. I see I am late to this argument, and I appreciate those who provided more evidence.

Do you know how to know when something's bad for you? The adverstising. If something is truly great it needs no advertising. When every blog and morning show is talking about it, be suspicious. That's how we all started using coconut oil in the first place.

In addition, when it takes a ton of something fairly rare (there aren't acres and acres of wild coconuts growing all over the place) to produce the oil, evolution probably did not intend for it to be oil.

Here's another - canola oil. A cheap, easy to grow, pest resistant plant grown as a bio-fuel. "What the heck do we do with all this extra rapeseed?"

So, they genetically modify it so it doesn't taste like fuel anymore (it was unpalatable) and sell it to the unsuspecting, 100 IQ public and call it healthy.

Liberals love to say this world wasn't created, but reject the evolutionary side of it to boot. I've always said they were aliens. I think this is proof.

I think you are full of politically biased bullshit.

Yeah maybe, but if you think about it politics and nutrition are similar.

Back before people knew anything about nutrition they were thin and not diabetic. It never occurs to anyone to wonder why we are doing it "better" and yet everyone is fat, diabetes and high blood pressure are rampant.

This country has also gone downhill since we started trying to do it "better" politically. The American dream is no longer. People are poorer than ever. People are angrier than ever. You have a lot of nerve thinking that your new idea is better than the founding plan for this country the entire world praised as brilliant and proved itself to be so by the freedoms and wealth of its citizens. Your avatar is Einstein, YOU aren't. And neither is anyone in Washington.

My family are all thin. From 86 yo mom to the youngest member. A rarity these days. We do it the old way. We eat what and how our ancestors ate. No low cal, diet, gmo manipulated, new fangled BS diet for us. Our own history showed us the way to go.

Dad just passed away, had his full faculties, but died from complications of a failed surgery years ago that ruined his kidneys. He was just shy of 94.

Evidence means nothing to you. And much like your ilk, you resort to insults when opposed. A tantruming child. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Heart healthy logo from the AHA is for sale. Cheerios and chocolate milk: the hallmark of any nutritious breakfast.

Believe it!!


http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/american-heart-association.html

Excerpt

Did you know that the American Heart Association pulls in huge sums of money each year from food manufacturers like Kellogg's and General Mills?
In return, the AHA provides an endorsement for the food industry products made by these corporations.

For each of the approximately 630 "heart healthy" logos on cereal boxes or other food products, the AHA gets a cool $7500 a year.

Well actually, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) reports that the AHA charges companies on a per product basis: $7,500 for 1-9 products, $6,750 for 10-24 products and $5,940 for 25-99 products in their first year.

To renew in subsequent years, the prices are $4,500, $4,050, and $3,570 respectively.

CSPI estimates that in 2002, with over 630 products certified, the AHA received over $2 million dollars from its food certification program.

The foods the AHA "recommends" include chocolate milk, high sugar breakfast cereals, processed meat products full of chemicals, and other unhealthy products.

You don't know a thing about my ilk. Or my dining habits. Based on a few comments I made you think you wrote the book on my "ilk." I have relatives who can eat virtually anything, like starved hogs, and not gain an ounce of fat. You assume I am fat with no evidence. Yet you are the evidence based voice, so you claim. My "ilk" rejects your assumptions.

I don't know. There are scientific studies that contradict the older studies as newer research comes out that call into question the objective evidence-based policies that have been based on those older studies. More recently, there have been systematic reviews and meta-analyses (e.g. Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease1,2,3,4,5, etc.) of many of those observational studies that you allude to that show that their conclusions regarding links between saturated fats and heart disease are inconclusive.

Whether it's one's personal business or not is immaterial to these facts.

But then again, who knows. Maybe these studies are funded by the lard industry.

It was delicious until you slopped that oil on top! The tastes of a salad are to be enjoyed, not hidden.

D45ist has a bad habit of personally attacking strangers whom she knows nothing about. She just makes assumptions about them. Interestingly enough, she's just like all the young Internet posters whose first impulse is to attack. She seems to think you can catch flies with vinegar instead of honey.

Ma'am, his avatar is Mark Twain, not Einstein. Perhaps you're not as well-informed as you think.

By the way, diabetes has been around for a very long time. Even longer than you. The disease clearly has a genetic component. I've always been slim, but I came down with Type II diabetes in my early fifties because it runs in my family.

Why don't you stop acting like a child yourself and learn from the example of the late William F. Buckley, Jr.? Unlike you, he had a lot of class. You, on the other hand, apparently place a low premium on good manners. You would have greater influence if you didn't act like such a jerk. You're just like a high-school or college troll. I've seen it all before. * yawn * Sad!

Nod re InfraBlue's take.