Virgin coconut oil

[AlteredEgo]

I had high cholesterol- high LDL, low HDL, teensy weensy triglycerides. They put me on statins. Gave me eczema. I switched to some supplements. There was improvement, but the numbers still didn't look so good. I became more active. Got back into jogging. Martial arts. Rock climbimg. You name it I was making it a part of my week. More improvement, but still an eventual plateau when I stopped losing weight. A bunch ofy friends kept trying to get me to do various low carb lifestyles. But YOU try to convince a pastry chef to give up carbs. Besides, every one I tried made me feel weird, headachy, and tired. Then I found one that my wisest friend liked. She lost 100+ pounds and put her mother on it. Her mother reversed diabetes, hypertension, water retention and high cholesterol.

Now, her mother was recently bed bound because of being overweight by a couple hundred pounds for a few decades. She still can't do much because she destroyed her knees and is not yet strong enough for replacement. She also cannot get barriatric surgery. But her mother has she'd her edema and lost an additional 70 pounds in the last 8 or 9 months, while being trapped in bed!

One of the acceptable sources of fat in her high fat, moderate protein, low carbohydrate diet is coconut oil, and being originally from the islands, it is one of the fats she prefers.

I stumbled across some information I felt I could trust right about the time I saw my friend, who I had not seen in person in a few years, and saw how beautiful and healthy she was. I was still looking into it when I went to NY to help her advocate for her mother and she switched her mother's eating habits around since there was nothing her mom could do about it. I remember how weak she was when we used the hour lift to change her. I have seen the dramatic difference since all that fat and water came off of her. I don't believe it was coconut oil alone that benefitted her, but it was certainly not an insignificant contributor to her resurgent health.

As for me? My cholesterol gets checked again soon. I'll let ya know.

 

[Oxnard]

Good luck!

 

[deleted924715]

Yes, but simply by accepting those sources, you are claiming to understand these issues better than the majority of researchers from the relevant discipline. That is a bridge I simply will not cross.

I'm not asking you to... but that's quite an assumption about what I'm claiming when you haven't read the sources yourself. Anyway, you do you - my advice was to the OP.

 

[Oxnard]

I'm not asking you to... but that's quite an assumption about what I'm claiming when you haven't read the sources yourself. Anyway, you do you - my advice was to the OP.

I am not qualified to interpret raw research, and books or articles about research can be suspect, this the more reasonable thing is to try and learn about the consensus opinion of the relevant experts.

 

[dude_007]

I have no opinion either way. My only comment is that about 12 years ago in college I read an articular from a 6 year study written by a Purdue U. health group that if a person religiously ate proper healthy food it would extend his life 9 months.

Piss on it, bring me my pizza.

That's interesting, since it contradicts several decades of research in cancer, diabetes, heart disease and essentially all areas of health science.

 

[deleted924715]

I am not qualified to interpret raw research, and books or articles about research can be suspect, this the more reasonable thing is to try and learn about the consensus opinion of the relevant experts.

I don't find it challenging and again you are assuming too much (the requirement for a critical eye regarding research is hardly a revelation) but I'm willing to accept that my educational background may come into it *shrug*

The experts no longer have a consensus opinion on the role of fat in the diet, that's the point of the thread. So from my perspective, the more reasonable approach is to learn for yourself. You seem to be blindly dismissing the fact that the route a lot of people take to acquire this knowledge is through illness that the traditional advice has failed to help, or made worse. They have tried your way first.

Anyway, like I said - you do you, your scepticism is duly noted as is your insistence on having the last word. Be my guest.

To the OP: I've had a (very) quick browse around and I think this article is quite a simple explanation of the current conflicting advice regarding fat (it's not a scientific journal, or the actual papers, but it's a good overview/starting point if you want to learn more)
healthimpactnews.com: Time Magazine: We Were Wrong About Saturated Fats

 

[Oxnard]

I don't find it challenging and again you are assuming too much (the requirement for a critical eye regarding research is hardly a revelation) but I'm willing to accept that my educational background may come into it *shrug*

The experts no longer have a consensus opinion on the role of fat in the diet, that's the point of the thread. So from my perspective, the more reasonable approach is to learn for yourself. You seem to be blindly dismissing the fact that the route a lot of people take to acquire this knowledge is through illness that the traditional advice has failed to help, or made worse. They have tried your way first.

Anyway, like I said - you do you, your scepticism is duly noted as is your insistence on having the last word. Be my guest.

To the OP: I've had a (very) quick browse around and I think this article is quite a simple explanation of the current conflicting advice regarding fat (it's not a scientific journal, or the actual papers, but it's a good overview/starting point if you want to learn more)
healthimpactnews.com: Time Magazine: We Were Wrong About Saturated Fats

If the experts do not feel that the available evidence is sufficient for a conclusion, why would you try to form a conclusion on your own?

 

[deleted924715]

If the experts do not feel that the available evidence is sufficient for a conclusion, why would you try to form a conclusion on your own?

Why wouldn't I when it comes to my own health? Why wouldn't I when it comes to anything that directly affects me or my loved ones? I am all for people making informed decisions. The more pertinent question is why do you care when you have nothing to contribute to the topic except to tell others they are conspiracy theorists?

The way you jumped on EagleCowboy with your own assumptions, armed only with the first Google search you came across was completely out of order. I'm done debating you (I didn't even address you in the first place), you have nothing of value to add and are now arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[185248]

I've only heard of falling coconuts killing people. Never heard eating them, drinking, wearing them using any of it's by products did any harm. Of-course there will always be those they don't agree with. They are more likely to keep you alive.

Coconut fragrant oils smell horny. Just don't stand under a tree laden with fruit.

 

[Oxnard]

Why wouldn't I when it comes to my own health? Why wouldn't I when it comes to anything that directly affects me or my loved ones? I am all for people making informed decisions. The more pertinent question is why do you care when you have nothing to contribute to the topic except to tell others they are conspiracy theorists?

The way you jumped on EagleCowboy with your own assumptions, armed only with the first Google search you came across was completely out of order. I'm done debating you (I didn't even address you in the first place), you have nothing of value to add and are now arguing for the sake of arguing.

If you don't know, then the only honest answer is "I don't know."

If the experts insist that the evidence is not enough for a solid conclusion, then all you are doing is making up an answer to cope with the discomfort of not knowing. If your answer is accidentally correct or harmless, then no harm done, but what if the answer you find is spectacularly wrong? Since neither you nor I are experts, neither of us are qualified to know the difference with any confidence.

 

[Oxnard]

Not having an answer is safer than having an answer without being able to properly determine if the answer is correct. Once you accept a conclusion, it becomes a premise for other conclusions and the wrongness can be compounded.

 

[deleted924715]

If you don't know, then the only honest answer is "I don't know."

If the experts insist that the evidence is not enough for a solid conclusion, then all you are doing is making up an answer to cope with the discomfort of not knowing. If your answer is accidentally correct or harmless, then no harm done, but what if the answer you find is spectacularly wrong? Since neither you nor I are experts, neither of us are qualified to know the difference with any confidence.

I didn't say there was not enough evidence for a solid conclusion - that is not the same as there not being a consensus . Example - The NHS (in general terms, some GPs are taking their own separate stance based on the research) still advises people with type 2 diabetes to base their diet around starchy carbohydrate and low fat food items, despite evidence to the contrary. Diabetes.co.uk now disagrees with the NHS dietary advice in light of the evidence. I know what I'd do in a Type 2 diabetic's shoes.

If someone has followed the advice of one expert and not only has their condition not improved, but it has been made worse, why shouldn't they try another? You are the one assuming low quality sources of information because of your ignorance on the subject (Google search not withstanding). There is more than enough evidence already in existence regarding the role of fat in the diet for people to draw their own conclusions - or not - as they choose. It's personal choice and I am not giving medical advice to others, I am advocating informed decisions. You might not have confidence in your knowledge (although you seemed confident enough belittling EagleCowboy out of hand), such as it is, but I do have confidence in mine so please don't attempt to patronise me, it's obnoxious.

 

[Oxnard]

I didn't say there was not enough evidence for a solid conclusion - that is not the same as there not being a consensus . Example - The NHS (in general terms, some GPs are taking their own separate stance based on the research) still advises people with type 2 diabetes to base their diet around starchy carbohydrate and low fat food items, despite evidence to the contrary. Diabetes.co.uk now disagrees with the NHS dietary advice in light of the evidence. I know what I'd do in a Type 2 diabetic's shoes.

If someone has followed the advice of one expert and not only has their condition not improved, but it has been made worse, why shouldn't they try another? You are the one assuming low quality sources of information because of your ignorance on the subject (Google search not withstanding). There is more than enough evidence already in existence regarding the role of fat in the diet for people to draw their own conclusions - or not - as they choose. It's personal choice and I am not giving medical advice to others, I am advocating informed decisions. You might not have confidence in your knowledge (although you seemed confident enough belittling EagleCowboy out of hand), such as it is, but I do have confidence in mine so please don't attempt to patronise me, it's obnoxious.

Yes, I know what consensus means.

The truth isn't a personal choice. If the experts can't agree, then there is no good reason for us to form conclusions. If you take it upon yourself to form a conclusion anyway, you have no way of really knowing if your conclusion is good or bad, but you will convince yourself that the conclusion is right. That's the danger.

If there was a strong conclusion to be had, then the experts would agree on a conclusion.

 

[Ed69]

Some of the worst health problems my wife and I have had were a result of trusting the experts and their conclusions.Our use of the oil for lube happened only after talking to numerous people who had used it long term with no ill effect.The experts don't know anymore than us.Hell they still vasilate on eggs being good or bad!Have fun trusting them.

 

[Ed69]

oops "vacillate"!

 

[185248]

Oh for fux sake, it's friggin coconut. I am pretty sure it's not toxic. Yes, this is the first time I have used my phone to access the internet. I guess islanders know their nut's better hey rb no coconuts down your way though.

 

[deleted924715]

Yes, I know what consensus means.

The truth isn't a personal choice. If the experts can't agree, then there is no good reason for us to form conclusions. If you take it upon yourself to form a conclusion anyway, you have no way of really knowing if your conclusion is good or bad, but you will convince yourself that the conclusion is right. That's the danger.

If there was a strong conclusion to be had, then the experts would agree on a conclusion.

Yeah, like I thought, you have nothing except a desire for the last word. Zero of value to contribute. So I suppose a diabetic should cease being diabetic until everybody agrees? Absolute nonsense. An individual knows if their conclusion is good or bad for them because the results are measurable. This is health through diet and real unadulterated food not drinking bleach FFS.

 

[Oxnard]

Some of the worst health problems my wife and I have had were a result of trusting the experts and their conclusions.Our use of the oil for lube happened only after talking to numerous people who had used it long term with no ill effect.The experts don't know anymore than us.Hell they still vasilate on eggs being good or bad!Have fun trusting them.

Selection bias. The plural of anecdote is not data. If the experts were as incompetent as you seem to think, then human lifespans would not have increased so much since the establishment of the scientific method.

 

[Oxnard]

Yeah, like I thought, you have nothing except a desire for the last word. Zero of value to contribute. So I suppose a diabetic should cease being diabetic until everybody agrees? Absolute nonsense. An individual knows if their conclusion is good or bad for them because the results are measurable. This is health through diet and real unadulterated food not drinking bleach FFS.

Discomfort over lack of knowledge is natural and human. Unfortunately it's also one of those things that can drive us to make bad decisions and not realize we have done so.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Oh for fux sake, it's friggin coconut. I am pretty sure it's not toxic. Yes, this is the first time I have used my phone to access the internet. I guess islanders know their nut's better hey rb no coconuts down your way though.

Coconuts kill more people per year than sharks. (Usually by landing on their heads.) LOL Very dangerous business.