Coconut BAD!

A skeptical look at medical practices
User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2949
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:13 am

The reason why humans use cellulose is that our intestines are too short: cows and plenty of other mammals manage, after, all, using gut bacteria.
Not calling it a sugar is rather anthropocentric, though I agree not uncommon.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9179
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:30 pm

cellulose: A polysaccharide that is the chief constituent of all plant tissues and fibers

polysaccharide: Any of a class of carbohydrates whose molecules contain chains of monosaccharide molecules

monosaccharide: A sugar (like sucrose or fructose) that does not hydrolyse to give other sugars; the simplest group of carbohydrates

Hmmmm.... my reliance on the dictionary is not crystal clear but is in line with "A Brick House is not described as a brick." That sounds right to me: "Cellulose is not "a" sugar but rather is composed of sugars. Yesterday I was of the mind to post that talk of "sugar" in the diet most often refers to table sugar. Certainly that is what is meant by an admonishment regarding white food.

Its all definitional.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:46 pm

And grains. To get it white, flour is robbed of much goodness and then given back a portion of the goodies. Would you feel "enhanced" if that happened to you? :-P

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9179
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:49 pm

Compared to unenhanced?...........Yes. Thats exactly what it means.

Or do you mean something else not apparent to a straight read?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:55 pm

I'd prefer not to be robbed in the first place... same applies to my foodstuffs.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:00 pm

...have to add especially if the "enhancement" isn't nearly as good as the original. Or as complete/beneficial.*

As with so many other things, just because we can doesn't mean we should.



* ETA This is not to mean leaving people with certain needs in the lurch by not making foods and other products better for their respective conditions and health. I'm speaking in a more general way. And maybe some conditions wouldn't exist, or at least not to the extend they do, if food hadn't been messed with so very much.
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9179
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:01 pm

But that is a different issue. Pros and Cons to all we do. Unhulled grains are INEDIBLE. From there, they become less nutritious but more easily digested. You draw the line where you will.... but if you want easily digestible with more of the nutrition, enhanced is your only option.

You know this.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:05 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:But that is a different issue. Pros and Cons to all we do. Unhulled grains are INEDIBLE. From there, they become less nutritious but more easily digested. You draw the line where you will.... but if you want easily digestible with more of the nutrition, enhanced is your only option.

You know this.

Not sure how detrimental or beneficial finely ground hulls are for digestion. As roughage it would seem beneficial? But I was aiming at yet another component one can (and often does) end up buying separately - think wheat germs. That's where most of the nutrition is.


(Oh, btw, I also had edited my previous post. :pardon:)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9179
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:12 pm

Yes.... and when you add wheat germ to anything else.........you are enhancing it. In America, we eat for flavor and sociability...not nutrition.

We are tracking right along.......

I think going back to as close to the source of natural whole foods as you can get would be............................. wait for it ........... a mixed bag of pros and cons. One thing perhaps is that such movements should not be "outlawed" by Big Food? IE==I'd love to have a source of raw unpasturized cow and goat milk. But that is near impossible.===>It should be available at any store.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:23 pm

I think if one goes back to the history of white flour one might find it was much more a sign of wealth and prestige to get the nicer looking and less bitter version and had much less to do with any digestive or other health issues. Just as with refined sugar. Such "waste matter" as molasses actually is a quality food loaded with the vitamins etc. the poor white wraith lost.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9179
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:27 pm

Eggs: I agree completely. I'll note in passing.... we live in the present.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9380
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:34 pm

I assume, Bobbo, when you said 'unhulled' grains, you meant unhusked.

Husking grains is something people have always done, even back in the hunter and gatherer time, when wild wheat was collected. But making white flour and white rice is far more recent. That involves polishing the grain to remove the outer layer. The 'advantage' is that it makes the grain less nourishing, and that prevents weevil and other insects eating it. So polished grains can be stored for longer. Of course, a simpler method is to keep those pests out. Which we do these days with sealed containers and packages. Polished grains, like white flour and white rice, are not healthy foods.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:55 pm

...and with that we reached a threshold... :-P

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9179
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:40 am

Lance: unhusked, right you are. Every food item is more or less nutritious than any other....but "unhealthy" is rare. What makes refined grains unhealthy.... or did you mean not as healthy as less processed grain. I can't assume thats what you meant, so I ask.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9380
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:42 am

Lack of fiber.

When those grains are polished, the fiber is removed. What is left is almost pure starch. When starch is digested, glucose is the product. So eating pure starch is equivalent to eating pure sugar. What is worse is that the glucose is released very quickly. That creates a spike of glucose in the blood stream, which interferes with insulin metabolism, and also forces the liver to rapidly convert a load to fat. If the grains are mixed with fiber, as with wholemeal flour products, or brown rice, digestion is much slower and the spike of glucose in the bloodstream does not happen. In this case, insulin metabolism continues as normal, and there is not a heap of surplus sugar being converted to fat.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Phoenix76 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:39 am

The following article from Christine Cronau on Facebook. Christine is a proponent of LCHF - Low Carb, High Fat. Thought it might provoke some comments.

"Coconut oil unhealthy as beef fat? And really, really bad for you?

The headlines are everywhere. Sometimes, I just can't get over how many statements are published with a complete absence of fact.

Firstly, if beef fat is so terrible, why is it terrible? Because it is a saturated fat? Well, so is avocado fat. So is olive oil. All natural fats contain a mixture of saturated, mono-unsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats. Why has mother nature done this to us? Why did she package "good" and "bad" fats together?

In fact, beef fat is around 45% saturated, coconut oil is around 90% saturated, so according to their own logic, beef fat should be MUCH healthier than coconut oil.

The latest article (not study) published in Circulation recommends replacing saturated fats with mostly polyunsaturated fat to reduce risk of heart disease, and is behind all these latest headlines.

However, a 2017 meta-analysis of all available adequately controlled randomised controlled trials on the subject showed that replacing saturated fats with mostly polyunsaturated is UNLIKELY to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality.

How many times do we need to see the evidence before we stop this saturated fat phobia?"

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9380
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:35 am

Phoenix

There are certainly people who claim there is nothing wrong with saturated fats. However, the world's major health organizations, including the medical associations of virtually every western nation , still say saturated fats in excess are very unhealthy.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Phoenix76 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:45 am

Lance, I fully understand that. But where are the studies that proved causation?

For instance, I'm fully aware of Ancel Keys' studies and findings. However, there is no way in the world I would accept his findings as causation. In his "Seven Nations Study", he actually studied some twenty or so countries. Trouble is he picked out those seven that most closely aligned with his preconceived beliefs.

Even the famous mediterranean diet, was a sham. This study of mediterranean countries was conducted not long after WWII. These countries were still very short of meat supplies after the war, so they had modified their diets to what they could get. These countries love their meat.

My skepticism comes from examples like this, and the fact that most studies are financed either by big pharma or the medical industry. The word bias comes to mind. So I would very much like to read any study that can actually show causation. Personally, I don't believe there are any.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9179
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:51 pm

Lance: as usual, you didn't even touch on the question put to you...... thereby missing the point entirely.

Diet and Health. There is not an issue where you cannot find studies on all sides. EXCEPT: eat less, exercise more. JUST what we don't want to do. My first and only diet was to follow the Zone Diet. Did it for 6 months, lost weight. Lost interest. 2-3 years later I started walking my dog and listening to my music on cassette tapes and without diet change I lost considerable weight, then the dog died and I moved to less walking favorable city. Too much traffic.... the fumes and noise are intolerable. OH==> everyone should try the Zone Diet...not as a diet as much as to learn what food is and how to combine it. After that, if you pick up baking as a hobby, then you really learn what food is. Nutritionally, no difference between a slice of bread or spaghetti or a low sugar cookie. Mom used to feed us oatmeal cookies for breakfast. No different than granola. Lots of different ways to play with yourself.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:16 pm

Is it possible you didn't "hear" Lance's answer because you already knew of the carbs→sugar→fat cycle from Sears' Zone Diet? ;)

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2949
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:21 pm

In conclusion:

Food is bad, so stop eating.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:38 pm

Nah, eat it all! You just have to reassemble it. If ya eat a piece of cake, flush it down with some germs and bran. :-P

Hot dog - the world's wholest food.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:57 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Phoenix

There are certainly people who claim there is nothing wrong with saturated fats. However, the world's major health organizations, including the medical associations of virtually every western nation , still say saturated fats in excess are very unhealthy.

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease
Selected quotes:
The conglomeration of data from 16 studies with CHD as an endpoint and 8 studies with stroke as the endpoint showed no association of dietary saturated fat on disease prevalence after adjustment for other nutrients wherever possible.

Only a limited number of studies provided data that enabled the evaluation of the effects of isocalorically replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate or polyunsaturated fat, and, as such, the statistical power was diminished for the secondary analyses restricted to these studies. Most recently, however, an analysis conducted in a pooled cohort of studies showed a lower CHD risk when saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated fat and increased nonfatal myocardial infarction, but not fatal CHD, risk when saturated fat was replaced with carbohydrate.

Our results suggested publication bias, such that studies with significant associations tended to be received more favorably for publication.

In the interests of fairness, I note that two of the four authors were supported by the National Dairy Council via a grant from the NIH, and one of the four was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Unilever Corporation.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9380
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:06 pm

Luna Nik

I am sure you realise that a "meta study " with only 16 is a pretty poor meta study. Some of the studies I quote have 200 to 400 summarised. A small number of studies carry the suspicion of cherry picking.

At this point in time the major medical groups all continue to warn against excess consumption of saturated fat. If and when the preponderance of evidence is to the contrary, they will change their advice. Until that happens, anyone who depends on experts for advice should heed that view.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:44 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Luna Nik

I am sure you realise that a "meta study " with only 16 is a pretty poor meta study. Some of the studies I quote have 200 to 400 summarised. A small number of studies carry the suspicion of cherry picking.

At this point in time the major medical groups all continue to warn against excess consumption of saturated fat. If and when the preponderance of evidence is to the contrary, they will change their advice. Until that happens, anyone who depends on experts for advice should heed that view.

I'm not necessarily taking a side in whether ingestion of saturated fats (and how much and where from) contributes to HD or CAD. I'm merely offering one objection to your evidence, and could present a dozen additional meta-studies. This one included 76 studies with more than 643,000 participants; does that make it better?

Don't confuse quantity with quality. Did all those 200-400 studies have sufficiently-sized study groups? Were they randomized and double-blind with appropriate control groups? Did they account for heritable HD and CAD? By what method did they track diet? Who authored the studies and what were their affiliations? Did the participants replace saturated fats with something else? If so, what? That matters, because replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates or mono-unsaturated fats actually increases the risk of coronary incidents.

Then there's this allegation:
Indeed, given the breadth of the potential problems raised at the meeting, can any medical-research studies be trusted? That question has been central to [Dr. John] Ioannidis’s career. He’s what’s known as a meta-researcher, and he’s become one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for heart disease or back pain—is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. Given this exposure, and the fact that his work broadly targets everyone else’s work in medicine, as well as everything that physicians do and all the health advice we get, Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive. Yet for all his influence, he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem.

If, as skeptics, we maintain that a claim can only be judged by its evidence, doesn't it behoove us to make sure the evidence is sound?
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9380
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:15 am

Luna

That works both ways.

Claims of new findings, such as saturated fat is OK, are just as likely to be flawed. Generally, the best way is to wait until sufficient scientific work is published to eliminate the worst flaws. In the mean time, it is best to follow the rule of moderation.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:02 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Luna

That works both ways.

Claims of new findings, such as saturated fat is OK, are just as likely to be flawed. Generally, the best way is to wait until sufficient scientific work is published to eliminate the worst flaws. In the mean time, it is best to follow the rule of moderation.

Indeed, it does. I agree that moderation is probably best, perhaps with an occasional indulgence.

One guideline that has remained relatively in place throughout the years is the balanced diet along with exercise. It seems you can't go too wrong with that. I would add that it's a really good idea to eat slowly and chew thoroughly; it takes time for the "I'm full" signal to get to the brain, and chewing means your stomach doesn't have to overproduce acid.

I do notice something that has changed since I was a child and teen: the prevalence of childhood obesity. My generation didn't grow up with fast food, and processed food was limited. Most people looked down on it, preferring home-cooked meals. We also didn't have computers, gaming consoles, and 300 channels of TV; we played outside. An overweight child was a rarity then. Today, it's hard to tell when school's out for the summer; the streets are just as bereft of children as they are during the school year. And childhood obesity is (pun not intended) a rapidly growing problem.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Phoenix76 » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:48 am

Luna

Your comments are nicely balanced. But I really like your comment about childhood obesity. We must be of similar age because we ate home cooked meals, actually I cooked them as an 8yo, there was no fast food and processed foods were limited. No I don't have double blind studies etc to support my theory, but surely what you and I are saying leans heavily to support the change in diet and eating habits, and the lack of excercise, as the root cause of today's obesity problems. And not just children.

I'm not knocking doctors per se, but I am very skeptical of a lot of their recommendations. Reason being is that the average GP is so busy he/she doesn't have time to get involved in appropriate studies, so relies heavily on the journals produced by the medical industry. So if one report is wrong, the fallacy is perpetrated throughout the practising medical fraternity.

I'm still waiting to see actual studies that support the widely held assumption that saturated fat is bad for you. I don't hold out much hope. I've read the earlier studies, but as I've previously stated, most of them failed for various reasons. Problem is that the cost today of doing a proper study is too exorbitant for someone to take on without support from interested parties - big pharma, food industry & etc.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9380
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:59 am

Doctors are, indeed, fallible. However, they are about 10,000% better than the available alternatives. I began a thread a while back based on a medical article that pointed out that, of 5,000 commonly used medical procedures, only half had been scientifically tested and shown to be effective. Of course, that does not prove that the untested ones did not work. I suspect that most do work, or else simple experience would have caused doctors to discard them. But it is always good to remember the fallibility of medicine.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:03 am

LunaNik wrote: I would add that it's a really good idea to eat slowly and chew thoroughly; it takes time for the "I'm full" signal to get to the brain, and chewing means your stomach doesn't have to overproduce acid.

It's an excellent idea. In addition to that^ and breaking down the food to smaller, more manageable pieces, digestion begins in the mouth and digestive enzymes are released to begin the process before it goes down the hatch. Rush that step and the whole system is impaired and your body won't get the nutrition your chow promises.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Phoenix76 » Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:50 am

I'm amazed. I keep asking if anyone can point me to studies that show causation in relation to saturated fats. I'm disappointed. Lance, Luna and even Scrambled Eggs, you all come up with nice sounding rhetoric, but nobody, it seems, can direct me to studies that offer proof regarding all these nasty statements about saturated fats.

One of my arguments is that we cannot live without saturated fats. Anymore than we can live without cholesterol. That being so, where are the arguments that discredit saturated fats and cholesterol?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9179
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:05 am

I caught the tail end of a comment on tv a day or so ago re cholesterol along the lines of ".......only 15% (maybe 35%==?) of cholesterol in the body comes from dietary sources." IOW...artery clogging cholesterol is mostly made from other components by the body. I think this keeps coming up with whether or not or how many eggs it is safe to consume?

Then from YEARS ago, I recall an article that claimed cholesterol was actually created/used by the body to REPAIR lesions in arteries......not the reverse. As with so many things in medicine: cause and effect sometimes get confused?

Not knowing the truth, this moves MODERATION to the top of all dietary cautions.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2949
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:08 am

Whenever I try to find out anything on the subject, I get drowned in statements like "one helping of saturated fats a day increase your risk of heart attack by xx% !".
Ya, but from what baseline?
I can almost never find baseline numbers for risks for these statements. If the risk before was one in a billion, I'm not terribly concerned with a 100% increase of risk, you know?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11073
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:14 pm

Yeah, I've stopped caring, not that I ever really did. I just eat whatever I like. It's the same with alcohol studies. Some say any at all is bad for you, some say two a day has no effect, others say one or two a day is beneficial, either because of anti-oxidants, or just because it's a relaxant.

I'm gonna die from something, so I'd rather enjoy my short life than live a long and bleak dreary existence of an ascetic monk.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7951
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Poodle » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:43 pm

I agree - a bottle or two of wine a day and the world looks like a fine place.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11073
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:49 pm

Not so much the mornings.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7951
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Poodle » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:50 pm

The mor ... the what?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11073
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:59 pm

Whatever time of day you wake from your drunken stupour. I prefer noon, because that means it's socially acceptable to start drinking again right away.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9179
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:32 pm

Poodle, you should know. Does drinking a bottle or two of wine per day ever become accommodated? do you ever feel the creep to 2 or 3 per day to keep your rosy perspective?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:01 pm

Phoenix76 wrote:Luna

Your comments are nicely balanced. But I really like your comment about childhood obesity. We must be of similar age because we ate home cooked meals, actually I cooked them as an 8yo, there was no fast food and processed foods were limited. No I don't have double blind studies etc to support my theory, but surely what you and I are saying leans heavily to support the change in diet and eating habits, and the lack of excercise, as the root cause of today's obesity problems. And not just children.

I'm not knocking doctors per se, but I am very skeptical of a lot of their recommendations. Reason being is that the average GP is so busy he/she doesn't have time to get involved in appropriate studies, so relies heavily on the journals produced by the medical industry. So if one report is wrong, the fallacy is perpetrated throughout the practising medical fraternity.

I'm still waiting to see actual studies that support the widely held assumption that saturated fat is bad for you. I don't hold out much hope. I've read the earlier studies, but as I've previously stated, most of them failed for various reasons. Problem is that the cost today of doing a proper study is too exorbitant for someone to take on without support from interested parties - big pharma, food industry & etc.

Thanks! I look back on my class photos...no obese or overweight kids. Then I think about how different our lifestyle was then, and the fact that the only time we played inside was during inclement weather.

Of course, the economy was different then. And so were families. Moms were home when kids got home from school; there was no such thing as "daycare." Now, women have careers, both parents work to make ends meet, and strangers raise their kids. It's unbelievable that we don't invest in our children. (Certainly we don't in the US, where maternity leave is just that...for the birthing mother, and generally only 4-8 weeks.)

The average GP, in the US, does perfectly fine with the basic yearly exam. Other than that, her job is to refer you to whatever specialist is required. Unfortunately, most aren't very good at that. I was referred to a neurologist for my chronic migraines, and my GP selected a neurologist with no background in headaches. My entire appointment consisted of her sitting on the Internet, Googling my symptoms.

Doctors have their own biases too. My rheumatologist, who has been treating me since 2001 for fibromyalgia, suddenly has a theory that I have Joint Hypermobility Syndrome. I think I'm finally getting through to him that he's off base. While I do have hypermobile joints, I don't have any of the other symptoms of JHS. I haven't had joint pain, subluxations, and dislocations since childhood. That alone should rule it out.

I agree with you about the problems inherent in medical studies. The article I posted discusses that, as well as the medical industry being loathe to retract a pet theory, journal bias, and a number of other things that affect the issue. It pays to read the actual study in full, as well as checking author affiliations.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad


Return to “Healthcare”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests