| Revision as of 16:08, 8 April 2007 editHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers137,837 edits →NPOV problems: bold rather than underline← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:35, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,121 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (642 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header |search=yes }} |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
|
{{notice| |
|
{{Food and drink}} |
|
|
|
'''An alternate version of this article is proposed here: ]. Please review the changes, discuss them on this talk page, and integrate them where possible.''' |
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
<!-- Template:Archive box begins --> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
{| class="infobox plainlinks" style="width: {{{box-width|238px}}}" |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Food and drink |importance=High}} |
|
|<div style="padding-top: 4px; text-align: center">{{{image|]}}}'''<br/>]''' |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Energy |importance=}} |
|
</div> |
|
|
|
}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{#if:{{{auto|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{auto}}}|long|{{Archive list long}}|<div style="text-align: center">{{archive list}}</div>}}{{#if:]|<br/>}}}}] |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|}<!-- Template:Archive box ends --> |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
==A New Look at Coconut Oil== |
|
|
|
|counter = 4 |
|
Anyone read this paper? |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
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. --] 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(365d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Coconut oil/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Cholesterol Myths== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== coconut wick? == |
|
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. |
|
|
Again, references abound. --] 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is coconut "wick?" Mentioned in first sentence. ] (]) 03:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Good catch, thanks. Likely a deliberate error. That word was added over a year ago in without any explanation. Because the lead section is supposed to summarize the body of the article, I changed it back to "kernels", which are mentioned in the article body, while "wick" is not. ~] <small>(])</small> 06:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
==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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==% Saturated Fat?== |
|
|
|
|
|
The 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. ] 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==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 ." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] 05:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
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 ] when using coconut oil. |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15724344: |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 18:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think that it would be better to Fact-tag first. --] 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==External links== |
|
|
I'm going to clean up the external links following ] and related guidelines rather strictly. I hope no one is upset by this. --] 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Done. I read all the articles, and looked at the websites hosting them. --] 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==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. --] 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)''. {{unsigned|68.114.225.198}} |
|
|
|
|
|
: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 ]. --] 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. {{unsigned|68.114.225.198}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, the comments are "removed pov and off-topic sentences" . 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 ] violations are a serious matter and an editor can be blocked for repeatedly making them. --] 03:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Explain to me how I am "repeatedly violating ]" 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)'' {{unsigned|68.114.225.198}} |
|
|
|
|
|
: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. --] 04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::He, as well as others, may have felt you were strongly insinuating (N)POV and that the comments such as about blockingand the "unfounded" part 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.--] 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. --] 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I have gone over the article and Talk contribution records synchronously, starting with the article and the Talk . Newbie 68.114.225.198 correctly (in mainstream literature too) pointed out the specific junk food composition of the Australian test meal, 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" 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, 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. and improved text. Then you ''(removed exaggeration)'' criticized his edit , deleted & tagged his edits and admonished him ''(removed exaggeration)'' ''(removed personal attack)'' all where your edits ''(refactor) suggest your own pov which we have discussed before'', . |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The newbie, now in Talk, appears a little concerned he is being erroneously dismissed or lightweighted (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'' , you characterize his relatively conventional conversation (a very new IP) as uncivil '''while you delete in toto his edit''', 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, "your criticisms are unfounded", over *which* criticisms, the facts or newbie summary phrases that read as synthesis/technical editorial). |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Newbie 68.114 then responds that he is citing facts, partly correct but phrasing / presentation needs guidance). He's citing coconut centric lifetime studies on longevitivy and you are supporting a compositionally much different junk food test ''containing'' <u>+</u> coconut oil for ''several hours'', claiming his edits are "off topic", "pov" and "can be blocked", 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 without giving a precise, patient explanation or encouraging help for an obvious newbie. This is the third promising newbie in a week or so , that has gone silent/left the area with your (IMHO, overstrict/narrow) policy comments, so I felt we should consider ], (the earlier fourth newbie that I felt had content & COI issues I could be lighter handed with a formal chance but still support you).--] 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. --] 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
