Who's Behind the Claim That Coconut Oil Is Pure Poison? from Dr. Mercola
Who's Behind the Claim That Coconut Oil Is Pure Poison? from Dr. Mercola
September 10, 2018
Story at-a-glance
A German
lecture in which Harvard professor Karen Michels proclaims coconut oil
is “pure poison” has been picked up by many English-speaking media
outlets
Michels is a
proponent of the American Heart Association’s (AHA) advisory against
saturated fats such as coconut oil. She also has professional ties to
Harvard professor Frank Sacks, who was the lead author of the AHA’s 2017
advisory on saturated fats
The AHA’s
Presidential Advisory against saturated fats specifically identifies
coconut oil as a harmful fat, even though coconut oil was not included
in any of the studies AHA used to support its claims
The low-fat
myth was born and grew to take hold in the 1960s and early ‘70s, and it
is four studies from these eras that the AHA uses as the justification
for their recommendation to avoid saturated fats
Coconut oil
supports thyroid function, normalizes insulin and leptin sensitivity,
boosts metabolism and provides excellent and readily available fuel for
your body in lieu of carbohydrates
By Dr. Mercola
Chances are you've seen the recent headlines claiming coconut oil is "pure poison."1,2,3
That declaration was made in a lecture posted on YouTube by Karin
Michels, Ph.D., professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public
Health and director of the Institute for Prevention and Tumor
Epidemiology at the University of Freiburg in Germany.
In the lecture,4
which is given all in German and was posted on YouTube July 10, 2018,
Michels proclaims that coconut oil is "one of the worst foods you can
eat."
Such statements fall right in line with advice from the American
Heart Association (AHA), which last year sent out a Presidential
Advisory5
to cardiologists around the world, telling them to warn their patients
about the dangers of saturated fats such as butter and coconut oil.
According to the AHA, replacing these fats with polyunsaturated fats
(PUFAs) such as margarine and vegetable oil might cut heart disease risk
by as much as 30 percent, which is about the same as statins. Overall
for those who need to lower their cholesterol, the AHA recommends
limiting daily saturated fat intake to 6 percent of daily calories or
less.6
HPV Vaccine Advocate Calls Out Coconut Oil as 'Pure Poison'
Michels' statements are near-identical to those of the AHA. While it
may be tempting to assume she's a sock puppet for the processed
vegetable oil industry, she does not appear to have any direct industry
ties to them. Her work has been almost exclusively funded by the
National Institutes of Health,7 an agency of the U.S. Department of Health, and has no readily apparent conflicts of interest.
That said, while Michels supports breastfeeding and has done a number
of positive studies on vitamins and general nutrition, she veers
sharply out of rational thought with her views on the human papilloma
virus (HPV) vaccine, detailed in a 2009 paper8
titled "HPV Vaccine for All," in which she advocates the use of HPV
vaccine not only in young girls and boys, but also in older men and
women who test positive for certain HPV types.
It's also quite clear she's been against saturated fats for a long
time. This is not uncommon, considering how deeply ingrained that myth
has been. The clincher and most direct explanation for her views on
coconut oil is her clear and direct ties to professor Frank Sacks at
Harvard School of Public Health.
Sacks was in fact the lead author of that 2017 AHA Presidential
Advisory against saturated fats. In a 1995 joint letter to the editor of
The New England Journal of Medicine, Michels and Sacks noted that:9
"The content of trans fatty acids in our foods has been causing
concern because of reported adverse effects on serum lipid levels and
coronary heart disease. Even a typical Western diet can have enough of
these trans isomers to elevate the risk of coronary heart disease
considerably …
To achieve the solid consistency of the diet margarines,
manufacturers are permitted to blend the unmodified liquid oils with a
small amount of 'hardstock,' which are naturally solid fats … thereby
producing a fat richer in stearic acid, a saturated fatty acid that does
not raise serum levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
These products have a favorable composition of fatty acids: the
trans-fatty-acid content is negligible, and the saturated-fatty-acid
content is low … Margarines can be produced that appeal to the consumer
and do not contain either trans fatty acids or high levels of saturated
fatty acids."
Michels Promotes AHA's Outdated Views
In other words, while Michels and Sacks correctly identify the
dangers of trans fats, they incorrectly claim that margarines that
contain saturated fats are a health hazard as well. Last year, when AHA
warned against coconut oil and butter, a number of experts spoke out,
highlighting the severe errors of the AHA's review.
So, it really seems as though Michels is simply promoting the AHA's
views — a stance she and Sacks have held for decades. A basis for this
view is that if a fat is solid at room temperature, it must clog your
arteries. But that's the kind of thinking that brought us trans fats in the first place, which has been proven to be the real poison.
The most interesting part of this is that her lecture was far too
obscure to be found and picked up by English-speaking major media to the
extent that it has, and this makes me wonder whether the vegetable oil
industry had a hand in promoting it and turning it into "big news."
The AHA, with its strong ties to the processed food industry, would
also have a keen interest in promoting the circulation of this
information.
AHA Still Defends Failed Hypothesis
Some six decades ago, the AHA declared saturated fats a danger to
heart health, and last year, it reviewed the science and came to the
conclusion it's been right all along. Alas, the science used to support
this outdated view is as old as the misguided stance toward saturated
fats itself. As noted by American science writer Gary Taubes in his
extensive rebuttal to the AHA's advisory:10
"The history of science is littered with failed hypotheses based
on selective interpretation of the evidence … Today's Presidential
Advisory … may be the most egregious example of Bing Crosby epidemiology
['accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative'] that I've ever
seen …
[T]hey methodically eliminate the negative and accentuate the
positive until they can make the case that they are surely, clearly and
unequivocally right …
[T]he AHA concludes that only four clinical trials have ever been
done with sufficiently reliable methodology to allow them to assess the
value of replacing SFAs with PUFAs (in practice replacing animal fats
[with] vegetable oils) and concludes that this replacement will reduce
heart attacks by 30 percent …
These four trials are the ones that are left after the AHA
experts have systematically picked through the others and found reasons
to reject all that didn't find such a large positive effect, including a
significant number that happened to suggest the opposite …
They do this for every trial but the four, including among the
rejections the largest trials ever done: the Minnesota Coronary Survey,
the Sydney Heart Study and, most notably, the Women's Health Initiative,
which was the single largest and most expensive clinical trial ever
done.
All of these resulted in evidence that refuted the hypothesis. All are rejected from the analysis."
Taubes, an investigative science and health journalist who has
written three books on obesity and diet, points out that the AHA's
advisory document actually reveals the AHA's longstanding prejudice, and
the very method by which it reaches its conclusions.
In 2013, the AHA released a report11
claiming "the strongest possible evidence" supported the recommendation
to replace saturated fat with PUFAs. Yet several meta-analyses,
produced by independent researchers, concluded the evidence for
restricting saturated fats was in fact weak or lacking.
The 2017 advisory document reveals how the AHA could conclude they
had the "strongest possible evidence." In short, they methodically came
up with justifications to simply exclude any evidence to the contrary.
All that was left — then and now — were a small number of studies that
support the preconceived view of what the AHA wants the truth to be.
Studies Included in AHA's Advisory Are Based on Outdated Science
The low-fat myth was born and grew to take hold in the 1960s and
early '70s, and it is studies from these very eras that the AHA uses as
the basis for its recommendation to avoid saturated fats — and as noted
by Taubes, there are less than a handful of these studies: four to be
precise.
A lot of nutritional science has been published since the early '70s,
yet AHA chooses to hold on to outdated science. The reason why is
anyone's guess. One of the studies included in the AHA's review was the
Oslo Diet-Heart Study,12 published in 1970.
In this study, 412 patients who'd had a heart attack or were at high
risk of heart disease were randomized into two groups: One group got a
low-saturated fat, high-PUFA diet along with ongoing, long-term
"instruction and supervision" while the other group ate whatever they
wanted and received no nutritional counseling whatsoever. As explained
by Taubes:13
"This is technically called performance bias and it's the
equivalent of doing an unblinded drug trial without a placebo. It is
literally an uncontrolled trial, despite the randomization.
([A]ll the physicians involved also knew whether their patients
were assigned to the intervention group or the control, which makes
investigator bias all that much more likely.) We would never accept such
a trial as a valid test of a drug. Why do it for diet? Well, maybe
because it can be used to support our preconceptions."
Taubes goes on to state that he was so curious about this Oslo study
he bought a monograph published by the original author. In it, the
author describes in more detail how he went about conducting his trial.
Interestingly, this monograph reveals that the sugar consumption in
the treatment group was only about 50 grams a day — an amount Taubes
estimates may be about half the per capita consumption in Norway at that
time, based on extrapolated data.14
"In this trial, the variable that's supposed to be different is
the [saturated fat]/PUFA ratio, but the performance bias introduces
another one. One group gets continuous counseling to eat healthy, one
group doesn't. Now how can that continuous counseling influence health
status?
One way is that apparently, the group that got it decided to eat a
hell of lot less sugar. This unintended consequence now gives another
possible explanation for why these folks had so many fewer heart
attacks.
I don't know if this is true. The point is neither did Leren. And neither do our AHA authorities," Taubes writes.
"All of the four studies used to support the 30 percent number had
significant flaws, often this very same performance bias. Reason to
reject them."
AHA Makes False Claims About Coconut Oil
What's more, the AHA actually makes false claims when specifying
coconut oil as a source of dangerous saturated fat since none of the
four studies they included in their analysis involved coconut oil. This
was brought up last year by Dr. Cate Shanahan,15 a family physician and author of "Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food."
In an email to me, she pointed out that "This message from the AHA is
not only false, it is dangerous." While it's true that most early
studies on coconut oil
had less than favorable results, it's important to recognize that those
studies were done using partially hydrogenated coconut oil, not unrefined virgin coconut oil.16
As always, the devil's in the details, and hydrogenated oil is not
the same as unrefined oil, even when you're talking about something as
healthy as coconut. This small but crucial detail is what led to the
undeserved vilification of coconut oil in the first place. Shanahan went
on to state:
"Most doctors don't notice that the medical leadership is making
unfounded claims, and the reason they don't notice is because … articles
asserting the existence of human clinical trial evidence against
coconut as well as all other foods high in saturated fat, conflate the
sources of saturated fat with the saturated fat itself.
Saturated fat does not actually exist in the food chain; what
they're talking about are saturated fatty acids, the components of
triglyceride fat, the substance chefs call simply 'fat.' We often say
things like 'coconut oil is a saturated fat' and 'butter is a saturated
fat.' But it would be more correct to say 'coconut oil is high in
saturated fatty acids.'
Coconut oil, butter, lard, tallow and every other animal fat also
contain monounsaturated and even some polyunsaturated fatty acids in
addition to saturated fatty acids … The idea is foods contain blends of
fatty acids in varying proportion."
Put another way, most foods contain a blend of fatty acids, not just
one. Margarine and shortening also contain saturated fatty acids, yet
the AHA makes no mention of this. The harder the margarine, the more
saturated fat it tends to contain, in some cases more than butter or
lard.
"So, when people eat margarine and shortening, in addition to
toxic trans fatty acids they're also eating saturated fatty acids. And
that means that when a study says it's swapping out saturated fat for
vegetable oils, that does not equate to swapping out butter and lard.
It could very well be the case that margarine and shortenings were among the foods that got eliminated," Shanahan says.
"And because most doctors don't realize that margarine and
shortenings contain saturated fatty acids, they also don't consider it
particularly important to wonder whether or not studies like the four
core citations mentioned in the Advisory are actually confounded by the
fact that the baseline, high-saturated fat diet included a significant
amount of margarines and shortenings that contain toxic trans fat.
Because if they did, then that means whatever health benefits
were observed in the studies may have nothing to do with the reductions
in saturated fat. It's cutting back on trans fat that makes the
difference to health."
Cutting Saturated Fat Has Had Disastrous Consequences for Public Health
Since the 1950s, when vegetable oils began being promoted over
saturated fats like butter, Americans have dutifully followed this
advice, dramatically increasing consumption of vegetable oil. Soy oil,
for example, has risen by 600 percent (10,000 percent from 1900) while
butter, tallow and lard consumption has been halved. We've also
dramatically increased sugar consumption.17
Alas, heart disease rates have not improved even though people have
been following the AHA's dietary recommendations. Common sense tells us
if the AHA's advice hasn't worked in the last 65 years, it's not likely
to start working now.
As noted by Shanahan, technology that allows us to study molecular
reactions is relatively recent, and certainly was not available back in
the '60s and '70s. Modern research is just now starting to reveal what
actually happens at the molecular level when you consume vegetable oil
and margarine, and it's not good.
How Vegetable Oils Turn Toxic
For example, Dr. Sanjoy Ghosh,18
a biologist at the University of British Columbia, has shown your
mitochondria cannot easily use PUFAs for fuel due to the fats' unique
molecular structure.
Other researchers have shown the PUFA linoleic acid can cause cell death in addition to hindering mitochondrial function.19
PUFAs are also not readily stored in subcutaneous fat. Instead, they
tend to get deposited in your liver, where they contribute to fatty
liver disease,20
and in your arteries, where they contribute to atherosclerosis. Animal
and human research has also found vegetable oils promote:
According to Frances Sladek,29
Ph.D., a toxicologist and professor of cell biology at UC Riverside,
PUFAs behave like a toxin that builds up in tissues because your body
cannot easily rid itself of it.
When processed vegetable oils like sunflower oil and corn oil are heated, cancer-causing chemicals like aldehydes
are also produced in quantities that are in stark contrast to the low
levels produced by coconut oil, which has far less double bonds to be
damaged by the heat.30 Source: The Telegraph November 7, 2015
Biochemistry Versus Statistics
According to Shanahan, the idea that PUFAs are healthier than
saturated fats fall flat when you enter the field of biochemistry,
because it's "biochemically implausible."
In other words, the molecular structure of PUFA is such that it's
prone to react with oxygen, and these reactions disrupt cellular
activity and cause inflammation.31 Oxidative stress and inflammation, in turn, are hallmarks not only of heart disease and heart attacks but of most chronic diseases.32,33
"Meanwhile, the folks at the AHA claim saturated fat is
proinflammatory and causes arterial plaque and heart attacks — but there
is no biochemically plausible explanation for their argument.
Saturated fat is very stable, and will not react with oxygen the
way PUFA fat does, not until the fundamental laws of the universe are
altered," Shanahan writes.
"Our bodies do need some PUFA fat, but we need it to come from
food like walnuts and salmon or gently processed (as in cold pressed,
unrefined) oils like flax and artisanal grapeseed, not from vegetable
oils because these are refined, bleached and deodorized, and the PUFA
fats are molecularly mangled into toxins our body cannot use."
High Cholesterol Does Not Lead to Heart Disease
Researchers have also laid waste to the notion that having high
cholesterol is a primary contributor to heart disease in the first
place, and this is the core premise upon which Michels and the AHA build
their conclusion that coconut oil and other saturated fats are bad for
you.
For example, a 2016 study34
published in The BMJ reanalyzed data from the Minnesota Coronary
Experiment that took place between 1968 and 1973, after gaining access
to previously unpublished data.
This was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial to test whether
replacing saturated fat with vegetable oil (high in linoleic acid) would
lower cholesterol levels, thus reducing heart disease and related
deaths. Interestingly, while the treatment group did significantly lower
their cholesterol, no mortality benefit could be found.
In fact, for each 30 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) reduction in
serum cholesterol, the risk of death actually increased by 22 percent.
Swapping saturated fat for vegetable oil also had no effect on
atherosclerosis rates or heart attacks. As noted by the authors:
"Available evidence … shows that replacement of saturated fat in
the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but
does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of
death from coronary heart disease or all causes.
Findings … add to growing evidence that incomplete publication
has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated
fat with vegetable oils …"
The AHA also does not take LDL particle number
into consideration. There are large, fluffy LDL particles and small,
dense ones. We didn't have this information in the 1960s, but we sure
have it now. This is yet another crucial detail, as large LDL particles
have been shown to be harmless and do not raise your risk for heart
disease.
And guess what? Sugar promotes harmful small, dense LDLs while
saturated fats found in butter and coconut oil promotes harmless large,
fluffy LDLs.35
Is Coconut Oil Healthy or Not?
The short answer is yes, organic unrefined virgin coconut oil is a
healthy choice. It's been a dietary staple for millennia, providing you
with high-quality fat that is important for optimal health. Coconut oil:
Supports thyroid function (Unlike many other oils, coconut oil does
not interfere with T4 to T3 conversion, and T4 must be converted to T3
in order to create the enzymes needed to convert fats to energy)
Normalizes insulin and leptin sensitivity
Boosts metabolism
Provides excellent and readily available fuel for your body in lieu
of carbohydrates (which you need to avoid if you want to lose weight)
A really important benefit of coconut oil is related to the fact that it contains medium chain triglycerides
(MCTs). The smaller particle size of MCTs helps them penetrate your
cell membranes more easily. MCTs also do not require special enzymes,
and they can be utilized more effectively by your body, thus putting
less strain on your digestive system.
Most importantly, however, MCTs bypass the bile and fat storage
process and go directly to your liver, where they are converted into
ketones. Your liver quickly releases the ketones into your bloodstream
where they are transported around your body to be used as fuel. Ketones
are in fact the preferred fuel for your body, especially your heart and
brain, and may be key for the prevention of heart disease and Alzheimer's.
By being immediately converted into energy rather than being stored
as fat, MCTs stimulate your body's metabolism and help promote weight
loss. So, yes, coconut oil truly is a healthy staple that belongs in
everyone's kitchen.
(For clarification, while coconut oil contains MCTs, straight MCT oil
has a far higher concentration of shorter chain fats that are more
efficiently converted to ketones; C8 or caprylic acid has the best
ability to convert to ketones.)
Coconut Oil May Be Contraindicated if You Have Leaky Gut
For all its benefits, there is at least one instance where coconut
oil is contraindicated due to its lauric acid content. In his book, "The Plant Paradox:
The Hidden Dangers in 'Healthy' Foods That Cause Disease and Weight
Gain," Dr. Steven Gundry explains how coconut oil may be problematic if
you have leaky gut.
As it turns out, lipopolysaccharide (LPS), an endotoxin, attaches to
lauric acid, facilitating its transport past your gut lining into your
blood stream. Interestingly, MCT oil does not do this. So, if you have
leaky gut, or unless you're healthy and eating a lectin-free diet, it
may be best to avoid coconut oil and use MCT oil instead. Caprylic acid
would be best, but neither of these will allow LPS to piggyback into
your blood stream.
Flawed 60-Year-Old Research on Saturated Fat Does Not 'Debunk' Coconut Oil Benefits
So, to summarize, Michels is advocating decades' old recommendations
that are still upheld by the AHA. Again, she has a professional
connection to Sacks, who was lead author for the AHA's advisory on
saturated fats, and in that advisory Sacks specifically targeted coconut
oil — even though coconut oil was not involved in any of the studies
they included in their scientific review.
When considering recommendations for heart health, it's important to
remember that heart disease is primarily caused by chronic inflammation,
which is caused by excessive amounts of omega-6 (unbalanced omega-6 to omega-336), dangerous trans fats, processed vegetable oils and excessive sugar.
Saturated fats, on the other hand, have been repeatedly exonerated,
with studies showing they do not contribute to heart disease and are in
fact a very important source of fuel for your body.
Granted, it's tough to admit you've been wrong for 65-plus years.
Such an admission can mar an organization's reputation. But in trying to
turn back the clock to 1960 and promote margarine and vegetable oils
over butter and coconut oil, the AHA has proven itself professionally
irresponsible and obsolete, and a lecture by one of its ideological
supporters cannot change that. To learn more about how coconut oil
benefits your health, and why, see "Why Coconut Oil Is So Good for You."
No comments:
Post a Comment