>> Are you suggesting that the chemical composition of fruits is always comparable to that of extracts obtained from their leaves?

If we have studied ursolic and oleanic acids, and they exert multiple beneficial effects, and if we know that olives contain significant amounts of ursolic and oleanic acids, then I would argue that we know something about olives. Just as if a newly discovered plant contained large amounts of nicotine ... it would be possible to know some things about the effects of that plant based simply on the fact that it contained nicotine. As to whether that makes it 'always comparable' in your unpredictable system of logic, I have no idea.

>> We still have unanswered questions, including 1) whether either using olive oil or drinking olive leaf tea provides significant health benefits ...

If you are still wondering if olive oil has significant health benefits (or is merely a concentrated source of calories), then I guess I will just leave you to sit and wonder. And who is this 'we' that you speak for?? Is there a mouse in your shirt pocket?

I think Eric was referring to other people on the forum.

"And who is this 'we' that you speak for?? Is there a mouse in your shirt pocket?"

Oh My Goodness! As soon as I read that last line in Apollog's last post, "Her name is Lucy" popped into my head as a response. THEN I scroll down to the next post... Sorry, but I just had to giggle...

I think the only rodents involved are the ones in apollog's study. ;)

I won't bother commenting further about the differences in chemical composition often found when looking at plant leaves, roots or fruits. But anyone who's studied herbs to any extent knows about this phenomenon. Seeing that not even the authors in apollog's study are claiming that olive oil and olive leaf tea cause the positive effects described in the study, that should be food for thought.

There are other cooking oils that may well be better for you than olive oil - for instance canola oil, which contains high levels of omega-3 fatty acids (which have been linked to lower incidence of coronary artery disease and heart attacks). These components are also thought to have potential in controlling abnormal heart rhythms.

At least we're talking about different types of oils that offer reasonable choices for cooking - unlike awhile back when a couple of posters (including someone involving in running a coconut plantation) were hyping coconut oil as a cure-all (coconut oil is very high in saturated fat and a bad choice for those concerned about cholesterol levels).

Tasymo, you're allowed to giggle at all the posts on this thread. I do often.

eric, you have to quit talking to that mouse. Did you reread your statment above.

"I wont bother commenting further about the differences in chemical composition often found when looking at plant leaves,roots, or fruits But anyone who has studied herbs to any extent knows this phenomenon.

eric, From the first grade on everyone knows there is a different chem. comp. between leaf,root, fruit. Where's the phenomenon? Duh!!!
Appolo was also right. There can be the same chems in each part. There are after all thousands of different molecules and atoms in every herb.
apollo,Will you quit baiting eric than sit back chuckling and plotting your next chess move. You could use your grey cells answering these everyday herbalism questions that pop up or do you think that is above you guys and this is your own private chess board and people who ask questions about herbalism ar'nt worth s%#t.Hello in there!! Are you awake? There are very nice people in the world who would like to ask YOU a simple question and would like a polite answer back from preferably several people. Are any of you up to that task? Please! Please! Please consider people who come here asking questions. It simply can't be that hard. So come on and set a good example for someone else. PLEASE

I'm going to try and contact daisyduckworth and get her back on here. She's studied herbalism for many years and wrote at least 2 and maybe 3 books on the subject.If she don't know the answer it's not worth knowing. Anyone who is nasty to her is going to answer to several other of us.

>> At least we're talking about different types of oils that offer reasonable choices for cooking - unlike awhile back when a couple of posters (including someone involving in running a coconut plantation) were hyping coconut oil as a cure-all (coconut oil is very high in saturated fat and a bad choice for those concerned about cholesterol levels).

Again, you are making faulty generalizations, and your ideas of reasonable are quite wrong. But I'm glad you brought up coconut oil, which I would consume (in reasonable amount, although more than I do now) if I had congestive heart issues.

When interest in fats and cholesterol first developed in the 1970s, people were told to cut back on eggs, avocados and shrimp. Since then, it has become clear that eating even two eggs a day does not raise cholesterol, that avocado fat is healthy (provided it isn't eaten to the point of causing obesity), and that eating shrimp raises good cholesterol (HDL) more than it raises bad (LDL) cholesterol.

And then there is coconut oil, which contains 'saturated fat' and has been equated with pork lard, in spite of obvious differences in the fats and how they are handled by the body. The truth is that most of the 'saturated fats' in coconut oil are medium chain triglycerides, which are very different from the saturated fat in meat and dairy products.

In fact, medium chain tryglcerides are being used to treat heart disease, including cardiomyopathies (of which, CHF is one type):

"INTRODUCTION: Medium-chain fatty acids (MCFAs) have physical and metabolic properties that are distinct from those of long-chain fatty acids, which make them a readily available cellular energy source. These properties have been used advantageously in the clinics for more than 50 years for treating lipid absorption disorders, undernourished patients, and more recently subjects with long-chain fatty acid oxidation defects. In these latter subjects, nutritional interventions with MCFA-containing triglycerides have been shown to improve clinical symptoms, particularly cardiomyopathies. POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF MCFA METABOLISM IN CARDIAC DISEASES: There is, however, only a limited number of studies that have considered the potential use of MCFAs as metabolic therapy for cardiac diseases in general. Nevertheless, current experimental evidence does support the notion that the diseased heart is energy deficient and that alterations in myocardial energy substrate metabolism contribute to contractile dysfunction and cardiac disease development and progression." (Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2008 Feb 6; Medium-chain Fatty Acids as Metabolic Therapy in Cardiac Disease.)

"Yet most of the saturated fats in coconut are medium chain fatty acids whose properties and metabolism are different to those of animal origin. Medium chain fatty acids do not undergo degradation and re-esterification processes and are directly used in the body to produce energy. They are not as 'bad for health' as...

If heart disease a concern with coconut oil consumption, how can anyone explain Sri Lanka?? That country uses coconut as the primary source of fat, yet has the lowest rate of ischemic heart disease (caused by blockages and clots).

"Feeding of MCT to rats resulted in animals of low body weight, small fat deposits and excellent survival rate. This deserves emphasis because of the beneficial influence of low body weight on aging and arteriosclerosis. MCT feeding was associated with low linoleate and low tocopherol requirements in rats. This may lead to reduced formation of those linoleate derived prostaglandins which favor thrombosis formation. Lower linoleate requirements may also lead to the presence of fewer uncontrolled free radicals in the cells. MCT feeding is associated with low levels of serum and liver cholesterol involving speculations that tissue conditions are such that an adaptive increase of cholesterol is unnecessary. The Demographic Yearbook of the United Nations (1978) reported that Sri Lanka has the lowest death rate from ischemic heart disease. Sri Lanka is the only of the countries giving reliable data where coconut oil (containing over 50% medium chain fatty acids) is the main dietary fat." (J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 1986 Mar-Apr;6(3-4):115-21. Medium chain triglycerides (MCT) in aging and arteriosclerosis.)

If your primary source of fat is coconut then you aren't getting much fat probably, the Sri Lankan diet is fairly calorie restricted so heart disease is less of an issue, also life expectancy just recently hit the high 60's/ low 70's the population is fairly young. You will note how it is the lowest death rate not the lowest prevalence, that could be assumed to be because other things were killing them first at that time, like a medical system based solely on herbalism which yields a life expectancy of about 45 years at best (its true, no one broke that number until science based medicine came along).

Total fat intake may indeed be one factor. But coconut oil is easily extracted and widely used in Sri Lanka.

The biggest effect on life expectancy comes from infant mortality - averaging in a few more zeros or ones brings the average down quickly. In terms of 'modern' changes, the two biggest factors are clean water and antibiotics.

While many consider the use of antibiotics as antithetic to herbalism, I do not. I think fungi are great - I ferment foods, I eat mushrooms. Red rice and oyster mushrooms ('natural') are loaded with statins, and have been around for a while before they were extracted, tableted, and billed as 'modern western medicine.' In fact, until recently, most medicines were derived or inspired by plants; recently the trend has been more towards molecules found in the body or variants thereof.

An interesting fact is that one of the highest rates of cardiac disease in the world is in India. It is also believed to be a genetic problem and is being studied, so it's not necessarily directly related to any food, but if a lot of coconut oil is used (I'm assuming Sri Lankan diets are not a lot different from Indian) as well as the clarified butter used in so many dishes there, it could have an aggravating effect, if nothing else.

Clarified butter could have a possible role (especially when it is highly oxidized), and ghee is more widely consumed in India. I think 'modernization' is the biggest factor in the increase in the increase in India (and China, and other countries) - people have given up physical activity and are eating more processed foods, which leads to obesity, hypertension, cholesterol issues, diabetes, impaired vascular function, hypercoagulation of the blood, and a few other things.

The thing about MCTs in coconut oil is that they can pass directly into the energy centers of the cell and be used. I mentioned previously the link between carnitine deficiency and CHF - without carnitine, larger fats cannot pass into mitochondria and there is an energy deficit. Smaller fats (including the MCTs in coconut) do not need carnitine dependent transport. So increasing carnitine levels is one strategy to increase metabolic function of the heart; another is to take MCTs that get absorbed and used regardless of carnitine transport.

"Indians use a lot of ghee (clarified butter), garlic and yoghurt for cooking and Sri Lankans use coconut milk instead and ghee only sparingly." http://www.lavenderhill.co.uk/index.php/food/food-the-ceylon-tavern.html

"Western Medicine" really means medicine that uses the scientific method, typically isolation is used because at this point we aren't advanced enough to study much synergy, but eventually it will get to that point; now a days people just guess as to synergistic effect, and use magical thinking. Western medicine does not mince words about it and accepts that most of the medicine is found in plants and fungi, it wasn't pulled out of thin air, it was improved. Also, flush toilets and dental care account for a huge extension in lifespan, if you don't get a wound and have clean water those two factors count for more than antibiotics.

Your conclusions on synergism are interesting but I'm not sure that I agree.

Here's a curiousity: I did a search for CHF and synergy, and came across the article below that suggests that diuretics result in rapid improvements of symptoms for CHF, but generally don't stop progression of the disease (they probably disturb the renin-angiotensin systems, so an ACE inhibitor is also a good idea). Which led me to dust off my notes on hibiscus, and as I suspected, that herb has both diuretic and ACE inhibition properties!

How's that for synergy?? A drink that may have been the original 'Kool-Aid' (until red coal tar dyes were discovered) lowers blood pressure in two different ways, and those 2 ways are coincidentally both useful to treat CHF. I suspect that the co-occurrence of diuretics and ACE inhibitors is not so rare in herbs.

Here is a link that might be useful: Refocus on diuretics in the treatment of heart failure.

OK! Guess no one can answer simple Questions about herbs. Shame too.

Anyone want to add sunflower oil to the equation? That's what i use.

Lucy, Does Canadians use mostly lard for cooking. A canadian told me that it,s even hard to find veggie oils on store shelves. I use lard myself sometimes since recently and think it is a good thing. I'm allowed my own taste in foods.

Brendon, I know you have to be or have taken Chemistry. Can you really relate scientific method as relates to real science and the methods used in medical studies as anywhere near the same thing. In real science it's all or nothing. So how can an experiment that proves %10 did and %12 did,nt and the other %68 were inconclusive. I know... an exaggerated number. But still..... and an Up Quark will always be a %100 lepton.No doubt about it, even if you get into string theory or W theory.

Coconut oil is still not viewed as a healthy choice when consumed on a regular basis.

"Trans fat has received a lot of well-deserved scrutiny -- at the same time, while it's critical that we continue to push aggressively to minimize its consumption, trans fat is just one part of the 'big fat picture,'" said Robert H. Eckel, M.D., immediate past president of the American Heart Association, chair of its trans fat task force and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center at Denver. "It's equally important that we avoid increasing saturated fat in its place. Both trans and saturated fats raise LDLs, the bad cholesterol, and increase the risk of developing heart disease...The American Heart Association's campaign helps break down complex fat information, focusing initially on the bad fats and healthier alternatives. It's important for consumers to eat all fats in moderation, and eat foods with the "bad" fats as treats only -- once in a while -- rather than often.

BAD fats: Trans and saturated fats...Some plant foods, such as palm oil, palm kernel oil and coconut oil, also contain saturated fat."

Coconut oil and other tropicals oils are products to limit in trying to control your fat intake:

"Both men and women should keep their total fat consumption below 30%Â35% of daily calories. Since fat is the most calorie-dense food (9 calories per gram), levels as low as 20%Â25% are appropriate when weight is an issue.

To achieve these goals, cut down on saturated fat from animal products and certain vegetable products  palm oil, palm kernel oil, cocoa butter, and coconut. And itÂs just as important to reduce your consumption of trans fatty acids, the partially hydrogenated vegetable oils found in stick margarine, fried foods, and many commercially baked goods and snack foods."

As the Harvard Medical Letter notes, coconut oil substantially increases levels of "bad" (LDL) cholesterol, though it also boosts "good" (HDL) cholesterol. The overall recommendation is not that coconut and coconut oil have to be completely avoided, but regarded as occasional components of treats, not as something to be consumed every day.

I think the advice of experts in the field of nutrition and heart disease outweigh what the coconut industry and a few studies that don't apply to Western nations and diet are claiming. As for Sri Lanka, it'd be interesting to see how their total calorie and fat load as well as genetic and lifestyle factors compare to that of Americans, before we start assuming that switching to coconut oil for cooking is what supposedly reduces one type of heart disease (their life expectancy still trails that of Americans).

>> OK! Guess no one can answer simple Questions about herbs. Shame too.

Which question are you referring to, Oakleif? Did you catch my previous post mentioning hibiscus and its effect on two different mechanisms of congestive heart failure??

>> I think the advice of experts in the field of nutrition and heart disease outweigh what the coconut industry and a few studies that don't apply to Western nations

Appeal to authority is a fallacy, particularly when the authorities consistently generalize all saturated fats, and when they routinely equate hydrogenated coconut oil with ordinary coconut oil.

Your welcome to ignore all the research on the benefits of medium chain triglycerides and heart disease and the fact that coconut is the richest source of MCTs.

>> "Both men and women should keep their total fat consumption below 30%Â35% of daily calories. Since fat is the most calorie-dense food (9 calories per gram), levels as low as 20%Â25% are appropriate when weight is an issue.

While this generality may be more or less true under average circumstances, it ignores the fact that medium chain triglycerides do more to turn off hunger than other types of calories. MCTs have shown the ability to improve satiety, reduce calorie consumption, increase energy expenditure, reduce fat deposition in arteries, and other beneficial effects, even though they fall into the 'saturated fat' category. Chemically, they are saturated, but they are quite different from longer chain fats. Just as HDL is cholesterol, but is quite different from LDL. Maybe in decade or two, the AHA will be able to make such a distinction; they went from saying all cholesterol was bad to understanding that there is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. The same is true for saturated fats.

"Furthermore, both animal and human trials suggest a greater satiating effect of medium-chain triglycerides (MCT) compared with long-chain triglycerides (LCT)... Clinical trials (23,24) have shown that MCT consumption can lead to lower energy intakes ..." (Physiological Effects of Medium-Chain Triglycerides: Potential Agents in the Prevention of Obesity; http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/132/3/329)

Oaklief - Canadians (unless they live in a shack thousands of miles from anywhere civilized at all) have everything you have and more (lots from the UK and Europe). I've never heard such nonsense, but then anything's possible. We're very health conscious and possibly the majority of food using oil in any capacity has been changed to non-trans fat versions. I guess you could find e.g. some locally made donuts or something in a little rural area that are made with lard (yuck!) but highly unlikely in a supermkt.

Ok, here is a 15 year study on 80,000+ women in North America that found that short and medium chained saturated fats carried no increased risk of heart disease, while long chain saturated fats (from meat and milk) clearly did increase the risk of heart disease.

So please don't tell us that it is just the natives in their thatched huts on the other side of the world that might be able to tolerate coconut oil. There is no evidence that coconut oil is a culprit in heart disease - that is a dogma you cling to, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. As a food rich in medium chained triglycerides, coconut oil is of interest to congestive heart failure, malabsorption syndrome, and a variety of other conditions.

Here is a link that might be useful: Dietary saturated fats and their food sources in relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women.

I'm not sure where you're getting the impressions you've drawn from that last linked study.

Its conclusions are that a particular type of saturated fat (stearic acid) isn't any different than other types of saturated fat when it comes to the risk of heart disease. While the study's abstract says nothing about coconut oil, the authors do warn of heart risk in general from saturated fat - and we know that coconut oil is high in saturated fat.

The study you refer to in your previous post doesn't seem to refer to heart disease at all. As far as I can tell, wading through all the discussion of MCT, LCT, white leghorn cockerels, rats and occasionally humans (I can sense tasymo's eyes glazing over at all the jargon and acronyms), they're saying that a certain type of fatty acid might help in weight loss, though not if you ingest it for more than a week or so.

No doubt you'll once again criticize me for responding to your linked studies and ignoring scads of other research that backs you up, except that it never seems to be forthcoming.

apollog: "Appeal to authority is a fallacy"

This is a puzzling statement. I've lost count of how many research paper abstracts you've linked to, most recently from the Harvard School of Public Health. Those are certainly "authorities". Did you mean to say "Appeal to authority is a fallacy if I don't agree with those authorities"? ;)

Of course, not all "authorities" are created equal. There's a world of difference between, say, the American Heart Association and some guy who publishes diatribes on a website and sells supplements on the side. There's tremendous difference between the New England Journal of Medicine and the Ceylon Medical Journal. There's a huge difference between long-term multicenter double-blind clinical trials and the advice of the co-worker in the next cubicle.

A lot depends on who the "authority" is, what their training and expertise is, and whether their conclusions are relevant to the matter under discussion.

This sounds like a good subject for a future thread...

>> Its conclusions are that a particular type of saturated fat (stearic acid) isn't any different than other types of saturated fat when it comes to the risk of heart disease. While the study's abstract says nothing about coconut oil, the authors do warn of heart risk in general from saturated fat - and we know that coconut oil is high in saturated fat.

The study found ".. intakes of short- to medium-chain saturated fatty acids (4:0-10:0) were not significantly associated with the risk of CHD." This is completely at variance with your dogmatic insistence that all saturated fats are bad for the heart, but it is in agreement with other studies that have looked at coconuts and heart disease around the world.

It did not warn that all saturated fats are equally bad, merely that stearic acid was no better than the saturated fats found in a typical diet (ie, stearic acid is no better than the other saturated fats found in a diet rich in meat and milk, which are long chain fatty acids).

>> This is a puzzling statement. I've lost count of how many research paper abstracts you've linked to, most recently from the Harvard School of Public Health. Those are certainly "authorities". Did you mean to say "Appeal to authority is a fallacy if I don't agree with those authorities"? ;)

Obviously, you either don't understand the difference between research and opinion, or you are being dense on purpose. I suspect it is the latter. Citing research is quite different from citing authoritative opinion. You are the flexitarian who is switching between the need for 'evidence' and opinion. When the evidence from a 15 year study involving 80,000 women in North America coincidentally agrees with the research conducted in a number of other studies worldwide, you sweep the results away and cast more innuendo.

Which isn't surprising, as you are here as a troll. People here understand that you have no intention of honestly discussing herbs. You are an ideologue who plays dirty, and then when you are called on it, you play the martyr and act indignant that anyone would question your motives or character.

Wha... Huh? Did you guys say something? Dozed off for a minute there!

Seriously, I am doggedly wading through your posts because this topic is of interest to me- My Father died of congestive heart failure, and my Mother in Law is currently struggling with it. At this point She is on a series of meds. prescribed by her Doctor and is working hard to make major changes in her diet.

I am very aware that if I am to avoid the same struggle, NOW is the time for me to be eating the proper kinds of foods. I cut trans fats as completely from my diet as I possibly can (and I curse the FDA regularly for allowing packaging to claim "zero trans fats" when there is 1/2 gram or less per serving...) and am very pleased that in doing so, managed to bring my LDL level down and HDL up.

Question: What's up with this "interestified fat" I'm finding where so much trans fat used to be. My feeling is that food Scientist are once again fooling around with normal fats and I DON'T TRUST THEM! If I see interestified fats, I don't by the product.

The interesterified fats have been constructed to have all the properties of partially hydrogenated oils, but which technically are not. The food industry is looking for fats that are semi-solid at room temperature, and which have a long shelf life and a high boiling point for frying.

Too soon to say how bad they are, but some preliminary research indicates they are on par with trans-fats as far as having negative effects on health. How the body will react after eating them for 30 years is not fully known ...

Here is a link that might be useful: Wikipedia page on interesterified fats - a good overview

Thanks Apollog- that's pretty much what I figured. I will continue to avoid interestified fats along with trans fats.

Interesting information about Hibiscus. I wonder if there us enough Hibiscus in the "Red Zinger" tea to be effective? I've always enjoyed the tang the Hibiscus adds to that blend.

Another point I meant to make awhile back when you two were debating the amount of caffiene in a "can of Red Bull". Are you aware that they sell that stuff in two different sized cans? Both 16 oz. and 8 oz. cans are available.

Perhaps apollog is not aware that groups such as the American Heart Association base their recommendations on years of careful, quality research. They do not revise those opinions overnight based on a handful of papers that look at rat studies or what a published in the Ceylon Medical Journal claims. They look at the sum total of the available evidence. They are not "authorities" who advise us on heart-healthy strategies because they like bossing us around. They're concerned with keeping us as healthy as possible.

"When the evidence from a 15 year study involving 80,000 women in North America coincidentally agrees with the research conducted in a number of other studies worldwide, you sweep the results away and cast more innuendo"

That "evidence" has nothing to do with heart disease, which is the subject of this thread.

As to your latest personal attack, it is unwarranted and detracts from our understanding of the issues under discussion.

tasymo, the caffeine content I cited was for the 8-ounce can (76 mg., intermediate between the typical cup of instant and brewed coffees). 16 ounces of Red Bull would put you up at or exceeding the caffeine content of other energy drinks with names like "Full Throttle Fury" and "Monster Energy", and well over the caffeine content of a typical cup of brewed coffee. If people drink a can every once in awhile it's probably no different than coffee drinking. If someone with a heart condition is a regular drinker, though, you wonder if jittering up your system with all that caffeine might override what potential benefits the taurine content supposedly provides.

>> Perhaps apollog is not aware that groups such as the American Heart Association base their recommendations on years of careful, quality research. They do not revise those opinions overnight based on a handful of papers that look at rat studies or what a published in the Ceylon Medical Journal claims. They look at the sum total of the available evidence. They are not "authorities" who advise us on heart-healthy strategies because they like bossing us around. They're concerned with keeping us as healthy as possible.

The AHA has a history of ignoring the evidence until it is overwhelming - in this decade, they have closed their eyes to evidence that carbohydrate restriction is beneficial for reversing insulin resistance and correcting lipid levels. As the following article (and a few thousand others) note, there is an irrational obsession with fat in the diet, which has not led to much improvement in patients.

"Current nutritional approaches to metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes generally rely on reductions in dietary fat. The success of such approaches has been limited and therapy more generally relies on pharmacology. The argument is made that a re-evaluation of the role of carbohydrate restriction, the historical and intuitive approach to the problem, may provide an alternative and possibly superior dietary strategy. The rationale is that carbohydrate restriction improves glycemic control and reduces insulin fluctuations which are primary targets. Experiments are summarized showing that carbohydrate-restricted diets are at least as effective for weight loss as low-fat diets and that substitution of fat for carbohydrate is generally beneficial for risk of cardiovascular disease. These beneficial effects of carbohydrate restriction do not require weight loss. Finally, the point is reiterated that carbohydrate restriction improves all of the features of metabolic syndrome."

(Nutr Metab. 2008 Apr 8;5:9. Dietary carbohydrate restriction in type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome: time for a critical appraisal. Accurso A, Bernstein RK, Dahlqvist A, Draznin B, Feinman RD, Fine EJ, Gleed A, Jacobs DB, Larson G, Lustig RH, Manninen AH, McFarlane SI, Morrison K, Nielsen JV, Ravnskov U, Roth KS, Silvestre R, Sowers JR, Sundberg R, Volek JS, Westman EC, Wood RJ, Wortman J, Vernon MC.)

>> That "evidence" has nothing to do with heart disease, which is the subject of this thread.

You may believe that the article has nothing to do with heart disease - but it was titled "Dietary saturated fats and their food sources in relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women." Good luck persuading others that it isn't about heart disease.

Sorry...I was referring to the other study you cited, which had nothing to do with heart disease.

The paper you cited on coronary heart disease in women was also of questionable relevance; as I said in an earlier post:

"Its conclusions are that a particular type of saturated fat (stearic acid) isn't any different than other types of saturated fat when it comes to the risk of heart disease. While the study's abstract says nothing about coconut oil, the authors do warn of heart risk in general from saturated fat - and we know that coconut oil is high in saturated fat."

One can (a) cobble together a paper here and a study there that are outside the scientific consensus on diet and heart disease, play connect-the-dots and be a guinea pig for someone's untested theories.

Or we can (b) act on the basis of the best, up to date evidence from experts in the field.

I'll go with option (b).

>> Or we can (b) act on the basis of the best, up to date evidence from experts in the field.

Again, you are confusing opinions and conclusions with evidence, while ignoring the social nature of determining 'expertise.' The notion that any one that disagrees with you is an amateur that is 'cobbling' something together in their basement is ridiculous.

The connection between dietary fat, blood lipids, and heart disease is weaker than many people assume. A high intake of carbohydrates, on the other hand, is strongly associated with disordered blood lipids and heart disease.

From the paper linked to below:

The diet-heart hypothesis states that dietary fat, or at least saturated fat, promotes CVD. There are, however, numerous counter-examples and the popular and scientific literature has seriously challenged many of the underlying assumptions of the hypothesis [28-33]. In fact, total fat in the diet is not associated with an increase in CVD, as shown by experiments going back to Ancel Keys's Seven Country Study [34]and, most recently and dramatically, the Women's Health Initiative [35].

...

A primary goal of current recommendations is to put limits on dietary saturated fat but published results are inconsistent (see e.g. [42]). Several critical reviews have pointed up the general failure to meet the kind of unambiguous outcomes that would justify blanket condemnation of saturated fat, per se [29,30,41,43,44]. ... Notably, during the obesity and diabetes epidemic, the proportion of dietary saturated fat decreased. In men, the absolute amount decreased by 14%. Perhaps most remarkable was a study by Mozaffarian [45] which showed that greater intake of saturated fat was associated with reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis; greater carbohydrate intake was linked to increased progression.

Here is a link that might be useful: Dietary carbohydrate restriction, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and blood lipids.

The study you cite is not about treating people with congestive heart failure (its focus is on diabetes and metabolic syndrome), does not recommend intake of coconut oil to treat CHF, and insofar as it refers to diet and heart disease, it relies on evidence that is considerably "weaker" than that influencing mainstream thinking.

For example - the Journal of the American Dietetic Association recently published a large-scale review of dietary factors important in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease.

"The review of more than 150 recent research studies and other articles "provide scientific rationale for food and nutrition professionals and other health professionals for counseling patients," according to the nationwide expert panel led by registered dietitian Linda Van Horn, professor and acting chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University and editor-in-chief of the Journal.

The panel examined the state of current research on the effectiveness of foods, nutrients and food components in reducing cardiovascular disease risk factors while also meeting a personÂs nutrient needs, and identified areas where further research is needed. The expert panelÂs findings also provide the basis for ADAÂs Disorders of Lipid Metabolism Guides for Practice, a detailed resource for clinicians that is available to subscribers to ADAÂs Evidence Analysis Library, www.adaevidencelibrary.com.

"Numerous dietary factors/nutrients have been identified that affect (cardiovascular disease) risk factors," the researchers write. "An individualized dietary pattern is recommended to optimize CVD risk factor reduction while meeting nutrient needs."

The review identifies effective "dietary considerations" including a diet that:

Is low is saturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids and dietary cholesterol;
Is "ample" in total dietary fiber with emphasis on soluble fiber;
Includes fat-free/low-fat dairy foods and/or other calcium/vitamin D-rich sources;
Is rich in vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals and antioxidants from multiple servings of fruits and vegetables and low in sodium;

May include plant sterols and stanols* in high-risk individuals; and
Achieves a healthful body weight and calorie balance with the recommended dietary intervention by increasing physical activity and maintaining adequate calorie intake."

Nothing in there recommending coconut oil.

I've no idea what "the social nature of expertise" is. I think what it boils down to is you're OK with expert opinion, as long as those particular experts agree with you (and regardless of what the great preponderance of evidence and expert opinion based on it concludes).

Finally, I did not say that anyone who disagrees with me is an "amateur". Please refrain from the use of strawmen.

*you can get plant sterols/stanols in your diet by eating many kinds of fruits, vegetables and nuts, as well as through...

>> The study you cite is not about treating people with congestive heart failure (its focus is on diabetes and metabolic syndrome), does not recommend intake of coconut oil to treat CHF, ...

Of course not. I connect the dots, and you try to erase them: * insulin resistance is a major independent risk factor for congestive heart issues; * insulin resistance is essential for the development of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. * Insulin levels are more important in determining serum cholesterol than diet, because one's own liver produces more cholesterol than one eats, and * high insulin levels stimulates cholesterol synthesis, and * carbohydrates stimulate insulin production.

The AHA and other mainstream experts dismissed and warned against carb-restricted or low-carb diets because it flies against their theories that fat in the diet leads to more cholesterol and fat in the blood, and that saturated fats are always bad. But what is the evidence on carbohydrate restricted diet? They lower cardiovascular risk factors and they reverse insulin resistance - even more than the low fat diet that most doctors recommend.

"A low-carb diet and a Mediterranean-style regimen helped people lose more weight than a traditional low-fat diet in one of the longest and largest studies to compare the dueling weight-loss techniques.

A bigger surprise: The low-carb diet improved cholesterol more than the other two. Some critics had predicted the opposite."

That's only a surprise if one rejects the theory with greater predictive value: the one I presented. It fits better with the facts.

Guess what Eric? That study doesn't specifically recommend coconut oil either ... it merely provides proof that many of your theories and objections are disconnected from reality, and that saturated fat in the diet does not necessarily translate to unhealthy arteries (particularly when carbs are restricted). In fact, it is often the opposite - a lower risk profile with a diet higher in fat and saturated fat.

Combine that with the fact that coconut oil is rich is medium-chain triglyercides (which are metabolized differently than the typical saturated fat), which can pass into muscles even when the carnitine transport mechanism is faulty - as it often is in congestive heart disease - and that amounts to a reasonable rationale for including coconut in the diet of people with congestive hearts.

>> Finally, I did not say that anyone who disagrees with me is an "amateur". Please refrain from the use of strawmen.

No, merely that they cobble ... if you don't like how I characterized your statement, please clarify ... what is the definition of cobble? Does it not imply shoddy? Webster's seems to think so .... "to make or put together roughly or hastily". Isn't that how you are describing the things you disagree with?

Here is a link that might be useful: Low-carb diet found best for weight, cholesterol

Your latest linked study deals with weight loss.

It's not about treating congestive heart failure.

It makes no recommendation for using coconut oil.

It does not recommend discarding proven therapeutic interventions in favor of any of the supplements you've suggested in this thread.

Your dots remain unconnected.

Lucy said something that I just can't let stand "I guess you could find e.g. some locally made donuts or something in a little rural area that are made with lard (yuck!) but highly unlikely in a supermkt."

For the record I'd just like to say that lard is delicious and if you disagree you should keep it to your self; cows and pigs have ears too and you might hurt their feelings.

Brendan, what are you smoking so early in the day?

Meat, probably.

It was only 12:45, which really classifies as late at night in my book, time zones.

I find Apollog's dots pretty easy to connect. Apparently Eric requires that the "experts" connect them for him.

Connect-the-dots just doesn't cut it in any aspect of science. Patients don't take to it very well when they see the doctor, either.

"What's that ma'am? Is this drug safe and effective in treating your ailment? Well, there are some promising results in rats. And a related drug might be beneficial in a disease that's kind of like yours, but not exactly. So if you connect the dots in just the right way...

Wait...where are you going? Don't you want to be on the cutting edge of therapeutics?"

:)

>> Connect-the-dots just doesn't cut it in any aspect of science.

To the contrary. Extrapolation, interpolation, and deductive logic are part of science, as is literally connecting the dots. Here's a nice page on the topic. ;)

Here is a link that might be useful: Dr. Shawn's Super Science Project: How to Connect the Dots.

"Extrapolation, interpolation, and deductive logic are part of science"

They are for predictive purposes, hypothesis generation. They do not count for beans in the conclusion department. Extrapolation is especially dicey because it involves statistics and statisticians say "DO NOT extrapolate very far" Extrapolation is highly risky, and the further you go the more risky you get. Medicine is set up to reduce unnecessary risk, thats the whole point of medicine, making living less of a risk of dying.

Having an inquiring mind is a key attribute for anyone doing original work in a scientific field. But you can't stop there.

"Let's see - I deduce that the HIV virus would make a great vehicle for delivering my new cancer drug. And I extrapolate that a drug that works in a test tube would perform just as well in humans. Whee! Let's go get some beer!"

You can brag on your impeccable deductive logic and extrapolative/interpolative skills all you want in front of your PhD defense committee, to the peer review panel in the journal where you want your article printed, or to the foundation that you want to give you money for research. They'll all come back with some variation of these far more powerful words in science:

"Show me the money." :)

>> They [the American Heart Association] are not 'authorities' who advise us on heart-healthy strategies because they like bossing us around. They're concerned with keeping us as healthy as possible.

There's no evidence that they are better than snake oil salesmen, although there is evidence that they are better at playing the game:

'The article, about stroke victims, said that the clot-buster 'tPA was shown in 1996 to save lives.' Yet in 2001, the American Heart Association (AHA) had withdrawn the claim that the drug 'saves lives' from its promotion of tPA for stroke after the group was challenged to provide scientific evidence to support that claim. The AHA was also the subject of scrutiny when it was revealed that in the decade prior to its recommendation that doctors use tPA for stroke victims, the heart association had received $11 million from Genentech, tPAÂs manufacturer.'

They endorse products without having any real evidence that the product really is safe and effective, and they just happen to accept 'donations' of millions of dollars from the company that makes the product. And you think we should trust them?

Here is a link that might be useful: Discover Magazine - Wonder Drugs that can Kill

Of course, the above has nothing to do with the unproven claims for various herbs/supplements and treating heart failure made previously in this thread. But it's a common tactic among alt med proponents when arguments fail, to attempt to change the subject and attack the messenger, in this case the American Heart Association:

apollog: They endorse products without having any real evidence that the product really is safe and effective"

So, clot-buster drugs like tPA are just nasty things foisted on us by Big Pharma and don't save lives?

"Research has shown that, althongh thrombolysis for AIS is associated with increased short-term mortality, this is offset by a signficant benefit in terms of reduced long-term death and disability. Recent observational data have shown that it can be safely and effectively delivered in the "normal" clinical setting (ie, a non-research environment). Furthermore, thrombolysis for AIS is supported by the Royal College of Physicians and the National Insititute for Health and Clinical Excellence."

And a Cochrane review of 18 research trials on anti-clot agents found that the evidence suggested tPA was safer than the other drugs tested and yielded more benefit:

"Overall, thrombolytic therapy given within 6 hours of stroke reduced death or dependency (ie, more patients alive and independent) at 3 to 6 months."

tPA is not for everybody, but yes, it's a potential lifesaver and can keep you from being permanently paralyzed in some cases.

Maybe you should broaden your reading beyond Discover magazine.

Let us know when you find any real evidence supporting your contention that it's a good idea to treat congestive heart failure with coconut oil.

The (non-herbal) supplement L-carnitine has been promoted for a variety of medical conditions, but for most of them (including heart failure) there's a lack of good evidence that they're effective. Most people's bodies make all the L-carnitine they need.

L-carnitine is also contained in a number of foods:

"Red meat (particularly lamb) and dairy products are the primary sources of carnitine. It can also be found in fish, poultry, tempeh, wheat, asparagus, avocados, and peanut butter."

So a proper balanced diet can be used to obtain carnitine, without having to buy supplements. For those with certain common medical conditions (including hypertension, diabetes and peripheral vascular disease) it's recommended that you consult with your doctor before taking L-carnitine.

Here is a link that might be useful: Carnitine and health claims

Can't beleive this has come up again!!!
I have CHF. Have had for years.
I take nothing for it except a sensible diabetic diet. I have actually improved. I suggest you find the old diet sheet(Not the new one)and follow it religiously.
It's fine to see a doctor but please check on internet for acurate advise. More and more netsites are coming online complaining of the wrong meds and advice from the medical establishment. American health care is a very sick puppy.
I do have something good to say for surgeons. I recently had cataract surgery on both eyes, A complete success.
Also more and more people are unable to afford medical care in the US. If you are middle income or less you as an American are very likely to be priced out of any health care period. It seems to me the only choice we have is to go to herbal care or a foreign country.(Except for surgery.) You'll be paying the rest of your life(insurance or not)for possible inaccurate care. It sure is not going to hurt anyone to study herbal cures and never just one source. Use at least six.Search out the truthful sites. Not the herbal sellers nor the medical profession. They have their own axes to grind. You have a mind! Use it!
This site is probably the worst site to come for info.
If anyone is intrested in other sites LMK. I'll post a couple. Garden Web is a great place, Jut not this forum.

If only going to a half-dozen websites for advice on "cures" guaranteed you'd find accurate information. Instead, you're likely to get conflicting sales pitches for various supplements, based only on worthless testimonials or maybe some small study on what cells did in a test tube. Assuming that someone offering treatment is trustworthy because they're located abroad is another recipe for failure.

Much better not to rely on quantity of sources (or any that are out to sell you something) or country of origin, but to consult a few trusted and reliable ones that are staffed by professionals and list documentation (i.e. research) that you can check out yourself. They'll give you solid advice on what treatments offer the best chance of living a long, healthy and active life with CHF, instead of promising "cures" that don't exist.

Here is a link that might be useful: Congestive heart failure, causes and treatment

As far as diet goes, a lot of alt med sources try to give the impression that mainstream medicine ignores the role of diet in disease while on the other hand they pay proper attention to it (which usually means promoting unproven supplements and fad diets).

The reality is that proper diet has long been emphasized by mainstream medicine as a key part of preventing and treating heart disease (and numerous other medical conditions).

A recent review by the American Dietetic Association stressed the following keys to a heart-healthy diet:

"The panel examined the state of current research on the effectiveness of foods, nutrients and food components in reducing cardiovascular disease risk factors while also meeting a person's nutrient needs, and identified areas where further research is needed.

"Numerous dietary factors/nutrients have been identified that affect (cardiovascular disease) risk factors," the researchers write. "An individualized dietary pattern is recommended to optimize CVD risk factor reduction while meeting nutrient needs."

The review identifies effective "dietary considerations" including a diet that:

Is low is saturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids and dietary cholesterol;
Is "ample" in total dietary fiber with emphasis on soluble fiber;
Includes fat-free/low-fat dairy foods and/or other calcium/vitamin D-rich sources;
Is rich in vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals and antioxidants from multiple servings of fruits and vegetables and low in sodium;
May include plant sterols and stanols in high-risk individuals; and
Achieves a healthful body weight and calorie balance with the recommended dietary intervention by increasing physical activity and maintaining adequate calorie intake. "

Here's another good article on the basics of a heart-healthy diet.

Darlin, Like i said "It's the same as a good ole fashioned diabetic diet." Glad to see you on the ball eric.
Has anyone thought about starting a new thread on this subject? It takes forever to get down this far on this thread. And link to it of course.
Trusted and reliable professional sources are totally unreliable in this country when the American Health Care SYSTEM IS RANKED 37(Just ahead of Cuba and falling almost every year.) Have to admit that Herbalism is'nt much better here.

"Trusted and reliable professional sources are totally unreliable in this country"

So now you're saying that we should ignore recommendations for a heart-healthy diet, since they come from those same professionally trained and experienced sources whom you view as "totally unreliable"?

Very puzzling.

I take fish oil caplets, when I remember to take them or can choke down the pills. They are huge and I don't swallow, so I chew them. They are supposed to be good for heart conditions.

Here's a list of herbs listed, if they haven't already been. Also getting rid of red meat out your diet is usually recommended for heart disease. You should ask your doctor what kinds of vitamins and diet he approves of, or just tell him what you are interested in to see if he says it might help.

I don't think doctors are taught anything about herbal cures. They preach diet, but nothing on herbal stuff.

Here is a link that might be useful: herbs

People with heart disease would be well advised to consult their doctor and take the path of effective treatment through diet, drugs, perhaps light exercise and for some, surgery.

Heart disease is not the realm of herbal medicine practitioners as they have no proven remediation for it.

Reghards, John

Typically the signs of HIV can be felt earlier or later which differs from one person to other.

Here is a link that might be useful: Early Symptoms of HIV