Talk:Coconut oil

Coconut weight

Under 'Production' the article claims "A thousand mature coconuts weighing approximately 8,640 kilograms ". This is saying that a single coconut weighs 8.6 kilos? Not the coconuts in my backyard! Coconuts do NOT weigh more than my printer!

A UCF file on biodiesel lists coconuts weighing approximately 1.56 lb or 0.7 kg ([1]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.123.138 (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the sentence originally I believe, and it looks like I was simply wrong. I checked the source that was attached and it gives a weigh of about 1.44 kg, so your edit was completely correct. Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fractionation section is broken - can someone with expertise please advise and fix?

Here is the text from the extended draft, which is I think what was originally in the main article and seemed to make perfect sense to me:

Fractionated coconut oil is a fraction of the whole oil, in which the different medium chain fatty acids are separated for specific uses. Lauric acid, a 12 carbon chain fatty acid, is often removed because of its high value for industrial and medical purposes. Fractionated coconut oil may also be referred to as caprylic/capric triglyceride oil or medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oil because it is primarily the medium chain caprylic (8 carbons) and capric (10 carbons) acids that make up the bulk of the oil. MCT oil is most frequently used for medical applications and special diets.

but now it has been messily edited so that it does not. I'm not sufficiently expert to know whether the attempt to distinguish between fractionated coconut oil and caprice/caprylic trigliceride has any scientific validity and there are no citations to support it. I do know that in practical, industrial application and on ingredients labels, the two terms are used interchangeably. Whatever the case the text can't stay like this:

Fractionated coconut oil may be confused to be referred to as caprylic/capric triglyceride oil or medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) oil because it is primarily the medium-chain caprylic (8 carbons) and capric (10 carbons) acids that make up the bulk of the oil. Caprylic capric is extract from fractionated coconut oil but they strip out caprylic (C:8) and capric (C:10) fatty acids from coconut, so it not the same thing and shouldn't be confused being the same thing. MCT oil is most frequently used for medical applications and special diets.

Because it isn't English, does not make sense & has no citations to support it.

Can someone with the appropriate expertise advise whether the intent of this edit is correct and either correct or replace it please? Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Failing that I propose to revert to to the text from the extended draft.Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Chemist here. I just read that section and was quite concerned. I'll take care of it. Mutinus (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This section was re-broken by the original editor, who has not engaged here to explain what s/he is doing so I've reverted it back to the version provided by Mutinus in response to my request for help. Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Made some minor edits above for readability (blockquotes and indents)

My concern is that the section is not sourced. I don't really have the expertise to fix it, and the whole section could be removed without issue. I will look, not too hard, for some information, but I don't know if I'll be successful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This link seems to support the idea that the two terms are indeed interchangeable (which accords with my experience within the perfumery world) and also the idea that the triglycerides in question are extracted from coconut oil. I've not been able to find anything amongst my own chemistry books on it, which is why I sought help in the first place. I think the section is worth having because many people will see the terms used on ingredients labels and want to look them up - if it's correct that they are the same the information belongs here, if it isn't it's useful to dispel a widespread misconception. --Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That page is definitely not a WP:MEDRS, and I would question its general use as a source. It appears to be written by a ND, which I believe is a naturopath - a nonscientific discipline that are among the greatest offenders in believing food is medicine is magic. I would heartily suggest looking for better sources on google scholar or books. You can get a surprising amount of full free text information from both, particularly if logged into a google (i.e gmail) account. It sounds like you might have some background knowledge here - would you be able to tackle the sourcing? My chem isn't near good enough. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Agree re the dodgy link, and thanks for the hint re Google Scholar and Books which I should have thought to use myself. I think this one: Wiley Online Library abstract clarifies that coconut oil consists of the relevant triglycerides and that they are in practice extracted from coconut oil on an industrial scale by fractionation.--Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've now found a book link which clearly shows the industrial process by which this is done: p1108 onwards in Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry --Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Both excellent publishers, you can use this webpage to automatically generate a citation template for the google books link, and {{cite doi}} to generate one for the journal article (it looks like this: {{cite doi | PUT DOI HERE }}). Make sure to check the actual citation in the references section though, you may have to click on the "jump the queue" link to get it to actually populate. You can also try pubmed for sources, but it obviously would miss journals without medical applications (biochem probably OK, industrial engineering less likely). It actually looks like you can get full PDFs of the Gervajio chapter via the "All 7 versions" link in google scholar, though they are likely copyright violations and we should not link to them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those tips. I think I've got it properly referenced now and I'm also now confident that what I thought I knew before was correct (which is nearly as good as learning something new) so happy this section is now as it should be, though there might be room to clarify that the three terms used do mean slightly different things. I'll think about that and add another day if it seems useful, or the edit proves controversial. --Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Partially hydrogenated coconut oil

In the Health section is a quote: ""Most of the studies involving coconut oil were done with partially hydrogenated coconut oil, which researchers used because they needed to raise the cholesterol levels of their rabbits in order to collect certain data. Virgin coconut oil, which has not been chemically treated, is a different thing in terms of a health risk perspective. And maybe it isn’t so bad for you after all."

In the table about the Composition of various oils, coconut oil is included but there is no indication if that is "partially hydrogenated coconut oil" or virgin kind that "isn’t so bad for you after all." Based on the quote, it seems this may be an important difference. Could someone add the information about both types to the table? Thanks. CBHA (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Health organizations against

An IP has removed the following piece three times: "Many health organizations advise against the consumption of high amounts of coconut oil due to its high levels of saturated fat."

On my talk page, the editor explained, "coconut oil is very heathly for you give me a souce where health companies think its bad for you mma fighters n athelets eat it everyday"

I replied, "That various athletes use it does not, in any way, demonstrate that it is healthy to do so. The "Health" section cites numerous organizations (United States Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, International College of Nutrition, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, British National Health Service, and Dietitians of Canada) saying as much. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks." (As the text is in the lede summary, we typically do not cite the claim there when it is extensively sourced later in the article.)

Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Composition

There used to be a detailed composition of the fatty acid profile on this oil, and it's been replaced altogether with a chart that summarizes the composition in comparison to other oils. Can someone please add back the detailed composition of this oil? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spudchick (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes to lead

The changes to lead violate several guidelines and policies including WP:MEDRS for sourcing, WP:LEAD, and WP:NPOV in setting up poor sourcing as superior to the medical consensus by implying the medical consensus is a "misconception". Yobol (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, the edit misrepresented the sources by making them appear to be stating things they did not state. Or the edit had a original research problem - the edit appeared to say that organizations like LiveStrong and diabetesincontrol.com know better than the WHO, the DHHS, the ADA, and other well-respected international organizations, but the actual sources appearing on those pages don't even mention the WHO, DHHS, ADA, etc. Zad68 02:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This article has reoccurring problems of this nature, NPOV and BATTLE problems centering around (and usually ignoring the information in) Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy.

We just need to keep an eye on the article. --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It just goes to show you that there's no such thing as an article you can expect to be free from this sort of conflict... Zad68 04:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. It's not that bad. After all, no one has suggested that the "truth" is being suppressed by a super-secret international conspiracy of doctors, health agencies and vegetable oil manufacturers. Yet. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Shhhhhh!! Zad68 12:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone here dispute the definition of medium and long-chain fatty acids? Does anyone here dispute that coconut oil is made up of roughly two-thirds medium-chain fatty acids? Does anyone here dispute the difference between refined coconut oil, hydrogenated coconut oil and extra virgin coconut oil? THC Loadee 20:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by THC Loadee (talk • contribs)

I changed my sources to conform with WP:MEDRS. Yet, my edits are still being vandalized. This is ridiculous.THC Loadee 01:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If, as you quoted on your talk page, "Edit warring over content is not vandalism", then your edits are not being vandalized. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if no one is going to address my concerns here on the talk page then I suppose that means there is no problem with my edits. -THC Loadee 08:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• As an fyi, reverting additions to content (including in an edit-warring situation) is not a minor edit. Examples of minor edits include "typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content". I'm looking at AutomaticStrikeout and User:Apokryltaros. As far as the content, I would recommend using the strongest source, like the 2010 Dietary Guideline, and dropping older references and the dead-links (seems to be a few). Surprisingly, THC Loadee did not start with an obvious source such as "Once a Villain, Coconut Oil Charms the Health Food World" (2011, NY Times). Unfortunately, the Cornell scientist quoted in the article, Tom Brenna, does not seem to have ever published the coconut oil lit review mentioned, although he's been publishing a fair amount. The literature on coconut oil still appears very thin, with one 2012 review (Coconut Oil for Alzheimer’s Disease?; questionable publisher, but decent article) finding only 3 human studies total. II | (t - c) 07:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)