Talk:Coconut oil

There is some evidence that certain saturated fats don't cause heart disease. Not sure if the saturated fat in coconut oil has any of these, but worth looking into. ^{— Unsigned, by: 75.135.145.202 / talk / contribs}

Wow........... talk about an outdated, obsolete, and backwards article. "Rational" Wiki? Really, guys? ^{— Unsigned, by: 142.197.113.197 / talk / contribs}

Citations[edit]

This article is just a bunch of assertions with no references to back them up. If anyone knows any, please add them.--Krej^talk 03:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the claim "You might as well eat lard or shortening for what that will do to your cholesterol levels." resounds like hollow woo like without the corresponding references.--

Brasov 16:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Just 1 Tbsp is *HALF* of your daily saturated fat! "Healthy" my ass! P.S. Check out the woo-meister at wholenewmom.com24.130.145.40 (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the key issue with this article is the belief that the saturated fats in coconut oil are the same as those found in butter (long-chain triglycerides). The fat in coconut oil is MCT, medium-chain triglycerides.

see here: WP:Medium-chain_triglycerides ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.98.112.97 / talk / contribs} 14:34 (UTC) 7 October 2013

Poisoning the well?[edit]

had to check my clock. after reading this article i thought it was 1950, but we're in fact living in 2014. the opening sentence is pathetic: "Coconut oil is currently being touted by some in the fad diet industry as a health food." by that logic, i can easily write "RationalWiki is currently being touted by some in the conspiracy theory community as a reliable source of up-to-date, unbiased information." how 'bout them apples? i just destroyed the entire site's credibility with a single sentence! (this article is embarrassing) ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.110.112.9 / talk / contribs} 8 June 2014

herp derp[edit]

If you take a tablespoon with each meal plus fry your eggs, bacon, and goat burgers in it, don't be surprised when you wind up in heart surgery having it taken out of your arteries with a plumber's helper. —

Is this article indicative of the consensus on informational quality at RationalWiki? The article is at least as irrational as any "woo" (you people love that word) from any soccer mom. Even calling oneself rational is dangerous for fear of being associated with this teenage drivel. For instance, the evidence given against the claims for coconut oil's healthfulness cite its high saturated fat content and the RDA for saturated fat; never mind that the express claims of coconut oil proponents are that saturated fat is not unhealthful and that the RDA is misinformed. Nice straw man/diversion/evasion, guys.

which is known to be horrible for your cholestrol picture —

I hope the author never tries to argue science with scientists because "known to be horrible" is going to get you laughed at. And the editor even highlights spelling mistakes for you.

Kevin Trudeau promotes taking coconut oil, which is probably a good sign you should run, not walk, in the other direction. —

Sweet ad hominem, association fallacy, appeal to motive, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, and hyperbole bro. All in one sentence; that's impressive.

If your taste or texture relies on saturated fat, virgin coconut oil is about the best you can use. That doesn't make it good. —

Whoever came to this website and decided to write this should be embarrassed.

Its an excellent sexual lubricant. Occasionally particles of the outer coconut shell give it a slightly grimy feel, but it lasts a long time and smells good. (Don't use oil-based lubricants with a condom, though.) —

This is purely subjective and I can't figure out why it's here. This belongs in the "Common Uses" section on Wikipedia.

It looks like this is maintained by long-term contributors User:Tracer and User:Krej. As a first-time visitor to the site I think you guys have hilariously misunderstood what it is you are purporting to be and do.

--149.169.125.194 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right about this not being a very good article, and I'd like to improve it, but I lack the expertise to do so. In the meantime I've added a "more sources needed" template.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I was definitely way too nasty with my above comments and I'm impressed that you responded so objectively. I'm a biochemist with training in nutrition and I've followed this subject so I'll see if I can add anything better than vapid complaints.149.169.122.19 (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I await your contributions with interest.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 04:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

IP Addresses claiming it's good?[edit]

Are companies really that bad at sockpuppeting? --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Are creationists religious?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 08:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Lubricant citation?[edit]

Back this up please

Article formatting[edit]

I'm putting this up just as an FYI and probably an invitation, but this article needs to be changed into prose format to be in line with the majority of the articles here. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 18:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Another citation[edit]

Is here.

You pays your money and you makes your choice. Anna Livia (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)