Hi, ST. You asked if I had any articles on the negative cognitive effects with "CO/MCT oil", but I can't find your post, so I thought I'd start a new thread so you'd see it.

First, please note that coconut oil and MCT oil should not be lumped together when looking at the impact on cognitive function. MCT oil contains only caprylic and capric triglycerides. Coconut oil contains low amounts of these, but the bulk of the fats in coconut oil are the longer-chain saturated fats (lauric, myristic, stearic, and palmitic) that are considered to be health risks. The triglycerides in MCT oil are metabolized by a different pathway than the longer-chain saturated fats that constitute the bulk of coconut oil. MCT oil triglycerides are metabolized into ketone bodies in the liver. The longer-chain saturated fats are processed via the lymph system. The FDA and the American Heart Association consider lauric, myristic, stearic, and palmitic fats to constitute health risks, based on numerous studies done on human consumption that have linked these fats to a wide range of diseases.

MCT oil and its constituents have not been linked to any diseases, to my knowledge. They are "generally recognized as safe."

There is another big difference between these two types of fats. Dietary saturated fats are almost exclusively the longer-chain "health risk" fats. Very few foods contain caprylic and capric fats in any meaningful amounts. And, in foods that contain the "health risk" saturated fats, where you find one of those fats, you're going to find the others. Coconut oil is so high in "dietary" saturated fats compared to other foods, that it is often used as the source of those fats when studying their health effects.

Second, the overall diet needs to be taken into consideration when studying the impact of any one type of dietary component. Saturated fat metabolism is a very complicated thing, and health risks can be mitigated or exacerbated by other nutrients. For example, soluble fiber (e.g., found in breads and cereals), polyunsaturated fats (especially the omega-3's), and phytosterols can help minimize the negative effects of saturated fats and dietary cholesterol, whereas sugar, and high total caloric intake, can significantly exacerbate the negative health effects of saturated fats.

Third, saturated fat metabolism, and the health effects of those fats, can be affected by other factors, such as age, gender, and ethnic background (genes.) Because of this, I have not included studies done on younger subjects. Their responses to dietary constituents can be sharply different from those of adults, since the nutritional requirements of bodies and brains in the differentiation/growth/maturation stages can be sharply different from those of adults in the "maintenance" stage.

Because researchers are still very much on a steep learning curve when it comes to understanding fat metabolism, I focused my search on the recent papers, although I did look at some of the papers that were most frequently cited by recent studies and review articles. Animal models may be very poor at predicting what will happen in humans, so for the most part, I looked only at studies involving human consumption. However, it can be very difficult to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the impact of dietary constituents in humans, so I am also providing a handful of papers on animal model studies which are consistent with what we know about human fat metabolism and its impact on cognitive function.

I'm only listing a few of the better and/or groundbreaking papers, primarily those for which the full text is available online -- there are many more references, if you want them.

Papers that discuss the negative impact of dietary saturated fats on cognition, in adults:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17063038

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/c...cc56dd7d45cc175d5a73

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16257476

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/c...d95514a8d52ea6f9d025

http://archneur.ama-assn.org/c...66c7290bb3f4166bd8f2

http://www.alzheimersanddement...26006037769/fulltext

http://archneur.ama-assn.org/c...ontent/full/60/2/194

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11115801

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/4/1103

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9392577

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18188871

http://care.diabetesjournals.o...ontent/32/4/635.full

http://www.alzheimersanddement...(07)00003-9/abstract


Papers that discuss overall diets that affect cognitive function in adults:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15820606

http://www.serdi-fr.com/jnha/d...ents/06_burgerer.pdf

http://archneur.ama-assn.org/c...ntent/full/63/8/1085

http://www.rsamadonnadellapace...A%202008%20panza.pdf

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/d...aneanDietandRisk.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16256248

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15929630

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/66/4/803.pdf

(Please note: a Mediterranean diet is characterized by very low intake of saturated fat; high intake of vegetables, legumes, fruits, and cereals; high intake of unsaturated fatty acids (mostly in the form of olive oil); a moderately high intake of fish; a low-to-moderate intake of dairy products (mostly cheese or yogurt); a low intake of meat and poultry; and a regular but moderate amount of ethanol, primarily in the form of wine and generally during meals. For additional information on this diet, see our discussion at:

http://alzheimers.infopop.cc/e...=124104521#124104521


Select papers on animal model studies which may help elucidate the underlying mechanisms:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18926603

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g...ed&pubmedid=18651634

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/c.../abstract/29/28/9078

http://www.physci.ucla.edu/res...ications/Diet365.pdf

http://www.physci.ucla.edu/res...cations/Diet1699.pdf

http://neuronalsurvival.org/wp...006-eur-j-neurol.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19482049

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16674930

http://svaynman.com/XXXX-X_Baudry_Ch06_R1%20.pdf


With regard to the impact of saturated fats on behavior/mood ... generally speaking, the studies have looked at the negative impact of saturated fats on cognitive function, with worse cognitive dysfunction assumed to mean that there are more behavioral problems (depression, agitation, anxiety, aggression, etc.) I did, however, find that there were quite a few papers that discussed the positive impact of omega-fatty acids on mood (and the negative impact of too little dietary omega-fatty acids on depressive disorders). The positive effects of the polyunsaturated fats go hand-in-hand with the negative effects of the dietary saturated fats, as can be seen in the above papers on the underlying mechanisms and mitigating factors. A few example papers:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/c...f/1476-511x-3-25.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14653768

http://www.biovita.fi/suomi/pdf/Pauwels_2008.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17582225

http://rnd.edpsciences.org/ind.../01/r5101/r5101.html

JAB
Thank you! My need for this info is because I have a similiar question to Whitney on the Coconut Oil thread? eg. Can CO have negative cognitive symptoms? I will sift through all your awesomely organized references and see what may make connections for me.

THanks again for your effort!
ST

It is unarguably the conventional wisdom that a high-fat diet is unhealthy, leading to a myriad of bad health conditions.

However, we are not served by blindly accepting conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom says that there is nothing that can be done for an AD patient. We have to believe that this is not true. History tells us that conventional wisdom often relies on conventional assumptions, and changing those assumptions revises the conventional wisdom.

We need to question the assumptions, not to prove who's right and who's wrong, but so we can help our parents, spouses, siblings, friends, and maybe even children.

According to the Wikipedia entry for coconut oil, lauric acid is considered a medium-chain triglyceride. The entry for medium chain fatty acids says that lauric acid is metabolized the same way as capric and caprylic acids are. It is prudent to assume that Wikipedia entries can contain errors. Which is right?

I read several of the abstracts linked to above. One question I kept trying to find an answer for is , how much lauric acid was in the diets of those people and animals discussed in the referenced papers?

quote:

Originally posted by ST:
JAB
Thank you! My need for this info is because I have a similiar question to Whitney on the Coconut Oil thread? eg. Can CO have negative cognitive symptoms? I will sift through all your awesomely organized references and see what may make connections for me.

THanks again for your effort!
ST

Thanks, JAB.

Sid, if you "sift though the awesomely organized references" first let me know. Meanwhile I'm going to start sifting ASAP!!

I don't know how much MCT or CO my friend was giving her DH. I need to find out.

Swarfmaker, we have gone over this several times already. Under some conditions, some lauric triglyceride can be processed via the liver/ketone body system. There is absolutely no question that most of it is processed via the lymph system when humans consume coconut oil, since very high levels of lauric fatty acids are found in adipose tissue in people consuming high levels of coconut oil -- which you know perfectly well, since we've talked about that before.

Lauric has sometimes been called a medium-chain triglyceride, especially in the past, based solely on the number of carbons in its chain. As more has been learned about fat metabolism, lauric is more and more being called a long-chain triglyceride, since it has much more in common with LCTs than it has with caprylic and capric.

And who the heck cares what Wikipedia calls it, when what is important is the results from hundreds of studies that have been done on the effects of dietary saturated fats?

Not to mention, as I already pointed out, where you have one of the common dietary saturated fats, you're going to have the others. Are you seriously trying to suggest that in all of these studies -- not to mention the many others that I didn't bother to provide links for -- the people managed to avoid eating lauric fatty acids???

Coconut oil has been used in dozens of human consumption studies that showed very clear health risks. The underlying mechanisms involved in those health risks (which include diseases such as diabetes, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular disorders that are all risk factors for AD) are all consistent with the mechanisms believed to be involved in the adverse effects of saturated fats on cognitive function. Coconut oil itself was used in a quite a few of the studies that have been done on animal models to elucidate the possible mechanisms involved.

Everything is consistent with consumption of high levels of coconut oil posing a risk to our ADLOs.

I believe I have also suggested, on more than one occasion, that you need to read the full paper, not just the abstract. That's why I provided links to the full papers for any that are readily available over the web for free.

The fact that you say you only read a few of the abstracts makes it appear that you were rushing to defend coconut oil, rather than giving serious consideration to the fact that at least three people who post on this forum have reported problems with cognitive function developing in ADLOs that might have been caused by consuming high levels of coconut oil.

I wonder how many others are out there, having the same problems, and not realizing they might be due to the coconut oil. Or maybe they are starting to wonder, but certain people are trying to keep a lid on it.

What this all boils down to, is that I have yet to see any logical argument for using coconut oil rather than MCT oil alone, or Axona.

How's about we start questioning Newport's assumptions?

About a week ago, I began slightly reducing the CO dose for my partner and giving him a tablespoon of just MCT oils between the CO/MCT doses, in order to keep his ketone levels up. (Remember that I had stayed with the CO because it was reported to smooth out the peaks in ketone levels between doses.) His mental sharpness seemed to notch up a bit shortly after the MCT oil doses.

But about the time I made this change, he began waking up very early (before 5:00 a.m.) with severe anxiety attacks. We talked to his psychiatrist, and she said that high levels of ketones can induce anxiety. These attacks are very intense but soon taper off, and the day usually then proceeds normally.

Specific improvements in his condition are continuing, however. For instance, helping me make the beds had become very confusing for him, with his grabbing the wrong item or getting things turned and twisted. He now helps me with almost no trouble in following my lead. He has also begun to show an interest in reading again. While it is still difficult for him, he is able to follow a line of text more readily. I now often find him at his computer, reading various sites -- something he had virtually abandoned. And he is getting significantly better at noticing details and reminding me of things we need to do or of something I overlooked.

Has anyone had a similar experience with the anxiety attacks occurring in similar circumstances?

Thanks.

hmp10
I am wondering if my mum is having this increase in anxiety you are talking about. I had called it weepiness in another note but it seems to come from not knowing where we are going or not wanting to do something (and is fearful) eg. a shower. Her progression has been up and down like this so I just do not know. We have only been using the CO/MCT mixture at 6tbsp/day for 5 days having built up to that with no diarrhea the week or so before.

I have been wondering about why the use of the CO and not just MCT in our case. Balancing the risk of weight gain with the maintenance of ketone levels. My mum has gained significant weight since her disease began 4-6 years ago. SHe has always been slim so I am not wanting to add more weight. Because we live where the room temperature is rarely ever 76 degrees (yes the great white north) I have tried to mix the CO and MCT mixture as best I can and then put it in the fridge so it all solidifies and can be used as a butter etc. So just using MCT oil would be much simpler. We could still use the CO oil which is solid in our climate as a margarine replacement.

We meet with the geriatric psychiatrist tomorrow and hope he is open to helping us monitor this.

Should this discussion go back to the CO thread I feel I may have sidetracked folks?

quote:

Are you seriously trying to suggest that in all of these studies -- not to mention the many others that I didn't bother to provide links for -- the people managed to avoid eating lauric fatty acids

Why do I have to suggest anything? Don't these papers say?

While I am reading these papers, I will be keeping this question in my mind: Did these researcher record how much of each type of saturated fat was typically in the diet of the people in these studies? I will make no assumptions about quantities of lauric acid in these people's diets. I'll let the data speak for itself. If these papers are silent on this point, then I'll have to keep searching for an answer.

ST, I am rather confused myself.

My understanding is that the reason Dr. Newport kept CO in her mix is that it caused the ketone level in her husband's blood to be less "peaky", i.e., the level spiked later at a lower peak and stayed in his system longer.

I have asked both my partner's general practitioner and his psychiatrist if I should remove the CO from the mix. Both said there was no reason to do so. Also, I have been told epidemiological studies in regions that use coconut oil almost exclusively in cooking do not show elevated levels of cardiovascular disease or dementia. As I posted earlier, my partner's cholesterol and triglyceride levels are the best they've been in years, even though I understand these metrics might not tell the whole story.

Yet I remain uneasy at the warnings JAB keeps giving. That's why I've been experimenting with cutting back the CO in the mix and replacing it with MCT oil.

I have no idea whether that switch has anything to do with the anxiety attacks -- other than the coincidence of onset -- so I'm going to continue on this tack for a few more days to see if the anxiety settles down.

By the way, one morning during an attack, my partner sipped some concentrated pomegranate juice and within a few minutes felt the anxiety easing off. We tried that again this morning, and he again felt it eased the attack. I suspect this might be a placebo effect but, again, I have no way of knowing for sure.

The pharmeceutical industry has no real incentive to test the efficacy of MCT oils or the optimal dosing, as the product is widely available over the counter. I really wish the NIH would get behind this research, which is what Dr. Newport is pushing.

I feel as if I'm wandering around in a dark room with the key to a really big puzzle lying somewhere on the floor. I might find the key by fumbling around . . . or I might break the most valuable thing in the room.

hmp10 and ST, are you making sure your ADLOs are getting plenty of the essential polyunsaturated fats? Omega-3 supplements, fish (esp salmon and tuna), etc? Too little of those can cause depression (see that last set of references in my first post). Raising the level of saturated fats by eating coconut oil lowers the polyunsaturated/saturated fat ratio.

quote:

I have been told epidemiological studies in regions that use coconut oil almost exclusively in cooking do not show elevated levels of cardiovascular disease or dementia.

I looked into those studies, rather than simply accepting someone else's word (especially someone who is trying to sell coconut oil) as to what had been done, what had been found, and what had actually been concluded.

The study which is the one most often cited, by far, is also the only study I found that was designed even halfway properly. It was done more than 40 years ago on two populations in Polynesia. What makes this study far better than the others is that the researchers actually looked at a number of factors that we now know could affect saturated fat metabolism, such as the other constituents in the diet. They also considered the possible effects of age and gender.

The cholesterol levels of both populations were up in the ozone (something that most coconut oil proponents fail to mention), with the group that consumed more coconut having significantly higher cholesterol levels.

The researchers concluded -- and stated clearly, even in the abstract -- that the higher serum cholesterol levels were due to the higher saturated fat intake.

The HDL/LDL ratios were not measured.

The study was not designed to correlate saturated fat consumption or serum cholesterol levels with rates of cardiovascular disease. Rather, these researchers were attempting to address whether there was any relationship between cholesterolemia and diet. And, in fact, they found one.

These two populations were chosen because they were very isolated, and therefore not affected by Western culture. We have no way of knowing whether the rates of cardiovascular disease would ever be accurately measured in either population, but one suspects not, especially given what the researchers themselves said. They took "12 lead ECGs", and noted that the "rate of subnormal Q waves, Minnesota Code I1 and I2 was very low in both groups. The samples of adults on the two atolls are, however, too small for definitive studies of coronary heart disease and vascular disease." In other words, they did make an attempt to look at cardiovascular disease -- presumably because no medical records were available -- but could do very little in such a third-world population and could draw no reliable conclusions from such small populations.

The levels of dementia have never, to my knowledge, been considered in any of the epidemiology studies cited by the coconut oil proponents, nor was dementia even mentioned in this paper.

The people who were studied ranged in age from 15 to 64 with roughly 90% of them under the age of 55. The researchers did not study children under the age of 15. Aside from that, the paper states flatly that "all members of the population were studied" for one of the groups, and 99% were examined from the other group.

These two populations die at quite an early age. Which leads one to wonder how healthy a diet high in coconut fat really is.

Another significant point: the researchers did measure the fat composition of adipose tissue samples collected from both populations, and found that both contained very high levels of lauric and myristic fatty acids, in comparison with the rest of the world -- something else the coconut oil proponents fail to mention, since it confirms that lauric is processed via the lymph system.

Perhaps even more importantly, it turns out that these Polynesians eat a very high-fat / very low carbohydrate diet -- i.e., what amounts to a ketogenic diet. The group with the lower serum cholesterol levels even tended to feast on Sundays but eat little in between, and "would sometimes eat little or nothing for a whole day or more," a dietary pattern that is even more ketogenic.

Moreover, fish was the primary source of protein, and the diet was rich in fiber -- both polyunsaturated fats and dietary fiber are now known to affect saturated fat absorption/digestion/metabolism -- and both populations ate essentially no sucrose (which is now known to exacerbate the adverse impacts of saturated dietary fats). If the two populations did, indeed, have low rates of cardiovascular disease, then it was likely to be because of the mitigating effects of the overall diet.

I give my ADLO two fish oil capsules a day and recently added Lovaza, a prescription fish oil ester provided by his brother, who is an M.D.

I note that the study you examined said the cholesterol levels were very high for the people who consumed coconut oil. My ADLO's level did rise from 191 to 210 since beginning the CO/MCT. However, his HDL rose from 28 to 43 (higher being better) and his Chol/HDL ratio dropped from 6.8 to 4.9 (lower being better). This simply does not square with conventional medical wisdom about ingesting high levels of saturated fats.

I understand your argument that other deleterious things might be occuring, but these measurements run counter to what most studies you point out say should happen when ingesting high amounts of saturated fats (using the medical rather than the chemical definition of "saturated"). I simply do not know what to make of that, other than to point out it is what the proponents of coconut oil say will happen, not what the opponents say will happen.

However, I am still continuing to taper off on the CO and ramp up on the MCT to guage his response.

By the way, he did not have an early-morning anxiety attack today for the first time in almost two weeks. On his psychiatrist's advice, I ramped the morning dose of risperidone up from 0.5 to 1.0 mg a few days ago, and that might be taking effect.

in our experience even a .25mg change in Risperidone makes a within the hour difference.

thanks for the fish oil. I know mum has always done that on her own but I have not checked to see what is happening now that she is no longer administering her own meds.

JAB- I read through all of the articles in your first post. Most are abstracts and therefore don't offer much detail. None of these articles specifies what types of oils the individuals were using, and more to the point, coconut oil was not mentioned in any of them. Another big problem is that there is no mention of whether the fats were hydrogenated, or not, in any of these studies. As we know, in this country, a considerable amount of saturated fats and hydrogenated fats are consumed when eating out, and this is not usually coconut oil.

A couple of the articles were focused on increasing omega-3s and didn't actually address saturated fats.

One article concerned women who are type 2 diabetics, and those who consumed higher amounts of saturated fats were also less likely to take vitamin E, and more likely to be obese and smoke; it is unlikely they were consuming coconut oil and a lot more likely they were going to MacDonalds.

One of your articles actually concluded that, "Persons with an APOE4 allele were somewhat more likely to be in the lowest fifth quartile of saturated fat intake," and in the same article, "Intake of vegetable fat was strongly protective against AD."

Another article which involved collection of data from food diaries excluded people with dementia because "the reliability of the dietary data collected from cognitively impaired subjects may be compromised." They also stated that "the design does not allow us to establish whether a difference in intake of any nutrient preceded or was the result of impaired cognition."

There were a number of contradictions in conclusions among the articles on the list. Nutrition is so complex that it is very difficult to separate out one food group and determine with any degree of certainty that it is more or less likely to cause AD.

I don't see how these articles make a case either way for or against coconut oil since we don't know what saturated fats any of the subjects in these studies were consuming (except the one study that specifically mentioned that they were eating primarily "milk products and spreads."

I want to also throw in a study that was presented on poster and published in the abstract book (#P2-112) for the Alzheimer's Association July 2008 International Conference for Alzheimer's Disease in Chicago. I had the pleasure of meeting and discussing the presentation with one of the authors, Dr. Michal Schaider-Beeri (the other author is Uri Goldbourt). The study was done in Israel and looked at nutritional intakes of 9,929 men for a longitudinal study between 1963-68. The authors were able to do follow-up studies with 1,890 of these men who still survived in 2000; 306 were identified as "demented" and 1395 as "non-demented" with the others "not clear." Amazingly, they found that the percent of saturated fat in the diet was inversely related to late life dementia. The more saturated fat in the diet the less likelythey were to have dementia. They also found that "total calories consumed and the percent of calories from polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat were not related to late-life dementia."
Dr. Beeri said that unfortunately the folks who did the initial dietary evaluations did not record the actual types of oils/fats these men were eating. It would be interesting if someone with knowledge of dietary fats in Israel in the 1960's could enlighten us. I did learn that Israel currently exports coconut oil.

Dr. Mary, that's very interesting. My mother has AD. and she was a very mentally active woman, all her lige. People say crosswords are good to prevent Alzheimer's, but I can say they are not, because mom was an expert in very difficult crosswords, and she had the disease. However, she hates fat food. She hates butter, milk, meat,yolks, and so on. She likes to have a plain french bread in the morning, and never, never with butter or similar things. I think that maybe this new study has something real in it.

quote:

I don't see how these articles make a case either way for or against coconut oil since we don't know what saturated fats any of the subjects in these studies were consuming (except the one study that specifically mentioned that they were eating primarily "milk products and spreads."

What, exactly, is it that you think makes the saturated fats found in coconut oil -- those four dietary saturated fats that the FDA and AMA and AHA and ADA consider to be health risks -- somehow magically different from exactly those same fats found in other foods?

Perhaps you would like to try suggesting which foods might contain dietary saturated fats that do not include those found in coconut oil. Or, conversely, which dietary saturated fats found in coconut oil are not found in other foods. (Aside, of course, from the caprylic and capric triglycerides which were the reason you gave your husband coconut oil in the first place, and which are the reason you are giving him so much MCT oil now.)

Let's see ... Dozens upon dozens upon dozens of studies have been done on human consumption of dietary saturated fats from all sorts of food sources -- including many human consumption studies that used virgin coconut oil as the source of those fats. The results from studies done using other sources of these fats have been consistent with the results from studies using virgin coconut oil -- provided that the study designs were consistent, of course. More on that particular point later.

The results from studies on the health impacts of dietary saturated fats have linked those fats to a myriad of disorders, many of which have also been identified as risk factors for Alzheimer's. They have identified a number of underlying mechanisms which may be involved, which could explain those links.

Many studies on the impact of diet have shown that a diet which is low in saturated fats is effective in delaying/preventing the onset and the progression of MCI and of Alzheimer's.

Against all of that, we have a single abstract from a poster. (I gather that the study was not good enough to qualify for a platform presentation).

Amazingly, what you have to say about this study is somewhat misleading. From the abstract, we learn that the intention of the study was to determine whether there might be a link between saturated fat consumption at mid-life and the development of dementia late in life.

The nutritional intakes that were studied were those consumed by 9,929 men over a five-year period back in the 1960's. "Food samples aided in identifying the type and size of portions consumed." That says to me they had a pretty good idea of the saturated fats that were consumed.

34 years later, only 26% of the men in that study had survived. Telephone interviews were done on some of these survivors -- i.e., on less than one-fifth of the original participants -- to assess their cognitive status.

What had the survivors been consuming during the intervening 34 years?

What was the cognitive status of the non-surviving 74% participants at the time of their deaths? How did that correlate to their nutritional intake at any point in their lives?

How accurate is a telephone interview in diagnosing dementia? What actually qualified these 1,890 survivors as being "demented" or not demented?

Did they exclude the data from the 189 (10%) who did not receive a "clear" diagnosis?

2,606 men were still alive in 2000. Why were 761 of them (30%) excluded from this study? Could it have been that they were too "demented" to even participate in a telephone interview?

The abstract is from a meeting held well over a year ago. Where is the full paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, on that study? Could it be that when it went into peer review, too many flaws were pointed out for any reputable journal to publish it?

And, finally, what on earth do the results from a study purportedly on the consumption of saturated fat for a few years at mid-life, from which the vast majority of the participants were eliminated from the late-life assessment, and for which the long-term dietary habits are completely unknown, have to do with what consuming very high levels of saturated fat might do to an Alzheimer's patient?

The highest levels of saturated fat seen in that study were 11.4-23.3% of total calories. What percentage of total calorie consumption is saturated fat in the treatment regime you espouse?


As for "most" of the refs I provided in my first post being abstracts, I guess our definition of "most" is not the same. Including the refs in the other thread to which I provided a link, 25 are full articles out of 39 refs, i.e., two-thirds.

Oh -- as for Mary's comments about the papers I cited, I suggest that other people actually read the papers for themselves, rather than rely on what she has to say.

Start off with the criticism of the long-term study on women who developed diabetes, for example, and see what factors were taken into account when analyzing the data. It's pretty clear that Mary didn't bother to look at the paper itself.

quote:

I note that the study you examined said the cholesterol levels were very high for the people who consumed coconut oil.

You miss the point.

You had commented that other people had told you epidemiological studies in regions that use coconut oil almost exclusively in cooking do not show elevated levels of cardiovascular disease or dementia.

This particular study is THE epidemiological study cited by coconut oil enthusiasts as proof that coconut oil doesn't increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

This study was not designed to determine whether coconut oil affects the risk of cardiovascular disease. It was only designed to study the total serum cholesterol levels. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the development of dementia.

My point: Do not believe what anyone (including me) tells you about what is and is not "known", even when they provide a reference to a publication. Read the full paper yourself. See what the study was actually designed to do, see what was actually done, and see what the conclusions actually were and whether there was a solid basis for them. If the findings are ... unexpected ... look at the caliber of the researchers involved, their degree of expertise, and the quality of the journal in which the paper itself was published and the journals in which these researchers typically publish.

This particular study concluded that elevated cholesterol levels (total cholesterol, remember) were associated with the consumption of high levels of coconut oil, in this particular group of people, with their ethnic background and with their overall diet and their lifestyle.

One cannot extrapolate from that study to what consumption of high levels of coconut oil will do to someone with another ethnic background, a very different overall diet, and a very different lifestyle.

Also, remember that HDL/LDL ratios and total cholesterol don't tell the entire story. See, for example, a study done in humans which showed that the cardioprotective effects of HDL may depend not only on HDL levels, but also on what other dietary constituents (in this case, virgin coconut oil) do to its ability to actually be cardioprotective.

http://alzheimers.infopop.cc/e...=722109261#722109261

I agree that people should read through these articles themselves to see if they come to the same conclusions I did. Most of the studies that were complete articles made statements regarding the limitations of their studies. The article I quoted above is no more flawed than any in your list. With 2000 poster presentations and literally hundreds of oral presentations, not every good study can make it to the podium. For example, as in one of the studies on your list, how can a one week diet record, when someone knows they are being studied, and might decide to be extra careful with what they eat, possibly relay a lifetime of what the person has been eating to correlate with the current state of their cognition? This is the same study that decided to exclude people with dementia and yet that is what it was all about.

The article you are talking about on the population studies is one of the first that I read (the whole thing) when I was researching this. I don't rely simply on what someone told me about pretty much anything.

If people are to completely avoid the saturated fats, as you suggest, rather than limiting to 10%, as recommended by the FDA, then babies should not breastfeed (50% saturated fats,) children should not take formula (with 20-30% coconut oil and/or palm kernel oil plus even more MCT oil,) and everyone should stay away from eggs (37% palmitic and stearic acids,) nuts (20% C:12-C:18,) salmon (33% C:14-C:18) and soybean oil (16% C:16 - C:22), and even olive oil (14% C:16- C:22). Coconut oil has 28% C:14-C:18 - less than salmon.

To the contrary, the experts advise us to consume more "fatty fish" such as salmon, as well as nuts and olive oil, because they are good for you, and eggs have been taken off the bad list for some time now because they have been shown to actually raise good cholesterol, not bad. The author of "The Blue Zones," who has studied concentrations of peoples who live to 100, also reported recently on television (Dr. Oz) that in Sardinia, where the highest concentration of centenarians in the world live, 80% of those living to be 100, and without dementia at that, routinely consume goat milk, in which an amazing 63% of the fats are saturated; some are medium chain including lauric acid, and 40% of the total fats are C:14, 16 and 18.

In other posts, you yourself have said that the C:12 lauric acid may or may not be a problem, and that the FDA is more worried about the C:14-C:18 fats. Lauric acid is considered to be a medium chain fatty acid, has many healthy properties such as its antimicrobial activity, converts partly to ketones, and is the primary component referred to when the experts talk about breastmilk's ability to help the newborn fight infection.

Coconut oil also contains 6% monounsaturated fat, the fat in olive oil that is considered to be so healthy, and 2% omega-6, one of the two essential fatty acids. The only important fatty acid it is missing is omega-3 fatty acid; most cultures that consume coconut oil also eat a lot of fish.

If you mix MCT oil to coconut oil 4:3, as we do for Steve,(who is doing quite well after 16 months on this, by the way, the real point of all of this,) the C:14 and higher saturated fats come up to just about 10%, the FDA recommendation.

In all of this, the rest of a person's diet needs to be taken into consideration. If someone takes gobs of coconut oil and also frequents fast food restaurants and eats lots of other high fat foods, it is a no brainer that there could be a problem. If the coconut oil is balanced with a diet of healthy proteins, fruits, vegetables and whole grains, and an excess of other fats are avoided, then there is a very good chance this won't be a problem.

The cholesterol issue has been the big issue for JAB up until now. If someone is worried about this, they should have a cholesterol/lipid profile done before starting this and periodically after. So far all of the results people have reported to me have shown no significant change or improvement in good cholesterol. Maybe I am not hearing from people who have had a bad results with cholesterol; I can't be absolutely sure. I do hear from some people who have had no response to coconut oil, MCT oil and Axona, but many, many more who do.

Ideally, some group who has the ability to get a grant will study a group of people in this regard. This question needs to be answered in older people once and for all. The studies to date have been small, may be flawed by other aspects of the diet, ( hydrogenated oils, no omega-3, wrong age group, don't include women, wrong species,etc.) and certainly don't answer this question in seniors.

P.S - the FDA and AMA and AHA and ADA have "updated" and revised their guidelines and recommendations a number of times over the years as new information comes in. Eggs (37% saturated fat) are just one glaring example of thes groups making a 180 degree flip-flop in their recommendation.

I would like to say something about this war that some of you make against each other, as if this was a kind of contest. Even knowing that some of you are extremely capable of judging medical, nutricional, and biological facts, the point here is that Medicine and Science are not and will never be completely known by human beings. I think scientists have to be humble and analyze things carefully. I learned in Medical School that in Medicine we never say "NEVER", because what is a poison today, tomorrow may be a miracle for something. MODERATION is the key for everything in life, the Bible says. So, forgive me, I am nobody to judge anyone,and I certainly am someone with just a little knowledge about Alzheimer´s (less than most of you), and although I like reading the discussions you make (in the little time that I have free to read, because my jobs, my patients and my sick mom take all my time) I am not sure they are always taking readers somewhere.
As we can realize, most people here are well informed, and we are making just a conversation about clinical observations, and sometimes about scientific researches. Nobody can "own" the truth, because only God can do that. So, I think there is no need for stress . The only reason to worry about, are the millions of people around the world, that have this terrible disease. Thank you for your attention.

quote:

P.S - the FDA and AMA and AHA and ADA have "updated" and revised their guidelines and recommendations a number of times over the years as new information comes in. Eggs (37% saturated fat) are just one glaring example of thes groups making a 180 degree flip-flop in their recommendation.

Eggs were originally demonized because of their cholesterol content, not their saturated fat content. Please get your facts straight.

As our understanding of fat metabolism has changed, dietary guidelines have changed. The changes are based on -- gasp!!! -- research. Research that is reported in detailed papers published in top-tier, peer-reviewed journals.

We used to assume that dietary cholesterol had a huge impact on blood cholesterol in humans. Studies have not borne this out. Studies have indicated that saturated fats and trans fats have a greater impact on blood cholesterol levels than our intake of dietary cholesterol.

Not to mention, eggs are 243 grams per serving, of which 3.099 is saturated fat -- which does not, as far as my calculator is concerned, equal 37%.

http://www.smianalytical.com/f...ood.php?calories=Egg

On this thread, you talk about how our understanding of fat metabolism and diet are changing so much ... on another, you say we should accept a book chapter based on papers published as long ago as 1951. Talk about flip-flopping.

http://alzheimers.infopop.cc/e...=290107722#290107722

And as for flip-flopping, the coconut oil industry has tried for years to get the medical and scientific communities to change their stance on coconut oil. The coconut oil industry has been unable to provide any studies which demonstrate it is healthy, whereas there are hundreds of studies which indicate it is not.

When the FDA and AMA and AHA and ADA "flip" on coconut oil, I'll start paying serious attention to the studies that make them change their minds.

quote:

I agree that people should read through these articles themselves to see if they come to the same conclusions I did. Most of the studies that were complete articles made statements regarding the limitations of their studies. The article I quoted above is no more flawed than any in your list.

Any good paper will discuss the flaws in the study. I don't recall the "article" that you quoted doing so. Oh, wait ... maybe that's because there isn't any article. There's only an abstract from a poster. Despite the fact that it's been well over a year since that poster was presented, the authors have never published the study. At least, I couldn't find it. Perhaps you could provide a link.

The dietary requirements of babies and children are very different from those of adults. We have talked about this before. But if you'd like to produce citations for studies which have shown otherwise, I'd be most interested in reading them. Otherwise, please stop with the red herrings and start producing references which support your claims that coconut oil is healthy.

References. Citations of studies published in top-tier, peer-reviewed journals. Links.

I have produced dozens on this forum which indicate that saturated fats consumed by humans in high levels pose a variety of serious health risks. Many of the studies I've cited -- given links to the publications -- were done with virgin coconut oil. As far as I can recall, you haven't produced any.

Please stop with the generalized handwaving and hot air, and produce evidence -- studies done on humans with coconut oil, published in top-tier, peer-reviewed journals -- which support your claims that coconut oil is healthy. References. Full citations (authors, dates, journal volume and pages).

I would be amazed if you could find any. Because I looked, and I couldn't, and I'm usually pretty good at lit searches.


And if you're going to claim that I said something, please provide a link to that, too.

You keep trying to isolate lauric fatty acids from the others. Where one of the four "dietary" saturated fats is found in foods, the others are usually found. This makes it pretty darned hard to study the question of which of the four is "worst". But you asked me for evidence that lauric fatty acids posed cardiovascular health risks, and I answered you:

http://alzheimers.infopop.cc/e...=996103841#996103841

quote:

everyone should stay away from eggs (37% palmitic and stearic acids,) nuts (20% C:12-C:18,) salmon (33% C:14-C:18) and soybean oil (16% C:16 - C:22), and even olive oil (14% C:16- C:22)

Where on earth do you get your information?

Nuts are 20% C:12-C:18 ... percent of what?

When considering the nutritional content of foods, one should look at the ratio of saturated to unsaturated fats (because polyunsaturated fats can, to some extent, counterbalance the unhealthy effects of saturated fats), total calories from fats per serving, and total nutritional content -- especially sugars (bad) and fiber (good) which can also influence saturated fat metabolism / health impacts.

And one should consider the total diet, too. How much of everything a person eats.

The reason the experts suggest a modest consumption of nuts (1/4 cup per day, unsalted) is that they are high in mono- and polyunsaturated fats, fiber, phytosterols, and other healthy nutrients, while being relatively low in unhealthy saturated fats. Not to mention, studies have shown that they're good for you.

Studies that I've cited, and for which I've provided links.

I have bags of walnuts and almonds in my pantry.

Almonds: total fat 15g, saturated fat 1 g. That's 6.7% of saturated fat from total fat ... not 20%.

Walnuts: total fat 20g, saturated fat 2 g. Wow, we're now up to 10% of total fats. But, of course, walnuts also contain 14g polyunsaturated fats ... 70% polyunsaturated fats.

I also have a bottle of coconut oil, sitting around from the time before I started researching your claims that it's healthy. Total fat 14g, saturated fat 12.5g. That's 89.3% saturated fat -- and cheaper coconut oils can contain even more. Polyunsaturated fat 0.3g ... a measly 2% of total fat. One tablespoon is 125 calories from fat (total fat), and contains 65% of the maximum recommended daily allowance -- for a young, healthy, active adult -- of saturated fats. And you are recommending that we give our ADLOs how much per day? On top of all the other sources of saturated fat in other foods?

Salmon, of course, is recommended because it is high in omega-3s, which are essential fats. I don't recall omega-3's being in coconut oil at all. And your percentage of saturated fats appears a wee bit on the high side:

http://www.nutritiondata.com/f...fish-products/4231/2

quote:

The cholesterol issue has been the big issue for JAB up until now.

Has it, really.

Seems to me that maybe, just maybe, JAB has actually been pointing out that there are quite a few mechanisms believed to be involved in saturated fats posing cardiovascular health risks. For example, take a look at that post to which I just provided a link -- in response to your claim about what I said regarding lauric fatty acid health risks.

And take a look at the link I provided in my Oct 14 post on this thread.

And then explain how getting a standard blood lipid panel will check for those mechanisms.

And then, of course, there are the other health risks associated with consuming high levels of saturated fats, as well ... insulin resistance, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, obesity, and, of course, cognitive decline ... which I do believe I may have mentioned in various and sundry other posts, here and there, on these boards.

You know, Allhycia has a point. Neither of us knows THE TRUTH according the "great designer." Science certainly hasn't arrived at The definitive answer. There have not been large enough studies to prove whether coconut oil is the evil you suggest or not. It helped my husband and has helped many others. That is the only truth I know for sure.

In the practice of medicine, we know that nearly all treatments involve risks and benefits. In this case, for my husband, we have decided that the benefits far outweigh the risks.

I am very tired of the nitpicking. When you know THE TRUTH with absolute certainty, why don't you share it with us then.

quote:

That is the only truth I know for sure.

But you don't. In addition to coconut oil, you give your husband massive amounts of MCT oil, a ton of other supplements, and he's in a clinical trial. You do not know "for sure" which of these, or which combination of these, is/are responsible for his improvement.

Maybe he would be doing even better if he were on MCT oil alone, rather than in combination with coconut oil. And maybe he'd be doing even better still if he were on Axona.

You have insisted that the supplements aren't helping him ... but you keep giving them to him, so you must not be quite so sure as you say. You have insisted that he must be on placebo in the clinical trial because he hasn't developed a side effect that some patients develop ... but you have no way of knowing that he's on placebo for sure, and you've kept him in the trial all this time, rather than stopping it so he would be eligible for another trial.

And as others have pointed out, your husband's response to the combination of everything he's on is much better than anyone else has reported for their loved ones on your coconut oil regime, or even on the same supplements as well ... so maybe it's the experimental drug that's doing him so much good.

Ahllycia does indeed have an excellent point: "Scientists have to be humble and analyze things carefully."