On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Richard Geller wrote:

> I have not found a study that clearly shows any harmful effects of
> coconut oil. Several studies show that coconut oil does not challenge
> the anti-lipid peroxidation mechanisms as do poly unsaturated fatty
> acids like flax or fish oil. Lipid peroxidation is one of the most
> interesting current theories of aging.

My intent was not to show that coconut oil is harmful.  My point
was simply that if one is going to object to peanut oil because
it raises cholesterol, as seemed to be the point of the study
posted by Don Wiss, then it is hard to understand why one would
not also object to coconut oil and, for that matter, beef tallow,
for precisely the same reason.

To put it another way, why should raising cholesterol count
against peanut oil but not against coconut oil and beef tallow?

It is this one-sided use of scientific evidence that I find so
puzzling.  Neanderthin cites epidemiological evidence that links
corn to cancer but ignores epidemiological evidence that links
red meat to cancer.

To my way of thinking, Neanderthin is a *theory*.  It is a theory
that makes a lot of sense, and explains a lot of data.  Like many
other theories, however, it also appears to be in conflict with
some of the data.  When this happens it is important to pay close
attention, to see whether the theory needs to be modified.  To do
otherwise is to turn the theory into an ideology.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]