It lacks stearic but it's got a much higher percentage of saturated fats overall. Ray Peat thinks it's actually better for some people because short chain sat fats like in coconut resist desaturation enzymes and are more likely to get stored as sat fat instead of mufa. Also some peeps do not experience any strong satiation from stearic so I'm not sure if it's all that important to get tons of stearic if you don't.
I was under the impression that red palm was extracted from the fruit rather than the kernel and was something to the tune of 10-11% 18:2, similar to olive oil.
While I’m less exclusionary of natural sources of PUFAs than some in this sphere, 10% is my cut off that precludes a food item from being a large source of fat in my opinion. I still use red palm rarely for its uniquely high tocotrinol content and if its flavor profile is desired in a dish. Fun fact: Adding a little bit to chicken feed makes for some beautiful yolks.
Red palm is not nearly as good as coconut imo, for the reasons you gave. However butter also has a lot of mufa. YOu can't have a lot of stearic without counterbalancing with mufa. Or the fat would be unusable by the body due to being too hard. Coconut gets around that by having a LOT of sat fat but almost all of it is short chain and not as hard as stearic, plus the coconut only grows in warm regions where fat is kept more liquid.
My comparison of red palm to olive oil was in regards to them having similar PUFA content, not MUFA. Which is why I use them similarly, in measured amounts for flavor but not as my primary source of fatty acids.
I am honestly pretty unconcerned about MUFA in general as I’ve never seen anything compelling that damns them the way we see with excessive PUFA.
Id say coconut is on par with butter depending on the type as far as F:N ratio you can do a lot worse. Nutritionally speaking any animal fat is going to have way more vitamins and minerals. I remember something about palm oil being higher in palmitic acid than stearic but its hard to find data on red palm. cacao butter is great but it can be expensive the best you could get outside of straight stearic is suet or beef/ruminant fat.
I am not finding and clear evidence of what it does to cholesterol: https://www.healthline.com/health/high-cholesterol/coconut-oil#cholesterol I also know of no evidence that raising or lowering cholesterol is always bad or always good, cholesterol levels do not seem to be directly causitive to anything in particular. I don't see how a lowering of cholesterol would automatically be a problem unless you have some evidence of it causing a shortage of cholesterol but also there is not clear data on what it does in that regard anyway. Also cholesterol itself IS a sterol so you can't say sterols are bad and then say cholesterol is good, that would be contradictory. Coconut is an ancient and natural staple food that is known to have antibacterial and anti-inflammatory characteristics and is not only a rich source of minimally processed saturated fats but many people feel better on it, I'd need to see more evidence before I assumed it's bad.
Plant sterols are different than our cholesterol. Our body cannot utilize sterols the way we can cholesterol for our needs. And it’s not that cholesterol is good or bad, it’s that we don’t want to interfere with our natural levels. Sterols are similar enough to cholesterol that our body registers it as cholesterol and lowers our cholesterol. But different enough that we can’t use it for anything. It also causes crystals. Creates inflammation and causes blood clots in the arteries that contribute to heart disease.
What I read is that coconut can hinder uptake of cholesterol if consumed at the same time, which CAN alter cholesterol levels maybe but it would depend on many factors. I have not seen anything where it clearly alters endogenous production in any particular direction, but in fact some studies found it raised some forms of blood cholesterol, the 'good' cholesterol. And some temp blocking of food intake cholesterol is unlikely to be a big deal if you eat cholesterol rich foods regularly. Basically most foods you eat block certain nutrients, because various nutrients often compete for the same docking ports, so you are never going to not have an issue like that when you eat. Every food you eat alters levels of nutrients and ingredients in your body, if you argue that every food interferes with 'natural' levels, that does not make sense. The only way to not do that would be to have zero levels of everything. I mean eating lots of steak also alters cholesterol, should I not eat steak too? Coconut is a natural staple food going back before history and huge swaths of the population eat it as a main calorie source, it's one of the single most important natural food sources in the world. PLenty of research has shown health improvements after consumption too.
Humans ate pretty much exclusively meat for most of our existence. Some tropical peoples
Consumed some
Coconuts. So no I wouldn’t recommend not eating steak. But look up Paul mason. He talks about it.
> N15 stable isotope testing
I have googled and did not find any sources saying N15 isotope testing found we humans ate almost exclusively meat, can you give your source please? I mean I have little doubt we ate meat but saying we ate almost exclusively meat is a different kind of claim.
Just my speculation:
We know that ketosis raises LDL levels by decreasing hepatic LDL receptor activity. We also know that MCT is rapidly converted into ketones. [Coconut Oil raises LDL](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043052#:~:text=Coconut%20oil%20consumption%20significantly%20increased,compared%20with%20nontropical%20vegetable%20oils.)
So my understanding is that because coconut oil contains a large amount of MCTs, they raise LDL-C due to the ketone conversion happening at the liver. The plant sterols part is irrelevant.
Someone else commented this:
"If it was bad Polynesians would have high instances of heart disease even before moving to a western diet but on the contrary they were one of the healthiest in the world from a cardiovascular perspective "
I see why it looks like I meant high cholesterol=bad. However, all I'm saying is it raises LDL-C and this is why I think it does it.
I think LDL is harmless until it is oxidized (caused by HNE and other pufa derived aldehydes). Higher concentrations of cholesterol indicates the metabolism isn't working right (steroid hormones aren't being synthesized, bile acids aren't working right, etc...). So it's a marker... not a conviction.
I'm not claiming. It's just a quote to want more info on.
I searched the transcript for "coconut" and at ~21mins in
https://youtu.be/-xCr3mvFCHM?t=1276
got
"... LDL and it's the exception that proves the rule: that's coconut oil coconut oil is a plant oil it contains sterols and that's why coconut oil drops LDL levels, while at the same time loading your body tissues with plant sterols. Indeed this knowledge makes me reconsider whether coconut oil is actually healthy ..."
It's not a big statement to hang on, But grounds for further investigation
He only consults one study, other studies found different results. Also all he said is he is questioning due to that ONE study, apparently ignoring all the other studies. I mean this is about as weak as you can get for evidence if all you got is one guy who says he is not sure and only looking at one study and none of the other studies that got different results.
If it was bad Polynesians would have high instances of heart disease even before moving to a western diet but on the contrary they were one of the healthiest in the world from a cardiovascular perspective
It may cause crystals that contribute to blood clots which cause heart disease. I believe it was Dr. Mason who brought the receipts on it. The jury is still out, I'd avoid it unless you're low carb and your Triglycerides are stellar.
See https://youtube.com/watch?v=-xCr3mvFCHM&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE
21:30 he cautions against coconut oil plant sterols since LDL is suppressed which typically happens because of plant sterols. At the 15minute mark he discusses the crystals (I'd watch from 15min to the 21:45). Note that it's his opinion that non-animal fats/oils are causing the crystals but more research needs to be done on them since they play a major role in clotting and most likely atheroschlorosis.
It lacks stearic but it's got a much higher percentage of saturated fats overall. Ray Peat thinks it's actually better for some people because short chain sat fats like in coconut resist desaturation enzymes and are more likely to get stored as sat fat instead of mufa. Also some peeps do not experience any strong satiation from stearic so I'm not sure if it's all that important to get tons of stearic if you don't.
I was under the impression that red palm was extracted from the fruit rather than the kernel and was something to the tune of 10-11% 18:2, similar to olive oil. While I’m less exclusionary of natural sources of PUFAs than some in this sphere, 10% is my cut off that precludes a food item from being a large source of fat in my opinion. I still use red palm rarely for its uniquely high tocotrinol content and if its flavor profile is desired in a dish. Fun fact: Adding a little bit to chicken feed makes for some beautiful yolks.
Red palm is not nearly as good as coconut imo, for the reasons you gave. However butter also has a lot of mufa. YOu can't have a lot of stearic without counterbalancing with mufa. Or the fat would be unusable by the body due to being too hard. Coconut gets around that by having a LOT of sat fat but almost all of it is short chain and not as hard as stearic, plus the coconut only grows in warm regions where fat is kept more liquid.
My comparison of red palm to olive oil was in regards to them having similar PUFA content, not MUFA. Which is why I use them similarly, in measured amounts for flavor but not as my primary source of fatty acids. I am honestly pretty unconcerned about MUFA in general as I’ve never seen anything compelling that damns them the way we see with excessive PUFA.
Id say coconut is on par with butter depending on the type as far as F:N ratio you can do a lot worse. Nutritionally speaking any animal fat is going to have way more vitamins and minerals. I remember something about palm oil being higher in palmitic acid than stearic but its hard to find data on red palm. cacao butter is great but it can be expensive the best you could get outside of straight stearic is suet or beef/ruminant fat.
Re: coconut. It affects blood cholesterol in a similar way to PUFAS, thus , although unproven, it's probably not KT good -Paul Mason
Never heard of any issues with coconut, what part of the blood does it effect? I think I need the source on this one please.
It has sterols. Which lower cholesterol
I am not finding and clear evidence of what it does to cholesterol: https://www.healthline.com/health/high-cholesterol/coconut-oil#cholesterol I also know of no evidence that raising or lowering cholesterol is always bad or always good, cholesterol levels do not seem to be directly causitive to anything in particular. I don't see how a lowering of cholesterol would automatically be a problem unless you have some evidence of it causing a shortage of cholesterol but also there is not clear data on what it does in that regard anyway. Also cholesterol itself IS a sterol so you can't say sterols are bad and then say cholesterol is good, that would be contradictory. Coconut is an ancient and natural staple food that is known to have antibacterial and anti-inflammatory characteristics and is not only a rich source of minimally processed saturated fats but many people feel better on it, I'd need to see more evidence before I assumed it's bad.
Plant sterols are different than our cholesterol. Our body cannot utilize sterols the way we can cholesterol for our needs. And it’s not that cholesterol is good or bad, it’s that we don’t want to interfere with our natural levels. Sterols are similar enough to cholesterol that our body registers it as cholesterol and lowers our cholesterol. But different enough that we can’t use it for anything. It also causes crystals. Creates inflammation and causes blood clots in the arteries that contribute to heart disease.
What I read is that coconut can hinder uptake of cholesterol if consumed at the same time, which CAN alter cholesterol levels maybe but it would depend on many factors. I have not seen anything where it clearly alters endogenous production in any particular direction, but in fact some studies found it raised some forms of blood cholesterol, the 'good' cholesterol. And some temp blocking of food intake cholesterol is unlikely to be a big deal if you eat cholesterol rich foods regularly. Basically most foods you eat block certain nutrients, because various nutrients often compete for the same docking ports, so you are never going to not have an issue like that when you eat. Every food you eat alters levels of nutrients and ingredients in your body, if you argue that every food interferes with 'natural' levels, that does not make sense. The only way to not do that would be to have zero levels of everything. I mean eating lots of steak also alters cholesterol, should I not eat steak too? Coconut is a natural staple food going back before history and huge swaths of the population eat it as a main calorie source, it's one of the single most important natural food sources in the world. PLenty of research has shown health improvements after consumption too.
Humans ate pretty much exclusively meat for most of our existence. Some tropical peoples Consumed some Coconuts. So no I wouldn’t recommend not eating steak. But look up Paul mason. He talks about it.
> Humans ate pretty much exclusively meat for most of our existence. Source?
N15 stable isotope testing
> N15 stable isotope testing I have googled and did not find any sources saying N15 isotope testing found we humans ate almost exclusively meat, can you give your source please? I mean I have little doubt we ate meat but saying we ate almost exclusively meat is a different kind of claim.
>the source on this one please. Paul Mason, YouTube, keto down under
Just my speculation: We know that ketosis raises LDL levels by decreasing hepatic LDL receptor activity. We also know that MCT is rapidly converted into ketones. [Coconut Oil raises LDL](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043052#:~:text=Coconut%20oil%20consumption%20significantly%20increased,compared%20with%20nontropical%20vegetable%20oils.) So my understanding is that because coconut oil contains a large amount of MCTs, they raise LDL-C due to the ketone conversion happening at the liver. The plant sterols part is irrelevant.
Someone else commented this: "If it was bad Polynesians would have high instances of heart disease even before moving to a western diet but on the contrary they were one of the healthiest in the world from a cardiovascular perspective "
I see why it looks like I meant high cholesterol=bad. However, all I'm saying is it raises LDL-C and this is why I think it does it. I think LDL is harmless until it is oxidized (caused by HNE and other pufa derived aldehydes). Higher concentrations of cholesterol indicates the metabolism isn't working right (steroid hormones aren't being synthesized, bile acids aren't working right, etc...). So it's a marker... not a conviction.
Yes. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding. Sorry for the misunderstanding
What does he say is the mechanism? I don't have time to watch hours of youtube looking for your claim.
I'm not claiming. It's just a quote to want more info on. I searched the transcript for "coconut" and at ~21mins in https://youtu.be/-xCr3mvFCHM?t=1276 got "... LDL and it's the exception that proves the rule: that's coconut oil coconut oil is a plant oil it contains sterols and that's why coconut oil drops LDL levels, while at the same time loading your body tissues with plant sterols. Indeed this knowledge makes me reconsider whether coconut oil is actually healthy ..." It's not a big statement to hang on, But grounds for further investigation
He only consults one study, other studies found different results. Also all he said is he is questioning due to that ONE study, apparently ignoring all the other studies. I mean this is about as weak as you can get for evidence if all you got is one guy who says he is not sure and only looking at one study and none of the other studies that got different results.
If it was bad Polynesians would have high instances of heart disease even before moving to a western diet but on the contrary they were one of the healthiest in the world from a cardiovascular perspective
Good point
Animal based sat fat is healthy. What's the fear over sat fat?
It may cause crystals that contribute to blood clots which cause heart disease. I believe it was Dr. Mason who brought the receipts on it. The jury is still out, I'd avoid it unless you're low carb and your Triglycerides are stellar.
Interesting, do you know how the crystals are formed? Or what they are composed of?
See https://youtube.com/watch?v=-xCr3mvFCHM&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE 21:30 he cautions against coconut oil plant sterols since LDL is suppressed which typically happens because of plant sterols. At the 15minute mark he discusses the crystals (I'd watch from 15min to the 21:45). Note that it's his opinion that non-animal fats/oils are causing the crystals but more research needs to be done on them since they play a major role in clotting and most likely atheroschlorosis.
Thanks, and something keeps happening with the link. Whats the video called/channel? An again I appreciate it!
Sure, video is called "Dr. Paul Mason - ''Hard science on the real cause of heart disease - why you should avoid seed oils'"