dont tell me some thai food and travel website is more reliable
there is no "proof" the saturateds fats in coconuts are any better than the saturated fats found elsewhere
I think you're a little confused as to what I'm saying. I'll address the points individually here, and I'll make sure that I use 'proof' too;
Diet
Most people who have a 'healthy' diet will also find that they're lacking in saturated fat. That is, those who take an interest in their health will probably steer clear of sat-fat from the perception that it is, in fact, bad for you. The evidence for sat-fat being bad for you is now outdated - sort of like the 'evidence' for eggs and cholesterol, and many of the other 'daily mail' headlines. In addition, trans fats are probably the worst for you, given 'current' findings in science.
Here is some copy-pasta to explain the myth about sat-fat;
First of all, did you realize that although doctors, nutritionists, fitness professionals, and the media all have told you that it's a FACT that saturated fats are bad for you, this "FACT" has actually never been proven!
It's actually not a "fact" at all. It was a hypothesis! This goes all the way back to a flawed research study from the 1950's where a guy named Ancel Keys published a paper that laid the blame on dietary fat intake for the increasing heart disease phenomenon.
However, there were major flaws to his study. For one, in his conclusions he only used data from a small portion of the countries where data was available on fat consumption vs heart disease death rate. When researches have gone back in and looked at the data from all of the countries, there actually was no link between fat consumption and heart disease deaths. So his conclusions were actually false.
Second, his blaming of fat intake for heart disease was only one factor that was considered. There was no consideration of other factors such as smoking rates, stress factors, sugar intake, exercise frequency, or other lifestyle factors.
Basically, his conclusions which blamed heart disease deaths on fat intake were really just a shot in the dark about what a possible cause may have been, even though all of those other factors I just mentioned, plus many others, may be the bigger cause.
Unfortunately, Keys study has been cited for over 5 decades now as "fact" that saturated fat is bad for you. As you can see, there certainly is nothing factual about it.
Since that time, numerous other studies have been conducted trying to link saturated fat intake to heart disease. The majority of these studies have failed to correlate ANY risk at all from saturated fat. A couple of them made feeble attempts at linking saturated fat to heart disease, however, it was later shown that in those studies, the data was flawed as well.
Another issue with flawed studies is that many studies have lumped artificial trans fat intake together with saturated fat intake, and mistakenly laid the blame on saturated fat despite the overwhelming evidence that artificial trans fat is the REAL health risk. This is a HUGE mistake as there is a vast difference in how your body processes nasty artificially created trans fats vs the perfectly natural saturated fats that have been part of the human diet since the beginning of man.
However, if you're still concerned, the OP said that this was more than a treat - a far cry from the over 7% (an arbitrary number) that the WHO state. Should I stick to the 50g of protein a day that they recommend too?
Take a read of this:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/fat_cholesterol_truth.htm
My favourite bit is where the 'benefits' of a low fat diet are expelled.
'Let's take the latest one for example (7th May 2008). At a cost of $415 million, The Women's Health Initiative monitored 49,000 subjects over an average period of 8 years - a HUGE study. They were advised to eat more vegetables, fruits and grains and less fat (20% of daily calories - only 44 grams of total fat per day on a 2000 calorie-per-day diet), especially saturated fat.
The results finally came in, the media waited with bated breath - guess what effect this low fat diet had on heart disease. None! Zero! Zilch! '
Saturated fat in coconut oil
So far we have seen that, in fact, saturated fats are not the evil things that they're promoted as being. It is also worth noting that the chemical make-up of coconut oil is;
Lauric saturated C12
47.5%
Myristic saturated C14
18.1%
Palmitic saturated C16
8.8%
(and of course some others)
Now, lauric fatty acid. A quick google will help you see the benefits which this has.
So, proof:
Not all research finds the link between saturated fat and CVD clear. In 2010, a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies found no statistically significant relationship between cardiovascular disease and dietary saturated fat. In 2009, a systematic review of prospective cohort studies or randomized trials concluded that there was "insufficient evidence of association" between intake of saturated fatty acids and coronary heart disease, and pointed to strong evidence for protective factors such as vegetables and a Mediterranean diet and harmful factors such as trans fats and foods with a high glycemic index.
Peer reviewed studies
Mente A, de Koning L, Shannon HS, Anand SS (April 2009). "A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease". Arch. Intern. Med. 169 (7): 659–69.
Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM (March 2010). "Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 91 (3): 535–46. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725. PMID 20071648
_________________________________________________________________
Is that enough 'proof'? Yes I am mad, because I am sick and tired of hearing the BS about what is 'bad for you' without any scientific backing. You can quote the WHO and FDA till you're blue in the face - and I'll find you 10 studies, done with correct scientific methodologies which prove otherwise.
