This is not a rhetorical question. Apart from being difficult to scoop out of the jar when it’s cold, what is wrong with coconut oil?

Dr Karin Michels, an adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health, says that saturated fats are bad, that they cause heart disease, and that eating coconut oil is like eating poison. This view, originally theorised by Ansel Keyes in the 1950s, is based on cherry-picked data that ignores the relationship between a diet with too much refined carbohydrates (sugar), trans-fats¹ (hydrogenated polyunsaturated oils), and unhealthy lifestyle choices (such as smoking), that all contribute to inflammation and build-up of LDL, the “bad” cholesterol.

If coconut oil is “pure poison”, why does the health of people in the Asia Pacific region go into decline when they remove coconut from their traditional diets & lifestyle? Why are diabetes and obesity on the rise when traditional diets are changed in favour of a “healthier low-fat Western-based” diet? A number of international organisations, including the APCC, have requested Michel explain & apologise for the comments that denigrate traditional diets and ignore a clear body of countering research & literature. See here for the APCC's full statement.

The truth is that a “healthy low-fat diet” makes us unhealthy by filling us up with too many carbs (sugars) and cheap unsaturated fats/oils - which have too much Omega 6 & Omega 9, while depriving us of a healthy proportion of saturated fats which our bodies need to function properly.

Nothing new in Michels’ claim about saturated fat

Coconut oil is 94% saturated fat, and this is a good thing.

50% of coconut oil is Lauric Acid, a saturated fat that helps boost HDL, the good cholesterol, and lower LDL, the bad cholesterol.² The reason that coconut oil has become so popular in the last ten years is that the actual research on coconut oil and heart disease proves that coconut is one of the healthiest oils you can eat!³ The Heart Foundation has been claiming that saturated fat is the root of all evil (as regards heart health) for decades, but the tide of public & official opinion has been turning, particularly as the evidence for the contrary position increases year by year.⁴

Change takes time

Not that long ago it was accepted as fact that stomach ulcers were a virtually chronic condition, which had to be managed by expensive medications and often surgery. Today the consensus is different, but it took a while for official recognition to change. Despite clear research by two Australian doctors, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall, who went on to receive a Nobel Prize for their work, the medical establishment took more than a decade to accept the evidence and update guidelines. Warren & Marshall even deliberately infected themselves with the bacteria that cause ulcers in order to prove that the disease could be treated with a simple course of antibiotics! Although the physical proof was blatant, there was resistance to change.

It is no surprise that organisations like the Heart Foundation are still making their same outdated claims about coconut oil, despite the new evidence. Karin Michels ignores the scientific facts, maintaining, “There is no study that supports significant health benefits of coconut oil”. In fact, there are hundreds of documented research studies regarding the health benefits of coconut oil, like those listed below, which can be found on the internet.

It takes time for institutions and society to change, because people have to admit that they are wrong. That’s an embarrassing process to go through, particularly when careers, prestige, and money are involved. It’s much easier to perpetuate a claim based on some other entity’s authority instead of engaging in a scientific debate using evidence and logic. One sad aspect of this recent anti-coconut rant is that Michels’ ability to make unsubstantiated claims is based on people’s respect for Harvard University as an institution.

That’s lazy journalism, and not a logical argument.

Aside from Karin Michels not being an official spokesperson for Harvard, she is a bio-statistician, not a cardiologist, fats expert, nutritionist or clinical researcher. Her professional expertise does not extend to analysing clinical findings in these specific fields. She sidesteps this by ignoring the existence of research that runs contrary to the anti-coconut position. Her claims are not substantiated with reference to any research but are just recycled opinions.

Since Dr Michels delivered her lecture in Germany, there have been a number of eminent cardiologists, researchers, and other professional groups calling on her to apologise and retract the comments.

References

1. Enig, Mary G., PhD. Know Your Fats; The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils, and Cholesterol. Bethesda Press 2000.

2. Khaw, KT, et al. Randomised trial of coconut oil, olive oil or butter on blood lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in healthy men and women. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020167.

3. Siri-Tarino, PW, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;91:535-546.

4. Chowdhury, R, et al. Association of dietary, circulating, and supplement fatty acids with coronary risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:398-406.