coconut oil question

[Guest guest]

>

> I looked through the files but didn't see an answer to this

question

> so here goes. Just hope it isn't something that's a repeat.

>

> I just got my coconut oil in the mail. How much each day? Do I

build

> up to a particular amount or start out with a set amount?

>

>

Me too! I just got mine and somewhere I read of a person who (taking

1T w/ each meal) experienced flushing, heart palpitations, etc and

had to cut back to 1t w/ each meal. Further, I dont eat breakfast at

this point. Im intending to when I can have my kefir smoothies again,

but I just dont. If I only eat 2 meals a day should I divide the 3t

in half or just stick with 1t w/ each meal? I have read it should be

eaten with a meal that has other fats too....somany confusing bits &

pieces.

Dona in OK

[Guest guest]

> IMO the very best antifungals are coconut oil and raw crushed

garlic.

Thanks for your help Bee. I skimmed the files on coconut oil and I

still don't see how it could be an effective antifungal in the gut.

Doesn't the caprylic acid in coconut oil have to come in contact with

the candida to exert its antifungal effect? According to the

following, caprylic acid is metabolized in the liver before contact

with candida:

" Caprylic acid when taken alone is metabolized by the liver and does

not get into the general circulation. It must exert its fungicidal

effect in the intestinal tract or not at all. According to studies,

just ten minutes after oral intake of straight caprylic acid, more

than 90% can be traced in the portal vein on its way to the liver. "

http://www.naturesnutrition.com/SKU/48102.htm

[Guest guest]

Has anyone actually added coconut oil to their diet and noticed weight

loss?

I read somewhere the other day that the addition of coconut oil alone

can produce a leaner body without changing the diet...can this be true?

Other research was referred to but not cited...so I could not track it

down.

If anyone knows, one of you will.

I love reading the posts here.

[Guest guest]

No, but I have not gained weight from it and I eat about ¼ cup a day.

Allyn

_____

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of kdbusy

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 2:36 PM

Subject: coconut oil question

Has anyone actually added coconut oil to their diet and noticed weight

loss?

I read somewhere the other day that the addition of coconut oil alone

can produce a leaner body without changing the diet...can this be true?

Other research was referred to but not cited...so I could not track it

down.

If anyone knows, one of you will.

I love reading the posts here.

[Guest guest]

I lost a bit of weight on it but I replaced my other oils. You can't

scarf on it and lose weight. It simply means that if you take, say, 3

tablespoons a day of oil in the form of 1T butter, 1T lard, 1T olive

oil, replace one or all 3 with coconut oil, don't just add it in to all

the other calories.

On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:32 PM, michael grogan wrote:

> coconut oil keeps my weight down. I've heard of a 15-20 lb. weight

> loss from eating 4-6 tablespoons of it a day.

>

> mike

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

[Guest guest]

>

> We don't think of foods as butter or cream as foods that have suffered a

> massive loss of nutrients in the same way as we think of how high

> temperature cooking affects foods by causing a massive loss of nutrients.

>

Really? That's strange, besides being completely devoid of B vitamins and

they're also pitifully deficient in potassium. That seems like a pretty

massive loss to me considering the values prior to the removal of the

skimmed milk. Just because whomever you are referring to by " we " doesn't

realize this, doesn't mean a significant loss isn't taking place.

If the healthy foods you eat are bland then it suggests to me your taste

> buds haven't adapted, you are fairly new to this way of eating, there is

> something awry with your health, or you have a poor source of food. Doesn't

> matter though.

>

I just don't think they are nearly as intense as artifically or even

naturally flavored crap. Doesn't mean they don't taste good, but certainly

not as jump-out-at-you as processed foods. In many ways they have more

flavor, but they lack the punch and that's why I call them bland. I feel

that only in bland foods can one taste the true flavors beneath, which I

would characterize in the 5 taste fashion of TCM. I use plenty of fresh

herbs, but very rarely do I use dried herbs anymore (unless I dried them,

and even then I don't do that much because I grow my own fresh ones). I

like fresh chilis too but they're still pretty bland compared to their

artificial counterparts. So perhaps this is another one of the words I am

not using like everyone else does, or perhaps I didn't make it clear that I

was comparing between blatently unhealthy foods and health foods.

And I'm going to take this as a no you don't boil your meat which means you

> are cooking them in some other way that might be reasonably thought of as

> processing by someone reading this thread, given your definitions.

>

I love how you just assume when I specifically stated the reason I didn't

respond. Since you clarified that you were asking because you are thinking

of adding these to your diet, here is the response:

When I eat poultry, I put the whole fresh bird into salted water to make

stock (sans what organs comes with it - I puree them and add them later on

in the cooking process so they don't get tough). When I have time, I

presoak it in brine but I think the chickens I get (when I get the good

ones) taste quite good even without brining.

I have not yet figured out how to get rare meat out of boiling, so when I

cook beef for the most part I just toss it in the frying pan (the only

" oils " I use are those which come from the fat in the meat) until the

outsides are browned (and the insides are still purple but warmish). Since

I'm still eating hung beef, I feel more comfortable browning the outsides.

Yet you and I must still be talking about two different things because the

> young green coconuts I eat not only have water but edible meat, which by

> your definition of processed means I would be eating a processed food by

> drinking only the water and leaving the meat behind, which I often do when I

> am fasting.

>

I have admittedly never seen a fresh coconut with any meat. Occasionally

they come with a small amount of gel around the sides, but for the most part

when I would pour out the milk there was nothing left on the sides.

I have my copy of NAPD in hand now and will go through it again so that I

may answer your other questions. I'm a pretty fast reader, but not superman

so it will take me a bit of time to answer fully.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

Lana,

> > We don't think of foods as butter or cream as foods that have suffered a

> > massive loss of nutrients in the same way as we think of how high

> > temperature cooking affects foods by causing a massive loss of nutrients.

> >

>

> Really? That's strange, besides being completely devoid of B vitamins and

> they're also pitifully deficient in potassium. That seems like a pretty

> massive loss to me considering the values prior to the removal of the

> skimmed milk. Just because whomever you are referring to by " we " doesn't

> realize this, doesn't mean a significant loss isn't taking place..

Are you reading closely what I am saying?

" We don't think of foods as butter or cream as foods _that have suffered_

a massive loss of nutrients _in the same way_ as we think of how high

temperature cooking affects foods by causing a massive loss of

nutrients. "

Note I didn't say there wasn't a massive loss of nutrients, so your

answer above is *not* responsive *at all* and is commenting on

something I'm not even talking about.

What I said was we (which I'm using to mean the generally prevailing

understanding of the Price paradigm) don't think of that nutrient loss

*in the same way* as we think of the nutrient loss from high heat

cooking, or white flour for that matter.

We think of high heat cooking as being harmful. We think of white

flour as being harmful. The prevailing understanding in the WAP

paradigm does *not* think of butter, cream, coconut oil, butter oil,

fermented foods, etc - all " processed " by your definition, and thereby

unhealthy or at best medicinal - as harmful per se, although a given

individual may need to avoid one or more of those foods or only

utilize one or more of those foods in small quantities.

What is strange is that you think the WAP principles teach otherwise.

But if you missed what I said in the first paragraph, I restated it

slightly different in the next paragraph:

" Those foods (and others) which you call " processed " have concentrated

certain aspects of a nutrient profile of a particular food for sure,

but massive loss of nutrients _in the same harmful way_ as high heat

cooking? I don't think so. "

Note once again I didn't say there wasn't a massive loss of nutrients,

only noting that such a loss doesn't affect us *in the same harmful

way* as high heat cooking.

Also note that I mentioned the end result of the " processing " of these

foods is a concentration of nutrients, nutrients by the way that in

the WAP paradigm are seen as beneficial. You cannot reasonably equate

that with the end results of high heat cooking, which create harmful

compounds, or the end result of grain processing that produces white

flour.

What is strange is that you have argued that is precisely what Price does.

I dare say you won't find any support for that position either in

Price's direct works, or in the work of those attempting to extend his

teachings.

> If the healthy foods you eat are bland then it suggests to me your taste

> > buds haven't adapted, you are fairly new to this way of eating, there is

> > something awry with your health, or you have a poor source of food. Doesn't

> > matter though.

> >

>

> I just don't think they are nearly as intense as artifically or even

> naturally flavored crap. Doesn't mean they don't taste good, but certainly

> not as jump-out-at-you as processed foods. In many ways they have more

> flavor, but they lack the punch and that's why I call them bland. I feel

> that only in bland foods can one taste the true flavors beneath, which I

> would characterize in the 5 taste fashion of TCM. I use plenty of fresh

> herbs, but very rarely do I use dried herbs anymore (unless I dried them,

> and even then I don't do that much because I grow my own fresh ones). I

> like fresh chilis too but they're still pretty bland compared to their

> artificial counterparts. So perhaps this is another one of the words I am

> not using like everyone else does, or perhaps I didn't make it clear that I

> was comparing between blatently unhealthy foods and health foods.

It sounded like you were eating a bland diet devoid of taste. Thanks

for the clarification.

> And I'm going to take this as a no you don't boil your meat which means you

> > are cooking them in some other way that might be reasonably thought of as

> > processing by someone reading this thread, given your definitions.

> >

>

> I love how you just assume when I specifically stated the reason I didn't

> respond. Since you clarified that you were asking because you are thinking

> of adding these to your diet, here is the response:

I drew that conclusion because right before in the same post I asked

the same question when it was not a " detour " but directly on message

and had nothing to do with taste. You ignored it. Here is the

exchange:

[YOU] Boiling is my cooking method of choice and for the most part I

puree in the water so

that none of the water solubles are lost during the process.

[ME] Meat, veggies, grains? Or just veggies and grains? Or just veggies?

> Yet you and I must still be talking about two different things because the

> > young green coconuts I eat not only have water but edible meat, which by

> > your definition of processed means I would be eating a processed food by

> > drinking only the water and leaving the meat behind, which I often do when

I

> > am fasting.

> >

>

> I have admittedly never seen a fresh coconut with any meat. Occasionally

> they come with a small amount of gel around the sides, but for the most part

> when I would pour out the milk there was nothing left on the sides.

The ones I eat always have meat on the sides. Sometimes I eat it,

sometimes I juice it, and sometimes I toss it (or freeze it for use at

a later date).

> I have my copy of NAPD in hand now and will go through it again so that I

> may answer your other questions. I'm a pretty fast reader, but not superman

> so it will take me a bit of time to answer fully.

If and when you find evidence that Price thought of processed foods in

the way you have defined them, essentially equating foods he *praised*

with the *harmful* " displacing foods of modern commerce, " " exceptions "

that Price *allowed*, and foods that shouldn't be consumed at all or

at best medicinally, then I'm all ears.

Short of that, my time with this thread is over..

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

>

> Are you reading closely what I am saying?

What I said was we (which I'm using to mean the generally prevailing

> understanding of the Price paradigm) don't think of that nutrient loss *in

> the same way* as we think of the nutrient loss from high heat cooking, or

> white flour for that matter.

>

I am! You have yet to tell me why nutrient loss due to heating is any

different than the physical removal of a portion of a substance aka

refining. If the response has to do with how Price used foods that

concentrated certain nutrients to heal natives that had detoured from their

original diet, then there is obviously an exception being made for these

foods due to their medicinal abilities, but you state that no exception is

being made. This makes no sense. I would like to know why you think that

nutrients lost due to heating is any different from nutrient loss due to

physical refining (such as the removal of cream from milk). And please,

don't tell me that this doesn't count as " processed " if they are not

" exceptions " because refining very well does count as processing otherwise

white flour wouldn't be an issue.

So please: I'm all ears.

I drew that conclusion because right before in the same post I asked the

> same question when it was not a " detour " but directly on message and had

> nothing to do with taste. You ignored it.

>

Unfortunately, I have been having issues with my email's quoting function so

that I have to literally cut and paste everything I am replying to from your

original emails otherwise everything splits into 2 columns and is completely

unreadable - this issue has been around with gmail+ before and they had

fixed it but it seems to be back as of this last week. This is one of the

reasons I asked you to stop putting extra stuff in your posts - so that I

stop missing these statements.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

Lana,

> > Are you reading closely what I am saying?

>

> What I said was we (which I'm using to mean the generally prevailing

> > understanding of the Price paradigm) don't think of that nutrient loss *in

> > the same way* as we think of the nutrient loss from high heat cooking, or

> > white flour for that matter.

> >

>

> I am! You have yet to tell me why nutrient loss due to heating is any

> different than the physical removal of a portion of a substance aka

> refining.

As regards white flour (the process of refining) and the process of

high heat cooking I didn't say there was any difference. I said they

were both the same. Maybe you missed it:

[] - We think of high heat cooking as being harmful. We think of white

flour as being harmful. The prevailing understanding in the WAP

paradigm does *not* think of butter, cream, coconut oil, butter oil,

fermented foods, etc - all " processed " by your definition, and thereby

unhealthy or at best medicinal - as harmful per se, although a given

individual may need to avoid one or more of those foods or only

utilize one or more of those foods in small quantities.

As regards the foods Price praised the answer should be obvious. I

state the answer in my above quote. I have mentioned it a number of

times in my other posts. I will separate it out below so you don't

miss it.

########################################################################

Unlike the end products resulting from extreme heat cooking or the

refining of grain into white flour, the end results of the processing

of the foods Price praised are beneficial and not harmful per se.

Whether the food came about by a chemical transformation (like

fermentation) or a refining process (like centrifuging butter or oil)

doesn't matter, they do not become functionally equivalent to the

" displacing foods of modern commerce " Price warned against as result

of these processing actions.

#########################################################################

In your first post in this thread you said:

" Despite supposedly being a health food, coconut oil is

processed... "

Well that is answered above.

In your fourth post in this thread you said:

" If white flour is considered processed, how is coconut oil not

considered processed in the same way? "

If by " considered " you mean " why not held in the same place of

disrepute as white flour? " that too is answered above.

And finally you ended by saying:

" To consume coconut oil seperate from coconut

fiber and water is to do the same thing as to consume white flour without

its germ or oil. "

Again, see above.

Let me say it another way. Regardless of how you want to define

" processed " the WAP paradigm rejects the idea that " processing " *in

and of itself* makes a food bad. It is the effect of that processing

on our bodies that determines whether a food is bad or not. Thus white

flour is bad and butter is good (with individual constitutional

allowances allowed).

To say otherwise is to flip the entire WAP paradigm on its head.

The reason this seems to be a problem for you is that you appear to

keep falling back on your definition of " processed=bad ' and then want

to argue that the " processed " foods Price praised are functionally

equivalent to the " displacing foods of modern commerce " which he

abhorred. Thats nonsense.

As I noted above, The result of processing that yields a food which is

harmful is different than the result of processing that yields a food

which is beneficial, regardless of the process. Whatever action that

was taken to create the food isn't the real issue, the end result is

however. If high heat cooking created beneficial foods it would then

be a useful process. However to say a food is by definition harmful or

rendered medicinal because it is no longer in its original state is a

procrustean bed of your own making and is found *nowhere* in the WAP

paradigm.

The onus is upon you to show why the processing of butter, cream, etc.

renders these foods harmful or medicinal in nature. The onus is on you

to demonstrate such from the WAP paradigm, and if that can't be done,

then you either have to give up your idiosyncratic view of " processed

= bad " or simply declare the evidence shows Price was wrong rather

than attempt to squeeze what he said to fit your preconceived notions.

> If the response has to do with how Price used foods that

> concentrated certain nutrients to heal natives that had detoured from their

> original diet, then there is obviously an exception being made for these

> foods due to their medicinal abilities, but you state that no exception is

> being made.

Because these foods were a part of their original diet. He wasn't

making an exception as these foods were what they were *originally*

eating in the first place!

You seem to have this notion that Price allowed these foods because he

observed the natives eating them to get well and then once they got

well they returned to their original diets which didn't include these

foods.

Nothing could be further from reality of what he observed.

You really do need to re-read NAPD before you offer any more of what

you think Price was doing, otherwise we are just going around in

circles.

> This makes no sense.

It doesn't if you have a prior ideological commitment to the very act

of processing rendering a food either bad (and thereby something not

to be consumed) or medicinal, and thus not suited for long term use,

an idea which turns the whole WAP paradigm on its head.

Otherwise it makes perfect sense and frankly is not very controversial at all.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

Speaking of olive oil. I remember Enig saying that she never saw anyone

lose weight when they consumed olive oil. It was probably a few years ago

when I heard this (or read it), so I might not be quoting her exactly. But,

the upshot is, that if you were trying to lose weight, it might be best to

get olive oil completely out of your diet.

Corrigan

Certified Body Ecolgist

http://www.corganic.com/

On 7/3/07, Parashis <artpages@...> wrote:

>

> I lost a bit of weight on it but I replaced my other oils. You can't

> scarf on it and lose weight. It simply means that if you take, say, 3

> tablespoons a day of oil in the form of 1T butter, 1T lard, 1T olive

> oil, replace one or all 3 with coconut oil, don't just add it in to all

> the other calories.

>

> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:32 PM, michael grogan wrote:

>

> > coconut oil keeps my weight down. I've heard of a 15-20 lb. weight

> > loss from eating 4-6 tablespoons of it a day.

> >

> > mike

> Parashis

> artpages@... <artpages%40earthlink.net>

> zine:

> artpagesonline.com

>

> portfolio:

> http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > > Bee, there are 2 coconut oils on the site that you recommend

for

> > buying

> > > coconut oil. One is less expensive, but please tell me which is

> the

> > > best:

> > >

> > > 1) " Coconut Oil, Unrefined

> > > Virgin coconut oil, $38 per gallon plus shipping. "

> > >

> > >

> > > 2) Centrifuged Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, $41.75 for 1/2

gallon,

> > and

> > > $64.95 per gallon, plus shipping

> > >

> > > Thank you Bee! : )

> >

> > +++Hi. What is your name. Please provide the links.

> >

> > Thanks, Bee

>

> Hi Bee, it's Gail that posted this.

>

> You posted a link in a past digest (and I can't find) to an

> internet " store " where you recommended their coconut oil. What is

in

> the text of the above post is " copied and pasted " from that link.

but

> I can not find the link now. If you know where that store is, or

the

> link, I would like to have, I was going to purchased the coconut

oil

> there.

>

> If you find it, I would like to know which coconut oil out of the 2

> there you recommend. Sorry to bother you with this, but there are

so

> many links, I get lost about the site.

+++Hi Gail. Here's the Recommended Products Section on my website:

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/resource/menu1.php

You can get it by clicking on the Products button at the top of my

website between the Print button and Search.

Bee

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi Bee

>  

> Wonder if you could take a peek at this Aclara coconut oil

>  

> http://www.aclarahealth.com.au/products.htm

>  

> It is the easiest to get for me where I live in Australia. Hope it is

as good as what you can get over your way.

+++Hi . I checked out Aclara CO, and it doesn't state it is

unrefined, undeodorized, unbleached, etc. See this article for

websites that carry coconut oil in Australia:

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/coconut6.php

But also doublecheck the type of coconut oil to ensure it is unrefined

and not refined. Some websites offer both.

Bee