coconut oil and liver damage

I was wondering why i get always a nausea effect using virgin coconut oil organic, now its seems to be clear:

some study show that its toxic for liver:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16256967?dopt=Abstract

1,N(6)-ethenodeoxyadenosine (etheno-dA), 3,N(4)-ethenodeoxycytidine (etheno-dC) and 1,N(2)-propandodeoxyguanosine from 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal (HNE-dGp) were determined as markers for DNA-damage derived from lipid peroxidation products and markers for oxidative stress.

Highest adducts levels of etheno-dA (133 +/- 113 adducts/10(9) parent bases) were found in coconut oil diet (lowest content of linoleic acid)

this marker is explained better here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9610794

In this study you even see a liver fat accumulation with consumption of coconut oil : http://books.google.fr/books?id=Xcj4NrtKe3IC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=coconut+oil+liver+mice&source=bl&ots=NNsoTcCqp2&sig=Lwhg9X6C5UzbKgsdxe0-sUVqWPE&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=61NaVMjcLYTNPcudgeAI&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=coconut%20oil%20liver%20mice&f=false

The more we read about oil, the less we need it

I've ate 2-4 tbps of coconut oil straight for about 6 months as part of a failed regimen. No liver failure yet but, guess if this is all true I'm a goner come a few more years. Anyone else have any other opinions?

I hope not.

I've consumed gallons of this stuff in my lifetime. literally.

iuyyighghghgkh wrote:I hope not.

I've consued gallons of this stuff in my lifetime. literally.

Me too. On Ms. Odysseus.

I don't know. There are also studies that show coconut oil having a protective effect on the liver.

Are you eating it on an empty stomach? Dont. Are you eating too much? You should build up the amount over time. Like any large amount of fat consumed, too much can make you feel nauseated.

These results mean nothing to me personally.

Without knowing the full details of the diet, trying to assess how one macro source is effecting liver fats is so limited its impossible to judge a food based on it.

A lot of times the diets used in these forms of studies vary one macronutrient source and the rest is corn or wheat-based and ratios aren't mentioned. Sometimes total
caloric contributions aren't mentioned.

The thing is lipid profiles are highly impacted by the contribution of CARB and FAT together. I guarantee if you feed a diet of predominantly fat (mostly saturated) you'll get different
results. You'll get different results if you feed a diet of almost totally carbohydrate with very little fat.

In my experience and based on what I've seen, you get bad things with a diet high in both carb and fat together, i.e. too much energy from both.

As always with this sort of stuff the devil is in the details.

So what's the missing element here?

Extra virgin vs refined coconut oil.

There's loads of positive information with virgin coconut oil.

This study shows the opposite conclusion, VCO is liver protective:

The present study aims to determine the hepatoprotective effect of MARDI-produced virgin coconut oils, prepared by dried- or fermented-processed methods, using the paracetamol-induced liver damage in rats. Liver injury induced by 3 g/kg paracetamol increased the liver weight per 100 g bodyweight indicating liver damage. Histological observation also confirms liver damage indicated by the presence of inflammations and necrosis on the respective liver section. Interestingly, pretreatment of the rats with 10, but not 1 and 5, mL/kg of both VCOs significantly (
𝑃 < . 0 5
) reduced the liver damage caused by the administration of paracetamol, which is further confirmed by the histological findings. In conclusion, VCO possessed hepatoprotective effect that requires further in-depth study.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2011/142739/

CausticSymmetry wrote:As always with this sort of stuff the devil is in the details.

So what's the missing element here?

Extra virgin vs refined coconut oil.

There's loads of positive information with virgin coconut oil.

This study shows the opposite conclusion, VCO is liver protective:

The present study aims to determine the hepatoprotective effect of MARDI-produced virgin coconut oils, prepared by dried- or fermented-processed methods, using the paracetamol-induced liver damage in rats. Liver injury induced by 3 g/kg paracetamol increased the liver weight per 100 g bodyweight indicating liver damage. Histological observation also confirms liver damage indicated by the presence of inflammations and necrosis on the respective liver section. Interestingly, pretreatment of the rats with 10, but not 1 and 5, mL/kg of both VCOs significantly (
𝑃 < . 0 5
) reduced the liver damage caused by the administration of paracetamol, which is further confirmed by the histological findings. In conclusion, VCO possessed hepatoprotective effect that requires further in-depth study.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2011/142739/

Hi CS,

Where do you see they used refined coconut oil in the study i quoted ?

About your study i saw this one too BUT, they speak about a reduction of liver damage caused by a specific molecule (here paracetamol). So it means indeed coconut oil can defend some damage but by itself still can induce damage and specific subtype of lipid peroxidation such as etheno-dA.

Furthermore, I used coconut oil to my scalp for his anti 5AR property and also his bacterio static benefit, but i got veryy itchy scalp and I found another study which explain it bring to epidermal hyperplasia, sebaceous gland hyperplasia, parakeratosis, and hyperkeratosis :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12571684

They used an isolated acid from the oil

102 wrote:These results mean nothing to me personally.

Without knowing the full details of the diet, trying to assess how one macro source is effecting liver fats is so limited its impossible to judge a food based on it.

A lot of times the diets used in these forms of studies vary one macronutrient source and the rest is corn or wheat-based and ratios aren't mentioned. Sometimes total
caloric contributions aren't mentioned.

The thing is lipid profiles are highly impacted by the contribution of CARB and FAT together. I guarantee if you feed a diet of predominantly fat (mostly saturated) you'll get different
results. You'll get different results if you feed a diet of almost totally carbohydrate with very little fat.

In my experience and based on what I've seen, you get bad things with a diet high in both carb and fat together, i.e. too much energy from both.

Interesting, does this things has to do with glycemic index ? what do you recommand then

chubbfrank wrote:I don't know. There are also studies that show coconut oil having a protective effect on the liver.

Are you eating it on an empty stomach? Dont. Are you eating too much? You should build up the amount over time. Like any large amount of fat consumed, too much can make you feel nauseated.

I was taking one tablespoon twice a day as recommand by some people here. It definitely too much.

Its pretty much just a lesson I've learned from observing the effects of different diets on myself, of diets that siblings and friends have experimented with, by reading some of the literature and pieces by authors I respect, trying to reconcile why people have success with what appear to be polar opposite diets, and lastly by observing what attributes of accepted "bad" diets may be to blame.

What I've come up with and has been echoed by guys like Alan Aragon, is that the combination of high fat and high carbohydrate in an overly energy dense diet (ala the Western diet) appears to promote defects in cellular energy metabolism. I believe the metabolic syndrome which has become rampant in the West in the latter part of the last century has been the result of a diet which is high in vegetable fats and added sugars, often together in the same meal. Not to mention the inclusion of HFCS in said diets (I don't believe fructose is bad in and of itself) is very easily converted to triglyceride in the context of energy sufficiency.

I don't want that to be taken as evidence I support mono-meals. I don't, although there are good examples of people who eat this way and thrive. I advocate for a diet which favors one energy source, either carbohydrate or fat (at about 40-50% of total calories), with the other taking up approximately 20% to 25% in the diet. In general, the more you rely on one source for energy, the less is required of the other in the diet (without falling below a generally accepted required amount). For example, a fruitarian eating loads and loads of fruit doesn't also need to get loads of energy from tons of oils. A person on a high fat diet doesn't also need to be consuming a great deal of carbohydrate. The difficulty of Western diets is that its difficult to track fat content and to predict how sugars will behave in the body with a meal that is too energy dense. But of course, lifestyle factors such as exercise (caloric output) effect all of this and can change one's capacity to handle energy massively.

One good example of a diet that accounts for this is The Perfect Health Diet, which I think gets pretty close to optimum. But there isn't any dietary recommendation that can be called perfect because each of us varies as individuals. The best they can do is give you a starting point which you have to adjust according to how you fare in terms of energy levels and changes in body comp.

But its a matter of simple observation to look at a diet that has failed everyone ubiquitously, the Western diet. One thing we see in common with the intakes on this eating pattern is a high intake of fats and carb (often added sweeteners) in the same meal, aside from other factors such as the sources of fats which we haven't gone into here but are important. Its my opinion that the preponderance of metabolic disorders today is the result of the burdensome energy density in the diet, that mitochondrial redox balance is disrupted by an overabundance of energetic products, which really become a fatty buildup in the cell, with disrupted fatty acid metabolism. This is also why there has been a lot of talk about the use of antioxidant therapy for reversing these conditions, which are really just signalling issues.

Also to be clear, I want to make sure I stress that I'm speaking about meals high in BOTH fat and sugar. When I make a statement about how the metabolic disorders today are due to the energy density in the diet....well, duh. But you tend to see people demonize one macronutrient or the other. Well diabetes happens because of the carbohydrate. Or it happens because you're eating too much fat. I think the mistake is in focusing on either one individually. Carbohydrate doesn't cause diabetes. Neither does fat. (Although the argument can be made that certain forms of these can contribute). I mean to say that its the combination of both at high levels in meals which causes the problem.

That also doesn't advocate either carb or fat to any one person. I believe there are innate qualities in an individual that predispose them to handling one energy source better than the other, and we see people refer to this as either "fast oxidizer" or "slow oxidizer" which I think accurately includes the autonomic nervous system into the equation. So even by eating the way I'm talking about, you can still run into problems if you don't recognize your own individual needs and tendencies. For the most part, you know how you react to meals. You know how you feel after you eat a very high carb meal, or a meal that's low-carb, high fat. So on some level its about experimentation and listening to your body. Your body will speak to you via your energy levels and mental acuity.

Its also not a prescription that allows you to gorge on any amount of either carb or fat in a single meal, just because you are limiting one. Even with a meal that's low in fat, most people don't need 100 g of carb in a single sitting. Likewise, most people don't need 60 g of fat in a single sitting, even if the carb is low. I try to think of it like I'm looking out for my mitochondria. I have a basic idea of the amount of energy my body needs in a given day. I try to spread that out and keep the energy source uniform in a single sitting, rather than mixed. Again, macronutrient ratios are the best way to get things right. Of total caloric intake in a given day, 40-50% should be from either carb or fat (higher if you are more active, vice versa if less active); 20-25% from the other; and the rest from protein. I like to get most of my fat before I workout (or highest activity level of the day), and most of the carb in the 2-3 hrs after the workout. Generally, at your first meal after your workout you'll be having a high concentration of carb, so fat should be avoided in that meal. But so long as you stick within your macro ratios and within your caloric needs for the day, you should be fine.

Think of it like a gas tank. You've got a tank that can handle 50:1 or 40:1 fuel, but you aren't going to mix both together when filling the tank willy nilly. And you certainly aren't going to fill the tank over capacity. You put in the right fuel in the right amount as you need it. The problem with most of us today is we eat for pleasure and reward, rather than with an eye toward energy requirements.

So I should perhaps stop taking coconut oil then? I usually take jarrow's extra virgin but this study has put me off now haha

http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2013/11/rustless-hearts-adding-15-20ml-of.html

Coconut oil is not something that can be just taken in large doses right off the bat, however it's been used for centuries.

Yes nausea is a common symptom if you take too much too soon.

CausticSymmetry wrote:http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2013/11/rustless-hearts-adding-15-20ml-of.html

Coconut oil is not something that can be just taken in large doses right off the bat, however it's been used for centuries.

Yes nausea is a common symptom if you take too much too soon.

I took a pretty large dosage when I first tried coconut oil a while back and shortly after it felt like my heart was racing, it was a really weird feeling, wish I could explain it better. I since took it down to one tablespoon and it was going ok, at least until i saw this thread haha.

Posting these studies in an older thread about coconut oil.

Aged coconut oil with a high peroxide value induces oxidative stress and tissue damage in mercury-treated rats.

Abarikwu SO1, Njoku RC1, Onuah CL1.
Author information
Abstract
Background Exposure to mercury (Hg) and the ingestion of peroxidized edible oil represent a health risk. This study evaluated the effects of peroxidized coconut oil (CO) on the liver and kidney of rats treated with Hg. Methods Male albino Wisteria rats were administered HgCl2 and CO separately or as a combination for 21 days. The concentrations of glutathione (GSH) and malondialdehyde (MDA), as well as the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT), which were used as markers of oxidative stress were measured in the liver and kidney homogenates. The activities of gamma glutamyl transferase (γ-GT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) as well as the levels of bilirubin and creatinine (CREA) as markers of liver and kidney functions were analyzed in the serum. Results The level of MDA in the kidney and liver homogenates was significantly increased in the HgCl2, CO, and CO+HgCl2 groups when compared to control values (p<0.05). Liver SOD activity and GSH level were increased and CAT activity was decreased, whereas kidney GSH level and SOD activity were decreased and CAT activity was increased in the CO and CO+HgCl2 groups when compared to control values (p<0.05). The increase in CREA and bilirubin levels as well as γ-GT and LDH activities observed in the CO+HgCl2 group when compared to the control values (p<0.05) were associated with pathological changes in both tissues, and were considered to be due to oxidative stress. Conclusions In summary, peroxidized CO and Hg alone or in combination induces oxidative damage in the liver and kidney of rats.

Often coconut oil is considered to be so stable (due to the high content of saturated fatty acids) that oxidation is not a concern. I recall some articles from Ray Peat's website claiming that coconut oil will remain stable even at room temperature. However the above study seems to suggest otherwise. So, the take away is that even with coconut oil need to be careful about storage conditions.

I also found this interesting study about the use of coconut oil as an anti-stress agent:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4247320/

Need to make sense of the dosage, which is described as "10 ml/kg bw". Is that per day? If yes, seems very difficult to consume that much through diet alone as one tbsp is 15 ml.

Recently I've been taking more coconut oil as a way to increase my calorie intake. As previous posters, I also experienced some symptoms like increased heart rate and nausea.