Should I Get a Flu Shot?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in current health articles, Drugs and Health, Health Current Events, Healthy Lifestyle

The Truth About About Flu Shots That Nobody Else Is Telling You

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 should I get flu shot

It is flu season again, and the annual debate about whether everyone should get a flu shot is heating up. On the one hand we are told that the flu shot saves thousands of lives and everyone should be vaccinated. On the other hand we are being told that the flu shot is deadly and we should avoid it. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.

When you examine the scientific literature it is clear that:

  1. The risks of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated.
  2. The benefits of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated.
  3. The medical profession has not leveled with us about the real reason they recommend that everyone get a flu shot.

Flu Shot Side Effects

The greatest fear of vaccination and therefor flu shot side effects for children has been the claim that the flu vaccine causes autism. It is easy to understand how the hypothesis arose that vaccinations and autism might be linked, because the first symptoms of autism usually appear around the time that children are completing their initial series of vaccinations.

However, clinical research has not substantiated that any causal relationship between vaccinations and autism. It isn’t that scientist haven’t looked. A number of clinical studies have looked for a link between vaccinations and autism and have failed to find any. The age of onset and prevalence of autism are virtually identical in vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

However, most vaccines still contain mercury, and mercury is a neurotoxin. So if you are getting your child vaccinated, I recommend that you insist on getting a mercury free vaccine. You may want to inquire about the preservatives and additives in the flu vaccine as well, because some of them are also toxic.

Beyond that the biggest concerns are severe allergic reactions and an autoimmune response called Guillian-Barré syndrome which causes symptoms ranging from muscle weakness and fatigue to partial paralysis. These side effects are real and they are serious, but they are also quite rare. They affect somewhere between 1 in a million to 1 in 100,000 children, depending on the vaccine.

In short, flu shot side effects risks are real, but they have been greatly exaggerated by some in the media.

Let’s Talk Science

It turns out that the benefits of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated by health professionals and the media as well. However, to properly understand why the messages you hear are a bit misleading you need to understand some scientific jargon, namely the difference between relative risk and absolute risk.

Relative risk describes the effect of an intervention for people with a certain condition. In this case, relative risk would be the effect of the flu shot (intervention) for people who have been infected with the flu virus (condition). Relative risk is often used in media reports because it magnifies the effect of the intervention. In short, it makes the intervention look really good.

Absolute risk describes the effect of an intervention on the probability that you will develop a certain condition. In this case absolute risk would be the effect of the flu shot on you actually getting the flu. Since this takes into account your probability of being infected by the flu virus as well as the relative risk reduction once you have become infected, it is a much smaller number. Absolute risk is a much better measure of the actual benefit you can expect to receive.

 

Is The Flu Shot Effective?

flu shot side effectsThere is always year to year variation in the severity of the flu and the effectiveness of flu vaccines. In addition, many other viruses that cause flu-like symptoms and are completely unaffected by the flu vaccine.

For example, both enterovirus D68 and the Ebola virus are in the headlines – enterovirus D68 because it has hospitalized so many kids this fall and Ebola virus because it is so deadly. Unfortunately, the flu vaccine has no efficacy against either of those viruses.

In addition, there is also significant variation in both the efficacy and evidence for efficacy in different population groups that is generally not acknowledged during the annual campaigns recommending that everyone should get a flu shot. To better understand that we need to look at the efficacy of the flu shot in each population group individually.

 

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Children Age 6 Months To 2 Years?

In 2010, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices began recommending flu vaccination for all healthy children older than 6 months. However, in 2012 the Cochrane Collaboration conducted a systematic review of all published clinical studies and concluded that for children in that age group currently licensed flu vaccines “are not significantly more effective than placebo”. [To fully understand the significance of that statement you need to know that the Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, non-profit organization that promotes evidence-based medicine. In fact, in the medical community Cochrane Collaboration systematic reviews are considered to be the gold standard for evidence based medicine.]

Summary: This is one of the groups at greatest risk for developing severe complications to the flu, so it is disappointing that the flu vaccine is not more effective for this group. I will talk about the best way to protect this group below.

Is The Flu Shot Safe & Effective in Healthy Children Age 2 To 7 Years?

This is the age group for which immunization makes the greatest sense, and the nasal spray gives the best results for this group. According to the 2012 Cochrane Collaboration review the flu shot reduces the relative risk of the flu by 48% and the nasal spray with attenuated live virus reduces the relative risk by 83%.

Since around 16% of unvaccinated children catch the flu in an average year this translates to an absolute risk reduction of 3.6% for the flu shot and 17% for the nasal spray. That is a smaller number, but still significant. This, of course, varies from year to year dependent on how well the vaccine matches the strains of virus that are actually circulating through the population.

Summary: The science behind vaccination for this group has shifted significantly in the past few years. The evidence for the efficacy of the flu shot in this age group has increased while the evidence for harm has deceased. The fear of the flu shot causing autism has been largely disproven by recent clinical studies. That leaves severe allergic reactions and the Guillian-Barré syndrome as the major complications of the flu vaccination.

Proponents of the flu vaccinations have estimated that if all children in this age range were vaccinated, around 200 would develop severe complications to the flu shot, and if all children in this age range were unvaccinated 20,000 would develop severe complications from the flu. I have not been able to independently substantiate those statistics. We also need to keep in mind that in those rare years, such as during the 1976 swine flu epidemic, when approximately 1 in 100,000 vaccinated children developed Guillian-Barré syndrome the incidence of severe complications to the flu shot could have reached the 2-3,000 range if the vaccination program had not been terminated early.

I realize that this is an emotional issue for parents, and there is no perfect answer. However, at present the weight of evidence is slightly in favor of vaccination for this age group.

 

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Healthy Children Age 8 To 18 Years?

According to a recent meta-analysis of all available clinical studies (Oosterholm et al, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 12: 36-44, 2012), we simply don’t know whether the flu vaccine will be effective in this age group because no reliable studies have been conducted.

Even worse than that, we may never know whether the flu shot offers any protection for this age group because of a Catch 22 situation in modern clinical research. Once a particular treatment becomes “the standard of care” it is considered unethical to withhold that treatment in a clinical trial. Since the CDC is now recommending the flu shot for everyone over age 2, it would be considered unethical to conduct a clinical trial in which half the population received flu shots and half did not.

Summary: I suspect that the flu shot may offer some protection in this age group, but there is no convincing clinical evidence to support that belief at present and for the foreseeable future.

 

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Healthy Adults Age 18 To 65 Years?

is flu shot effectiveHere the answer is yes. According to a 2012 meta-analysis of 31 published clinical studies (Oosterholm et al, The Lancet Infectious Diseases) the flu shot gives an impressive 75% reduction in the relative risk of catching the flu. However, in an average year only 4% of this population will catch the flu if unvaccinated, so the absolute risk reduction is a modest 3%.

This is also the group that has the least to fear from the flu. Only about 1 in 100 people in this age range develop severe complications as a result of getting the flu, and these are usually the people with severe diseases and/or compromised immune systems. For most healthy adults in this age range, the flu is merely a one or two day inconvenience.

Summary: For healthy adults in this age range the flu vaccine offers only a modest decrease in the absolute risk of catching the flu, and this group has a relatively low risk of developing severe complications from the flu. If the self interest of this group were the only consideration, it is hard to understand the insistence of the medical community that everyone in this age range get a flu shot. It would appear to be a matter of personal choice.

 

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Seniors Age 65 And Older?

Flu shot proponents will tell you that flu shots cut the risk of death in this group by 50% based on a meta-analysis published in 2002 (Vu et al, Vaccine, 20: 1831-1836, 2002).

However, more recent research has come to the opposite conclusion. A recent meta-analysis (Oosterholm et al, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 12: 36-44, 2012) concluded “Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking”. The 2010 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review concluded “Due to the poor quality of available evidence, any conclusions regarding the affects of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older cannot be drawn.”

The lack of protection of the flu virus in seniors is most likely due to the fact that, in many cases, their immune systems have weakened with age.

Summary: This is another group where you would most like to see protection by the flu shot, because this group is likely to suffer severe complications and death from the flu, so it is disappointing that the flu vaccine is not more effective for this group.

 

Who Has Most To Fear From The Flu?

flu shotWhen you hear that the flu shot significantly reduces the risk of severe complications and death from the flu, you should know that the risks are not spread evenly over the population. The very young are at risk because their immune systems haven’t fully developed. The very old are at risk because their immune systems have weakened with age and they may already be in precarious health because of other diseases. And, of course, anyone at any age who is in precarious health because of disease or who has a compromised immune system is at risk as well.

 

Why Do Health Professionals Recommend That Everyone Get A Flu Shot?

If you are a healthy adult in the 18-65 age range, your risk of severe complications and death is from the flu is very low. It is not zero, but it is low. So why are health professionals so insistent that you need to get a flu shot?

The reason is straight forward, but it is not the reason that they are giving you. It is a public health measure, pure and simple.

The very young, the very old, the sick and the infirm are the ones most likely to develop severe complications and die from a flu infection. However, the flu shot doesn’t offer them much protection because their immune systems are often compromised. The best way to protect those groups is to immunize everyone else. If the flu virus can’t gain a foothold in the rest of the population, those at greatest risk will never be exposed to the flu.

So the constant warnings that you need to get a flu shot is less about protecting you than it is about protecting those whom you might infect. Now you know the truth. If you decide to get a flu shot it will be for the right reason, not the reason you are being given by the medical profession.

In a similar vein, many health departments are warning about hospitalizations and deaths from enterovirus D68 infections and urging people to get flu shots. They are not telling people that the flu shot has no efficacy against enterovirus D68.

I understand the concept that the rare combination of the regular flu and enterovirus D68 infection in the same patient would be particularly deadly. But, I also believe in truth in advertising. The medical profession needs to level with people about why they are recommending flu shots, not use scare tactics that make promises the flu shot can’t deliver.

 

Should I Get A Flu Shot?

As you can see, your decision about whether or not the flu shot is the right thing for you is not an easy one. Both the benefits and risks of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated in the media. I have tried not to be an advocate either for or against flu vaccinations. I have evaluated the scientific literature and tried to give you the unvarnished truth. It is now up to you to make an educated decision – one that is right for you.

My personal decision about the flu shot is influenced by my father’s example. He dutifully got his flu shot every year, and every year he came down with the flu shortly after getting the flu shot. I’ve seen the same phenomenon with several of my friends who work at area hospitals and are required to get an annual flu shot. I know that the experts claim you can’t get the flu from the flu shot. I don’t know about that. I only know what I have observed.

In addition, I do not have young children or elderly parents at home who might be compromised if I were to develop even a mild case of the flu. So I chose to follow the kind of lifestyle that keeps my immune system strong rather than relying on a flu shot to protect me from the flu. That immune-healthy lifestyle, of course, will be a topic for a future “Health Tips From the Professor”.

 

The Bottom Line:

  1. Both the effectiveness and risks of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated.
  2. The flu shot has no proven effectiveness in children ages 6 months to 2 years, children aged 8-18 years and seniors 65 years and older.
  3. In children, aged 2 to 7, nasal sprays with partially inactive flu virus give a 17% decrease in absolute risk of catching the flu. Side effects of the flu vaccine in this population group are severe allergic reactions and an autoimmune response called Guillian-Barré syndrome. Both severe complications from the flu virus and side effects of the flu vaccine are very rare, but complications from the flu virus are several fold more common than side effects from the vaccine.
  4. Fears that the flu vaccine could trigger autism have not been validated by clinical studies. However, mercury is a neurotoxin so I recommend that you insist on mercury-free vaccines for your children. You may also wish to inquire about other preservatives and additives in the vaccine, because some of them are toxic.
  5. In healthy adults, aged 18 to 65, flu shots give a 3% decrease in absolute risk of catching the flu. This is also the population group with the lowest risk of severe complications from the flu. For most adults in this age group the flu is nothing more than a one or two day inconvenience.
  6. The groups most likely to develop severe complications and die from flu infections are the very young, the very old, and the sick. They are also the groups least likely to benefit from the flu shot because their immune systems are weak.
  7. If you are a healthy adult in the 18 to 65 age group, the constant warnings that you need to get a flu shot is less about protecting you than it is about protecting those whom you might infect if you catch the flu. It is a public health measure to protect the very young, the very old, and the sick. Now you know the truth. If you decide to get a flu shot it will be for the right reason, not the reason you have been given by the health profession.
  8. In addition, the flu shot has no efficacy against either enterovirus D68 or Ebola virus. Although both of these viruses are real concerns, neither is a justification for recommending that people get flu shots.
  9. As for me, I am influenced by the example of my father who got the flu from the flu shot every year. I chose to follow the kind of lifestyle that keeps my immune system strong rather than relying on a flu shot to protect me from the flu. That, of course, will be a topic for a future “Health Tips From the Professor”.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (10)

  • Leslie Ann Johnson

    |

    Exactly what I was looking for! The truth about the Flu shot from a reputable source! Now I feel like I can make my decision based on the facts, and not the hype from media. Thank you, Dr. Chaney!

    Reply

  • Karen Hux

    |

    Dr. Chaney,

    I am 63 years old, work full time in a school, and my 89 year old mother lives with my husband and me. Based on your excellent article, It sounds like it may be a good idea for my husband and me to continue getting flu shots for Mom’s protection rather than ours. Have I understood correctly?

    I understand your statements are not intended as medical advice.

    Thank you!
    Karen Hux (via my dear friend Billie Lane)

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Karen,

      I don’t want to give medical advice, but if I had an 89 year old mother living with me and her health were fragile, I would strongly consider a flu shot.

      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

  • Mary Mika

    |

    Very helpful information which I will share.

    Reply

  • Mary Ahrens

    |

    Just the facts man! I love it! Thank you Dr. Chaney for giving us information based on facts. That make sense!

    Reply

  • Kathy

    |

    Be careful! I got a flu shot October 14th, 2014. The pharmacist shot it into my bursa instead of my muscle. Make SURE they do not put it too high on your shoulder. I am still in pain a month later. I think the flu would be better.

    Reply

  • Opal Hernandez

    |

    Thanks, you always tell it like it is! my husband, 85, and I, 76, haven’t had a flu shot in about 15 years, no flu, either. i strongly believe in doing everything I can to have a strong immune system.
    however, we do get the pneumonia shot, I have a history of pneumonia and thought it might be best. do you think it wise?

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Opal,
      I am a bit reluctant to weigh in on that question. We normally develop immunity to diseases that we have had recently. If you have had pneumonia recently, I’m not sure what the additional benefit of a pneumonia shot would be. I’ll have to research that question. Perhaps it could be a topic for a future “Health Tips From the Professor”.
      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

  • Robbie

    |

    Dr. Chaney with all the issues with ongoing vaccines the ingredients alone in these vaccines are very toxic, why would anyone take them at all?

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Robbie,
      There are benefits to the flu vaccine for some people, but those benefits have been oversold by the health industry. I tried to give a balanced overview of the benefits and risks of the flu vaccine in my article in “Health Tips From the Professor”
      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

Leave a comment

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

Is Coconut Oil Bad For You?

Posted July 25, 2017 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Nutty About Coconut Oil

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

is coconut oil bad for youCoconut oil is the latest miracle food. Bloggers and talk show hosts are telling us how healthy it is. We are being told to cook with it, spread it on our toast, and put it in our smoothies. We are told to be creative. The more coconut oil you can get in your diet, the better.  But, is coconut oil bad for you?

The hype is working. 72% of the American public believes coconut oil is healthy. This is why the recent American Heart Association (AHA) Presidential Advisory on saturated fats has proven so controversial.

Interestingly, most of the AHA advisory was about the linkage between saturated fats from meat & dairy and heart disease risk. Only one paragraph of the 24-page report was devoted to coconut oil, but the AHA recommendation to avoid coconut oil generated the lion’s share of headlines.

What Did The AHA Presidential Advisory Say?

The AHA advisory concluded that saturated fats from meat and dairy foods increased the risk of heart disease. This conclusion was based on randomized clinical trials in which the diet was carefully controlled for a period of at least two years. More importantly, the conclusion was not based on LDL cholesterol, particle size, HDL cholesterol, inflammation or any other potential marker of heart disease risk. It was based on actual cardiovascular outcomes – heart attacks, strokes, deaths due to heart disease.

I have reviewed the AHA report in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor,” Are Saturated Fats Bad For You, and have concluded their statement that saturated fats from meat and dairy increase the risk of heart disease was based on solid evidence. We can now say definitively that those saturated fats should be minimized in our diets.

 

Is Coconut Oil Bad For You?

 

coconut oil bad for heartIn contrast to the saturated fats in meat and dairy, there have been no studies looking at the effect of coconut oil on cardiovascular outcomes. Instead, the authors of the AHA report relied on studies measuring the effect of coconut oil on LDL cholesterol levels. There have been 7 controlled trials in which coconut oil was compared with monounsaturated or polyunsaturated oils.

  • Coconut oil raised LDL cholesterol in all 7 studies.
  • The increase in LDL cholesterol in these studies was identical to that seen with butter, beef fat, or palm oil.

This evidence makes it probable that coconut oil increases the risk of heart disease. However, LDL is not a perfect predictor of heart disease risk. The only way to definitively prove that coconut oil increases the risk of heart disease would be to conduct clinical studies in which:

  • Coconut oil was substituted for other fats in the diet.
  • All other dietary components were kept the same.
  • The study lasted at least 2 years.
  • Adherence to the “coconut oil diet” was monitored.
  • Cardiovascular outcomes were measured (heart attack, stroke, death from heart disease).

In short, one would need the same type of study that supports the AHA warning about saturated fats from meats and dairy. In the absence of this kind of study, there is no “smoking gun.” We cannot definitively say that coconut oil increases the risk of heart disease.

Is Coconut Oil Healthy?

coconut oil healthyDoes that mean all those people who have been claiming coconut oil is a health food are right? Probably not. At the very least, their health claims are grossly overstated.

Let’s start with the obvious. In the absence of any long-term studies on the effect of coconut oil on cardiovascular outcomes, nobody can claim that coconut oil is heart healthy. It might be, but it might also be just as bad for you as the saturated fats from meat and dairy. It’s effect on LDL cholesterol suggests it might increase your risk of heart disease, but we simply do not know for certain.

I taught human metabolism to medical students for 40 years. I was also a research scientist who published in peer reviewed journals. When I look at the health claims for coconut oil on the internet, I am dismayed. Many of the claims are complete nonsense. Others sound plausible, but are based on an incomplete understanding of human metabolism. None of them would pass peer review, but, of course, there is no peer review on the internet.

In addition, some of the claims have been “cherry picked” from the literature. For example, claims that coconut oil increases metabolic rate or aids weight loss are based on short-term studies and ignore long-term studies showing those effects disappear over time.

Let me review some of the more plausible-sounding claims for coconut oil.

  • Coconut oil increases HDL levels, which is heart healthy. The effects of HDL cholesterol are complex. Elevated HDL levels are not always heart protective.

For example, a few years ago a pharmaceutical company developed a drug that raised HDL levels. They thought they had a blockbuster drug. You didn’t need to exercise. You didn’t need to lose weight. You would just pop their pill and your HDL levels would go up. There was only one problem. When they did the clinical studies, their drug had absolutely no effect on heart disease risk. It turns out it is exercise and weight loss that reduce heart disease risk, not the increase in HDL associated with exercise and weight loss.

The implications are profound. Just because something increases HDL levels does not mean it will reduce cardiovascular risk. You have to actually measure cardiovascular risk before claiming something is heart healthy. That has not been done for coconut oil, so no one can claim it is heart healthy.

  • Coconut oil consists of medium chain triglycerides, which are absorbed more readily than other fats. That is true, but it is of interest to you only if you suffer from a fat malabsorption disease. Otherwise, it is of little importance to you.
  • Medium chain triglycerides are preferentially transported to the liver, where the fats in coconut oil are converted to energy or released as ketones rather than being stored as fat. This is partially true, but it is misleading for two reasons.
    • First, the fat in coconut oil actually has three possible fates in the liver. Some of it will be converted to energy, but only enough to meet the immediate energy needs of the liver. If carbohydrate is limiting, the excess will be converted to ketones and exported to other tissues as an energy source. If carbohydrate is plentiful, the excess will be converted to long chain saturated fats identical to those found in meat and dairy and exported to other tissues for storage.
    • Secondly, nobody has repealed the laws of thermodynamics. If the fat in coconut oil is being preferentially used as an energy source by the liver and being exported as ketones to other tissues as an energy source, you need to ask what happens to the calories from the other components in your diet. If you are eating a typical American diet, the carbohydrate that would have been used for energy will be converted to fat and stored. If you are eating a low carbohydrate diet, the other fats that would have been used for energy will simply be stored. Simply put, if you are preferentially using the calories from coconut oil for energy, the calories from the other foods in your diet don’t just evaporate. They are stored as fat.
  • Coconut oil increases metabolic rate, which will help you lose weight. When you look at the studies, this is only a temporary effect. This is due to a phenomenon called metabolic adaptation that is often seen when one makes a dramatic shift in diet composition. Initially, you may see an increase in metabolic rate and weight loss. After a few weeks, the body adapts to the new diet,and your metabolic rate returns to normal.
  • Coconut oil is metabolized to ketones which have many beneficial effects. There is some truth to this claim. As I discussed in my analysis of the keto diet,  ketones have some real benefits, but not nearly as many as proponents claim. Furthermore, the amount of ketones produced by coconut oil will depend on the availability of carbohydrate. Much of the coconut oil in the context of a very low carbohydrate diet will likely be converted to ketones. Coconut oil spread on a piece of bread or used in baking is more likely going to be converted to fat.

I could go on, but you get the point. The hype about the benefits of coconut oil sounds good, but is misleading. There may be some benefits, but in the absence of long-term studies we have no convincing evidence that coconut oil is good for us.

What Does This Mean For You?

coconut oil bad or goodWhen you started reading this article, you were probably hoping that I would settle the coconut oil controversy. Perhaps you were hoping that I would tell you the American Heart Association was right, and you should avoid coconut oil completely. More likely you were hoping I would tell you the coconut oil proponents were right and you could continue looking for more ways to incorporate coconut oil into your diet. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.

Coconut oil may increase our heart disease risk, but the evidence is not definitive. We cannot say with certainty that coconut oil is bad for us. On the other hand, most of the hype about the benefits of coconut oil is inaccurate or misleading. We have no well-designed, long-term studies on health outcomes from coconut oil use. We cannot say with certainty that coconut oil is good for us.

I recommend moderation. Small amounts of coconut oil are probably alright. If you have a particular recipe for which coconut oil gives the perfect flavor, go ahead and use it. Just don’t add it to everything you eat.

Finally, there are other oils we know to be healthy that you can use in place of coconut oil. If you are looking for monounsaturated oils, olive oil and avocado oil are your best bets. Olive oil can be used in salads and low temperature cooking. Avocado oil is better for high temperature cooking. Also, less frequently mentioned, safflower and sunflower oils are also good sources of monounsaturated fats.

If you are looking for a mixture of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, safflower oil, canola oil and peanut oil are your best bets. Peanut oil is also good for high temperature cooking.

Corn oil and soybean oil are your best sources of omega-6 polyunsaturated fats, while flaxseed oil is your best vegetable source of omega-3 polyunsaturated fats.

 

The Bottom Line

 

  • Coconut oil is the latest diet fad. It is highly promoted by the popular press, and 72% of Americans think it is healthy, even though it is a saturated fat.
  • The American Heart Association (AHA) has recently advised against the use of coconut oil because it likely increases the risk of heart disease and “has no offsetting beneficial effects.”  Because this statement is controversial, I have carefully analyzed the pros and cons of coconut oil use.
  • Coconut oil may increase our heart disease risk, but the evidence presented by the American Heart Association is not definitive. We cannot say with certainty that coconut oil is bad for us.
  • On the other hand, most of the hype about the benefits of coconut oil is inaccurate or misleading. We have no well-designed, long-term studies on health outcomes from coconut oil use. We cannot say with certainty that coconut oil is good for us.
  • I recommend moderation. Small amounts of coconut oil are probably alright. If you have a particular recipe for which coconut oil gives the perfect flavor, go ahead and use it. Just don’t add it to everything you eat.
  • For details of my analysis and suggestions for healthy fats you can substitute for coconut oil, read the article above.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

UA-43257393-1