| Literature DB >> 35637823 |
Supriya Sekhar1, Surabhi Makaram Ravinarayan2, Ann Kashmer D Yu1, Fatma Kilic3, Raghav Dhawan4, Rubani Sidhu5, Shahd E Elazrag1, Manaal Bijoora6, Lubna Mohammed1.
Abstract
Coconut oil has been gaining popularity recently, especially with health enthusiasts claiming it to be the best fat for consumption. What is the ideal cooking fat? The answer that we are all looking for is just not solely based on one health consequence but several. Our study focuses on the cardiovascular aspects of using coconut oil by its influence on low-density lipoprotein (LDL). Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the major cause of death and mortality worldwide. Hence, they are the focus of this study. For centuries, coconut oil has been used by several populations worldwide who consume it as part of their staple diets. However, they have also been consuming the flesh/meat of coconuts and decreased processed foods. One such population is the pacific islanders, who had increased LDL and decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) when they moved out of their natural habitat and accepted a more westernized diet. Even though coconut oil has a stronghold on the LDL aspect of the lipid parameters, which is our study's focus, it also increases HDL, whose effects on cardiovascular health are still controversial although it is called "good cholesterol." Cardiologists now utilize the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol to assess CVD risk more reliably. There have not been many human studies to support coconut oil's LDL and CVD advantages, considering all these variables. A thorough search of five databases, including PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect, was done. The last search was done on October 8th, 2021. Studies were selected based on the following criteria: last five years, English language, human studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and meta-analysis, narrative reviews, and cross-sectional studies were included using medical subject headings (MeSH) search and keyword search. Eight hundred and ninety-nine articles were found, and eight papers were picked after quality appraisal. These included one narrative review, three RCTs, one cross-sectional study, and three systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The results showed that coconut oil did not behave differently than other saturated fats to reduce LDL. One study showed that coconut oil did not increase LDL compared to additional saturated fat like butter or lard. Coconut oil also has antioxidant properties that may prevent oxidative stress that affects cardiovascular health. However, studies in this sector are limited.Entities:
Keywords: bad cholesterol; cardiovascular diseases; coconut oil; cocos nucifera; coronary artery disease; lipids; low-density lipoprotein; myocardial infarction; plant oils
Year: 2022 PMID: 35637823 PMCID: PMC9132222 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.24212
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1Study search and selection procedure flowchart
PMC, PubMed Central.
Quality assessment of studies
AMSTAR 2, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2, Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool; NOS, Newcastle Ottawa Scale; SANRA 2, Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles 2; SR & MA, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; RCT, randomized controlled trial; NR, narrative review; CSS, cross-sectional study.
| Study type | Quality appraisal tool | Total score | Study features | Accepted score (>70%) | Accepted studies |
| AMSTAR 2 | SR & MA | 16 | Sixteen items: 1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? 2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established before the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 11. If meta-analysis was justified, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? 12. If a meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? 13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? 14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 15. If they performed quantitative synthesis, did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? 16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? Scored as YES or NO. Partial Yes was considered a point | 10 | Study [ |
| SANRA 2 | NR | 12 | Six items: justification of the article’s importance to the readership, statement of concrete aims or formulation of questions, description of the literature search, referencing, scientific reason, and appropriate presentation of data. Scored as 0, 1, or 2 | 9 | Study [ |
| New Castle and Ottawa | CSS | 10 | Selection: (maximum three stars). 1. Representativeness of the sample: (a) Truly representative of the average in the target population (all subjects or random sampling). (b) Somewhat representative of the average in the target population (non-random sampling). (c) Selected group of users. (d) No description of the sampling strategy. 2. Non-respondents: (a) Comparability between respondents' and non-respondents’ characteristics is established, and the response rate is satisfactory. (b) The response rate is unsatisfactory, or the comparability between respondents and non-respondents is unsatisfactory. (c) No description of the response rate or the characteristics of the responders and the non-responders. 3. Ascertainment of the exposure (risk factor): (a) Validated measurement tool. (b) Non-validated measurement tool, but the tool is available or described. (c) No description of the measurement tool. Comparability: (maximum two stars). 1. The subjects in different outcome groups are comparable, based on the study design or analysis. Confounding factors are controlled. (a) The study controls for the most important factor (select one). (b) The study control for any additional factor. Outcome: (maximum two stars). 1. Assessment of the outcome: (a) Independent blind assessment. (b) Record linkage. (c) Self-report. (d) No description. 2. Statistical test: (a) The statistical test used to analyze the data is clearly described and appropriate, and the measurement of the association is presented, including confidence intervals and the probability level ( | 8 | Study [ |
| Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool | RCT | 7 | Seven items: random sequence generation and allocation concealment (selection bias), selective outcome reporting (reporting bias), other sources of bias, blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Bias is assessed as low risk, high risk, or unclear | 5 | Study [ |
Summary of the studies included
NR, narrative review; TC, triglyceride; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; USPO, unsaturated plant oils; SFs, saturated fats; CVDs, cardiovascular diseases; RCT, randomized controlled trial; CSS, cross-sectional study; SR & MA, systematic review and meta-analysis; EVCO, extra virgin coconut oil; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acid.
| Year of study | Design | Participants, | Comparator oil/fat | Results | Funding | Declaration of interest |
| Eyres et al. 2016 [ | NR | 181 | Butter, soybean oil, safflower oil, palm oil, corn oil, extra virgin olive oil | Coconut oil increased TC, HDL, and LDL when compared to USPO but not as much as butter did. This suggests that coconut oil vs. other SFs were not that different on lipids. Does not support that coconut oil was a healthy oil concerning CVDs | Yes | None |
| Vijayakumar et al. 2016 [ | RCT | 200 | Sunflower oil | There was not much change in those who consumed coconut oil vs. sunflower oil concerning cardiovascular risk due to its influence on lipid parameters | Yes | None |
| Khaw et al. 2018 [ | RCT | 96 | Butter, olive oil | Coconut oil behaved similarly to olive oil on LDL and did not raise LDL as much as butter. Coconut oil raised HDL more than butter and olive oil. However, the primary endpoint was LDL, and the effect on CVDs was not studied. Furthermore, it recommends a reduction in saturated fat intake | Yes | None |
| Palazhy et al. 2018 [ | CSS | 153 | Sunflower oil | No difference in the effects of coconut oil on LDL when compared to sunflower oil. Lower levels of vitamin C in the sunflower group than in coconut oil, causing more lipid peroxidation and less antioxidant properties | Yes | Unknown |
| Schwingshackl et al. 2018 [ | SR & MA | 2,065 | Butter, lard safflower, sunflower, rapeseed, flaxseed, corn, olive, soybean, palm | Coconut oil safflower, sunflower, rapeseed, flaxseed, corn, olive, soybean, and palm decreased LDL more than butter and lard | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Neelakantan et al. 2020 [ | SR | 418 | Nontropical vegetable oils and palm oil | Coconut oil increases LDL more than palm oil. It increased LDL when compared to nontropical oils | Yes | None |
| Junior et al. 2021 [ | RCT | 51 | EVCO compared to placebo | EVCO did not have an antihypertensive effect in patients with stage 1 hypertension. It also showed no effect on blood pressure differences and oxidative stress levels in humans. LDL levels were slightly elevated when compared to the placebo group | Yes | None |
| Unhapipatpong et al. 2021 [ | SR | 54 | MUFA- and PUFA-rich oils | Substituting coconut oil with PUFA- and MUFA-rich oils significantly increased TC and HDL-c but not LDL-c, while coconut oil substituted for other SFs significantly increased HDL-c. Moreover, the replacement of butter with coconut oil significantly decreased LDL-c and TC and increased HDL-c | Yes | None |
Figure 2Coconut oil composition in percentage
[15]
Figure 3Metabolism of LCFAs and MCFAs
LCFAs, long-chain fatty acids; MCFAs, medium-chain fatty acids.
Figure credit: done by the original author from the description above.