Nah, SkeptVet is a polemicist who engages in argumentation by misleading his reader through the use of half-truths, trying to use a lack-of-evidence as it is itself “evidence,” and he belittles anyone who has an opposing viewpoint as unscientific thinkers and food-faddists in contravention of the truth.
The article on Coconut Oil is classic “SkeptVet.”
He begins from sentence one saying “Healthcare and nutrition fads are an unfortunate fact of life,” as his way of denigrating everyone interested in providing better nutrition for their domestic animals that the stuff that comes in bags from the commercial producers (who products are always backed by SkeptVet). Not a good start for someone who has pretenses of “objectivity.”
And it only gets worse from there in the first paragraph as he standers everyone who seeks better animal nutrition as being prone to media manipulation and adherence to “quick-well-quick schemes and medical bogeymen.” This is an offensive attitude that borders on slander. By inference, he suggests that commercially processed dog foods have “yielded true revolutionary improvements in health,” without substantiation and against the evidence of obesity, dental disease, and food-induced lethargy in kibble fed dogs that is impossible to escape.
He then tries to link human “fads” to an irrational extension to pets. More insulting polemics, devoid of facts or evidence thus far. Just inflammatory language and insults.
Then he states a proposition that I agree with in the main (but one that he later goes on to contradict himself), which is :
“Often, even when there is some real scientific evidence for the benefits or risks of some healthcare practice in people, there is little or no evidence to support claims about these practices applied to our pets. Extrapolation from people to pets is inevitable, but it is also very risky.”
Dogs are not people. They have different nutritional needs.
Then Skept Vet goes directly to attacking the use of coconut oil in humans as a fad. Why? He just told his readers that extrapolation from people to pets is very risky, so why is he doing it? Clearly as yet another way to throw shade at others. It is wrong, condescending, and unscientific. Zero evidence presented thus far.
He then goes onto talk about coconut oil, putting the non-hydrogenated oil in scare-quotes as “virgin” oil. WTF?
He then goes on to recognize that (in humans) that not all forms of saturated fats are unhealthful (as misinformed nutritionists and the medical-science community believed until recently). And that medium-chain triglycerides (as found in coconut oil) may be protective against cardiovascular disease in humans (after warning of the risks of extrapolation earlier). Has he made a point yet, other than making insults? No.
He warns that “only about 15-20% of the fats in coconut oil are true MCT,” without suggesting what levels are ideal from a nutritional science perspective (and remembering that he is discussing human needs at this point, not dogs).
He then goes on to attempt to pejoratively link exuberant health claims for humans with dramatic claims for benefits it pets. More polemics and virtually no science at this juncture (and we are pretty deep in). Just the ongoing tactic of painting those considering coconut oil as a supplement as being in league with food-faddists and medical bogeymen.
Pretty weak.
When he asks: Does it work?, he starts off–yet again–with humans (despite his warning not to extrapolate at the top of the article). What gives?
He seems pained beyond reason to admit that “studies looking at MCTs in the diet show some potential benefits [in humans].” Since that doesn’t fit his agenda, he then quotes a research summary that starts: “Coconut oil is not a cure-all. Well, no kidding! Skept Vet’s tactic here, which is his standard MO, is to attempt to link dietary items that may be beneficial with extremism. That’s not science, but dishonest debate tactics.
Buried in the quoted summary is that “It is possible to include coconut oil in a healthful [human] diet.”
To remind ourselves, SkeptVet has to date spoken mostly about human nutrition, despite his anti-extrapolation warnings, and he begrudgingly has to admit possible benefits.
He then admits there are very few dog food studies and he is not faithful in how he represents the ones that have been done. For example, he makes a claim that dogs fed “coconut oil lost less weight and had more body fat than dogs on diets with other sources of fat.” What he leaves out of the summary is that the dogs in the study found the food with more coconut in the mix (relative to vegetable oils) much more palatable than the dogs with foods high in vegetable oil, and these dogs were allowed to eat their fill. Not honest science here. No mention by Skept Vet that the study lacked portion control. Big suprise that dogs given unlimited access to food ate more of the delicious food. Good grief.
He mentions, and casts skepticism and insults, on research that shows coconut oil shampoo might be beneficial in treating mange. A topic that is not germane to a discussion of animal nutrition on any level, but seemingly another opportunity for Skept Vet to insult a “research group with a strong bias in favor of such ânaturalâ treatments. This guy clearly has an ax to grind.
Not much science at this point. But a great deal of shade.
Then he gets to his classic line: “There is no clinical research of any kind showing a significant benefit from dietary or topical coconut oil in the prevention or treatment of any significant health problem.” By saying this he means to give readers the impression that there has been voluminous research which has demonstrated a lack of benefit. But that isn’t the case.
All that can be said truthfully is that there have been very few studies of coconut oils and there risks and benefits in dogs. Instead of making the lack of evidence ((one way or another) Skept Vet tires to make the reader believe a lack-of-evidence is itself evidence. This isn’t true and it is the way dishonest people with agenda present information to readers. Skept Vet uses these same tactics constantly.
He asks “is it safe?” Then talks about human studies (what about that extrapolation warning doc?) that show “no significant short-term risks [for humans].” Long-term safety and effect on obesity, CVD undetermined.
Then he turns to anecdotal reports of gastrointestinal symptoms in dogs fed too much coconut oil. One needs to remember that Skept Vet howls when those he brands food-faddists bring up anecdotal reports, but it doesn’t stop him.
The fact that adding additional fats to dogs rations (which is generally a very great positive when fat levels are low) needs to be done slowly, as there are many physiological changes that occur as dogs transition into fat-metabolism (the process they were shaped by evolution to thrive on, and one that is undermined by cereal-based kibble diets). Sudden changes are not good, even if one is improving the rations.
Again, Skept Vet delivers another of his classic lines: “There is no controlled research evidence investigating the safety of coconut oil in dogs and cats.”
Thus far Skept Vet has established nothing.
He concludes that “coconut oil might have health benefits in humans, but there is no conclusive research to support this” (which is semi-irrelevant given dogs are not humans). He then suggests that any benefits to dogs are anecdotal (due to a lack of studies) when the only evidence he gave of potential harms was purely anecdotal (which he fails to recognize).
So after a long and insult-filled article, what do we get? Not much.
Almost zero science to support either harm or benefits to dogs. The only anecdotal risks are easily avoided by transitioning to fat supplement slowly and keeping amounts in moderation.
Typical Skept Vet.
Bill
.
