Is coconut oil healthy?

We hear a lot of marketing claims about coconut oil, but are they all true? We explore the pros and cons to coconut oil.

Have you heard any myths about coconut oil? Share them with us below.


Not mentioned is it excellent for massaging with!


How about this

Makes you smell like Manly beach in the 1960s

Just remember that all those sweet young things who were experimenting with bikinis and coconut oil all have terrible skin now and regularly get bits cut or burned off to head off skin cancer.

To be clear; coconut oil is a terrible sunscreen but it’s all natural!


It was never meant to be a sunscreen in those days. It was more of a basting medium to be as brown as possible!


This article does not “investigate” it cobbles together magazine style snippets.

1 Like

Short answer - yes, if food grade.
Long answer avoid any synthetic petrochemical based oils especially if Parabens are included they will lodge and accumulate in your body.
When your massage is performed using conventional massage oil or lotion that is not food-grade it could include a significant dose of crude oil distillates and hormone-mimicking chemicals that are on the world watch-list of carcinogens, but are somehow still allowed into our personal care products.
Coconut oil needs to be warmed or blended with a carrier oil.
The following are all healthy options for your base or carrier oil:

  • Coconut
  • Sesame
  • Flaxseed
  • Jojoba
  • Sweet Almond
  • Avocado
  • Grapeseed
  • Olive
  • Argan

not if you have warm hands :laughing:


How do you know this?

Could you specifically name some of these hormone-mimicking or carcinogenic substances that are found in massage oil or lotion please.

1 Like

The first 4 articles all discuss finding parabens residue in tissue. As far I can see none came to any solid conclusion about how it got there, how long it had been there or exactly what this means for the health of the persons involved. If I have missed some key item please point it out so I can read it again.

The last item by Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo is where you got the quote "your massage could include a significant dose of crude oil distillates and hormone-mimicking chemicals "

The ji article says mineral oil has been detected in tissue. It doesn’t give any evidence that mineral oil is carcinogenic or hormone mimicking. The possible exception is the reference to a study that showed if mice were irradiated with ultraviolet radiation they were more likely to get tumours if given a certain moisturizing cream than not. We cannot generalise this one study to humans (who are not mice) who do not get such doses of UV and who do not necessarily use the preparations that were tested.

He also mentions parabens and says that it has been found in tissue and points to the article above (Barr et al). Ji then says of the article “leading researchers to conclude that paraben concentrations were from topical application of products such as deodorant and skin lotions.” I can’t find where that is in the study.

However the same Barr study yields this "The source of the paraben cannot be identified, but paraben was measured in the 7/40 patients who reported never having used underarm cosmetics in their lifetime. " Barr is actually saying it is inconclusive.

Before going any further, I do not work for or have any financial interest in any oil or lotion maker or any part of any industry remotely related to them. I have absolutely nothing to gain by the sales of parabens or any similar substance. I have no religion that requires the use of such preparations and I rarely use them myself.

Sayer Ji (like so many in the wellness industry) has a vested interest in selling his books and while the papers he refers to are peer reviewed the conclusions that he comes to in his tracts are not. If he has any qualifications in health, medicine, nutrition, toxicology or any related discipline he is very modest about them.

So it looks like you accept the word of Sayer Ji from GreenMedInfo. I am sorry but on the evidence supplied I don’t.


This website has some interesting information in relation to parabens…

Something I learnt today is that they can naturally occur in foods…


I will give this as a response. As a female that has been exposed to breast cancer I am probably more attuned to reading labels and articles. Over the years I have read a lot of scientific articles on the dangers of certain additives and have reduced my use substantially. I am quite sure if I wish to spend time hunting out these science reviews I will discover them again but it has been 10 years since my diagnosis and my interest in the information. I think that females, due to the number of personal care items used everyday should definitely be aware of the ingredients in the creams and lotions they use.

but for your edification here is a definitive list of why the EU has banned 5 parabens and what has been written about other risky substances used by consumers.

This (American) article is referencing the CIR Cosmetic Industry Review. If you care to read how they did it - it goes on and on… you will find some learned men admitting they don’t have enough data, or the data does not apply to cosmetics, or the studies were done on animals, or is there a difference between adult skin absorption vs babies and young children or etc. etc and then they come up with their answer.

Yes they should. However I don’t find Sayer Ji a good guide to which ones to avoid. He is also against, fluoride in water, vaccination, medical use of statins and says gluten is a ‘universal toxin’ and causes schizophrenia.

Ji is also a cherry picker, that is he chooses data that suit his position. His database of studies is biassed, heavy on those that suit his purpose and light on those that don’t. As I mentioned before he is unqualified, you would think if he was going to go through thousands of studies to pick the ones to list he should have some training in the subject matter. He has a huge following but that doesn’t make him a reliable informant.

The article you listed shows that in some situations altering the use of personal care products alters the amount of their metabolites in your urine. It would be amazing if it didn’t. It says nothing at all about whether those substances do any harm in the measured amounts.

The link to Chemical Watch gave me 74 items, I am sorry I am not going to read them all. If there is one or two you think are particularly import please point them out.


I tried to visit Ji’s webpage to find out more about him, but I was stopped by Chrome warning that
Attackers might be trying to steal your information from (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards).” Please not I have blanked out the website as I don’t think it is wise for people to click on the link to try it for themselves.

Doesn’t portend well.


I also agree, and one should also think if cosmetics are really needed based on potential risks not only from chemical (natural or synthetic) reaction but sensitivities or allergies.

One also has to realise that there are a significant number of chemicals consumed daily which can pose risks if consumed in the long term or if one has a predisposition to a reaction from their consumption. If all such chemicals were banned, or one chose to eliminate them because of something they read, then ones diet would be vastly restricted and very boring.

One has to place context to outcomes of scientific research. Some organisations take a precautionary principle type approach (like the EU) to their regulation and use, but this does not necessarily indicate there is an issue.

While the EU bans 5 paraben forms, the FDA in the US has stated that these same compounds are safe. It is possible that the EU may change it current status if there is conclusive research indicating they are safe for use, including in the very long term.


In fact there is nothing wrong with parabens and they are widespread naturally. Olive leaf extract for instance is full of them.
I do not think you will find any massage oils using mineral oils; if you do they will be the most pure medium you can find. Nothin but C8 to C16 saturated chains. Certainly no “hormone Mimicking chemicals”.


The study by Harley et al quoted above could have been quite good. If only they had read the labels of the cosmetics the subjects were using before the intervention.
I am worried because parabens are often, but by no means universally used. And triclosan has limited use in these types of products.

Also, it is a pretty standard practice to see what happens when the subjects revert to normal practice. I suspect their results are overwhelmed by the usual various problems these kind of studies are heir to.

Indeed, the CIS body carefully considered all the data and came to the conclusion that all those parabens were save as used in cosmetics.

What a shame they went on and on instead of just rushing to some impulsive conclusion.