In a recent work devoted to the magnetism of Li 2 CuO 2 , Shu et al (2017 New J. Phys. 19, 023026) have proposed a 'simplified' unfrustrated microscopic model that differs considerably from the models refined through decades of prior work. We show that the proposed model is at odds with known experimental data, including the reported magnetic susceptibility χ(T) data up to 550K. Using an 8th order high-temperature expansion for χ(T), we show that the experimental data for Li 2 CuO 2 are consistent with the prior model derived from inelastic neutron scattering studies. We also establish the T-range of validity for a Curie-Weiss law for the real frustrated magnetic system. We argue that the knowledge of the long-range ordered magnetic structure for T<T N and of χ(T) in a restricted Trange provides insufficient information to extract all of the relevant couplings in frustrated magnets; the saturation field and INS data must also be used to determine several exchange couplings, including the weak but decisive frustrating antiferromagnetic interchain couplings.Li 2 CuO 2 takes a special place among the still increasing family of frustrated chain compounds with edge-sharing CuO 4 plaquettes and a ferromagnetic (FM) nearest neighbor (NN) inchain coupling J 1 [1]. This unique position is due to its ideal planar CuO 2 chain structure and its well-defined ordering characterized by a 3D Neél-type arrangement of adjacent chains whose magnetic moments are aligned ferromagnetically along the chains (b-axis). Li 2 CuO 2 is well studied in both experiment and theory (see e.g. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]) and serves nowadays as a reference system for more complex and structurally less ideal systems. In particular, it is accepted in the quantum magnetism community that the leading FM coupling is the NN inchain coupling J 1 . (J 1 is also dominant but antiferromagnetic (AFM) in the special spin-Peierls case of CuGeO 3 [12].) There is always also a finite frustrating AFM next-nearest neighbor (NNN) coupling J 2 >0, see figure 1, left. This inchain frustration is quantified by J J 2 1 a = | |. In the present case, and in that of the related Ca 2 Y 2 Cu 5 O 10 , there are only frustrating OPEN ACCESS RECEIVED