Editing because lots of people want sources.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4513492/
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/panel-suggests-stop-warni...
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis#Accelerated_gr...
This is a group I was unaware of until providing you links: http://www.thincs.org/index.php
So far, all I've found is some research that artificially lowering LDL or raising HDL may not show clear correlation to lower heart disease risk- not quite the same thing as saying LDL isn't generally correlated to heart disease risk:
Broad overview:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cholesterol-conundrum/
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0801608
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1107579The linked paper goes into more detail, of course. And this is only one drug, but there are quite a few other failures of similar type, though less dramatic, discussed in the "Cardiovascular Disease" section of his blog. He always links the original papers, but they're often paywalled or highly technical.
It's also a country with unusually high population diversity which means that genetically speaking you could be talking about a group of people that are naturally immune to the effects of whatever they're consuming. You'd have to take a broader sample to find out.
I don't understand your point. Sure its a rounding error when compared to the rest of India. But for the purposes of observing the effects of a certain foodstuff, that is certainly a large enough sample size of humans.
> It's also a country with unusually high population diversity which means that genetically speaking you could be talking about a group of people that are naturally immune to the effects of whatever they're consuming. You'd have to take a broader sample to find out.
This is highly unlikely. If there was such a genetic trait, I think it would be very apparent (e.g. we know certain populations in Africa are prone to sickle cell disease). Besides, its not just Kerala: most coastal regions in India have many many (delicious) coconut based cuisine which have been regularly consumed for generations.
Medical research has been heavily damaged by not including enough diversity in the sample groups. One region of India is not necessarily proof of anything other than that particular group of people does not suffer any ill-effects.
For example, millions of Europeans have been consuming dairy products for generations and suffer no ill-effects but this is only because they have a mutation that allows them to process lactose in adulthood.
Sedentary life style has more to contribute than oils I think. Our lifestyle has changed dramatically over 50 years.
About 30 years ago people of Kerala almost exclusively used coconut oil. Then came advertisements and "studies" claiming coconut oil is bad and promoted other oils like sunflower etc. Since then heart disease has increased. This is general observation.
When it comes to food, I follow Micheal Pollen's rule, food that your grandma recognize a.k.a traditional food. Coconut Oil has been used in traditional foods in many parts of the world that is sufficient evidence for me.
Besides, they actually don't. Its one of the most progressive states in India with 100% literacy etc.
Your assertion is meaningless because "well India has done it for a long time so it must be good" is not being said for the social practice of open defecation but for the specific effect of coconut oil on the health and longevity of a large number of human beings.
US life expectancy is a full decade ahead of India, it seems the article may be accurate by those numbers. Do you have any evidence to counter it?