There are also tribes that actively drink alcohol or even consume natural opiates all the time. What's your point?

Population of Kerala : 34.8 million and many more live in Persian Gulf and other parts of India. This is a huge population, about size of Venezuela. When you talk about a State in India it pretty much is a large sample size.

When you're talking about India, 34 million people is a rounding error.

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.

> When you're talking about India, 34 million people is a rounding error.

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.

What I mean is you may need to have a broader group in order to draw actual conclusions.

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.

Yup. I wonder which one gives a better result: AHA taking a 10 person sample or millions of people over generations?

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.

Indians also have surprisingly high rates of cardiovascular disease for a people with such low levels of obesity.

That is actually not very surprising. If you consider all the people in India, poverty and malnoursihment is still incredibly high. But there is much prosperity in the cities ... but healthy habits (like exercises, gym) have only recently started taking root. So obesity is more common amongst well to do Indians which in turn leads to cardiovascular diseases.

Kerala is sub-set of India and they have one the better socio-economic indices in India, from that my guess is better Health indices relatively speaking. The biggest problem in the state for Health is alcoholism (to my knowledge).

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.

With all do respect for your personal health choices, that's not science nor "evidence". Just because some culture does something, doesn't mean it's the optimal way of things, especially nutrition. It's just something you have chosen to base your life on.

People in India have eaten Betel nuts/leaves for generations, yet that causes oral cancer. Doesn't seem like sufficient enough evidence to me that traditional foods = healthy.

Please refrain from Ad hominems like this. Depending on where you are from, I can probably find a similarly unpleasant public health characteristic, but does it really get anywhere in the argument?

Besides, they actually don't. Its one of the most progressive states in India with 100% literacy etc.

I'm just pointing out that "well India has done it for a long time so it must be good" is a logical fallacy as not all practices engaged in there will positively effect health. No offense intended.

OK, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.

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.

>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?