Because there is ample evidence that saturated fats are not bad for you, or at least no where near as bad as previous science led us to believe.

It would be more accurate to say that there is no strong evidence that saturated fats are bad for you.

Lots of the previous science was bad science that did not account for confounding factors, such as not taking into account that lots of fast food has lots of saturated fats(and made up for a large portion of saturated fat consumption) and adjusting for that. ie the difference between "do sat fats make people unhealthy" and "does eating fast food(which happens to have sat fats) make people unhealthy"

If you want to go down the rabbit hole, there is also no strong evidence showing cholesterol/eggs are bad, and neither is there any evidence showing salt is bad(if you are healthy). Lots of nutrition studies have such laughably silly methodology. Not sure why they were ever taken seriously.

You raise several nutritional theories here.

Dietary Cholesterol / Blood Cholesterol - cholesterol restriction has been removed from dietary guidelines in the US, so people have taken that seriously.

Increased saturated fat is pretty well associated with LDL levels, which is associated with cardiovascular disease risk. Not sure that I've ever seen any contrary studies recently - I would be interested if you could link any you are aware of... I guess the questions I have seen are around carb intake and fat intake, but that's kind of a separate issue

Salt is definitely more questionable, but seems like if you are avoiding hyperprocessed foods, you are going to intake less salt, so maybe a non-issue...

Well for fats we have this:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

There seems to be a moderate reduction in cardiovascular events, BUT - there is NO CHANGE in mortality or even cardiac mortality. Also note, these studies may be victim to the saturated-fats-are-fast-food issue.

If saturated fats were actually bad, like smoking is, I think we would see more significant results than "10-15% decrease in events that doesn't even change peoples' overall outcomes".

I'm not saying you should avoid coconut oil, I just think it's a very questionable claim that cooking with coconut oil instead of other plant based oils like canola oil is going to improve your health in any way.

Just more horseshit from Big Coconut, that's what I think.

Those coconuts have definitely got blood on their hands:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut

I suspect that high fats are fine and high carbs are fine, but having both high fats + high carbs leads to health problems. Fat heavy leads to keto metabolic state, heavy carbs lead to the other metabolic state. Having both at the same time is the issue, my opinion.

> I really don't see why anybody would believe that an oil high in saturated fats is good for you.

A lot of people do if you look around. Serious people I mean. They usually sing the praises of butter (and ghee), but the same reasoning is applied now to coconut oil.

Same goes for agave syrup and other health fads.

There's a ton of alternative kinds of sugar that are marketed as healthier than sugar but are in fact just sugar extracted from a different plant or other source. Sugar is sugar.

Sugar is sugar but fructose does seem to be particularly hard on humans.