[pm90]

> 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.

[astrodust]

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.

[knowThySelfx]

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.