I saw this study a while back. It found that in populations with similar genetic makeup, those consuming more saturated fat, that is, more coconut oil, palm oil, and animal fat, had higher mortality rates, including death from heart disease:
Differences In All-Cause, Cardiovascular And Cancer Mortality Between Hong Kong And Singapore: Role Of Nutrition, European Journal of Epidemiology, 2001
From the abstract:
"The majority of inhabitants in Hong Kong and Singapore are ethnic Chinese, but all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates in these two regions are markedly different.If coconut oil is a health food, as it's being promoted, why wasn't it protective against heart disease, instead of being associated with a greater than 3 times higher heart disease death rate?
The most pronounced finding was that ischemic heart disease mortality in 1993–1995 was 2.98 and 3.14 times higher in Singapore than in Hong Kong
Of the five countries considered, Singapore has the highest all-cause mortality in both sexes in the period of 1960–1995.
The ratio of animal to vegetal fat was higher in Singapore (2.24) than in Hong Kong (1.08).
Singapore had higher serum concentrations of total cholesterol and [LDL] than Hong Kong, but the opposite result was observed for [HDL].
These differences can be most reasonably and plausibly explained by their differences in dietary habits, for example, a higher consumption of coconut and palm oil, mainly containing saturated fat, in Singapore."
For that matter...
If a high intake of animal fat is healthful, why was it associated with higher mortality in this study?
If a greater intake of saturated fat is healthful, why was it associated with higher mortality?
If higher serum cholesterol is healthful, as I've read elsewhere, why was it associated with higher mortality?
I don't see that the jury is in on this.