I've made a new video against low-carb diets

[FlatAssembler]

What not?

‘No’ everything. Rigorously testing to determine the effects of coconut consumption on heart health is not unethical.

It is non-nonsensical to assume to consuming coconuts is bad for heart health in the absence of better information.

You don’t really grasp how scientific research operates, do you?

Boru

Well, I have published a few papers about linguistics, so I know something about how science works.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

‘No’ everything. Rigorously testing to determine the effects of coconut consumption on heart health is not unethical.

It is non-nonsensical to assume to consuming coconuts is bad for heart health in the absence of better information.

You don’t really grasp how scientific research operates, do you?

Boru

Well, I have published a few papers about linguistics, so I know something about how science works.

Nah, you don’t.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

‘No’ everything. Rigorously testing to determine the effects of coconut consumption on heart health is not unethical.

It is non-nonsensical to assume to consuming coconuts is bad for heart health in the absence of better information.

You don’t really grasp how scientific research operates, do you?

Boru

Well, I have published a few papers about linguistics, so I know something about how science works.

How does studying linguistics lead to 'expertise' in the health benefits, or lack thereof, of coconuts?

[LadyForCamus]

No. This has never been demonstrated in a clinical trial. Coconut oil has been demonstrated to increase LDL-cholesterol, which is a bio marker for heart disease risk. There’s a difference. Also, some meta-analyses have found evidence that virgin olive oil may actually improve lipid profiles, but the research is far from settled, which is my point. You’re oversimplifying big time. And like any other food/nutrient/drug, dosage and frequency matter. There’s a difference between cooking with a table spoon of olive oil once a month and dousing your salad with it seven days a week. Anyone who says “Food X is bad for you” needs to stay in their lane, as @arewethereyet mentioned.

But making a more rigorous study testing whether coconuts cause heart disease in humans is unethical, isn't it? And, in the absence of better information, it is reasonable to assume coconuts do indeed cause heart disease, right?

Yes, it would be unethical, and no, we don’t jump to a scientific conclusion in the absence of better information. That’s the opposite of how science works. We say “we don’t/can’t know for sure.” Especially considering the fact that not everyone with elevated LDL levels will eventually develop heart disease. That’s why it’s not scientific to say “food X causes disease Y.” We normally say nutrient X can raise bio markers that are associated with certain disease risks. If I eat one coconut, will I develop heart disease? Two? One a week for six months? Three a week for six months?

[FlatAssembler]

But making a more rigorous study testing whether coconuts cause heart disease in humans is unethical, isn't it? And, in the absence of better information, it is reasonable to assume coconuts do indeed cause heart disease, right?

Yes, it would be unethical, and no, we don’t jump to a scientific conclusion in the absence of better information. That’s the opposite of how science works. We say “we don’t/can’t know for sure.” Especially considering the fact that not everyone with elevated LDL levels will eventually develop heart disease. That’s why it’s not scientific to say “food X causes disease Y.” We normally say nutrient X can raise bio markers that are associated with certain disease risks. If I eat one coconut, will I develop heart disease? Two? One a week for six months? Three a week for six months?

If we say "We don't/can't know for sure.", then we basically say we do not know anything, since there is hardly anything in science we know for sure. What do you mean not everyone with elevated LDL levels will eventually develop heart disease? That is, as far as I understand it, true only because there are other causes of death, such as cancer and car crashes, that might kill us before we had a chance to develop heart disease. But one cannot live into the old age with elevated LDL levels, right?

---

Well, I have published a few papers about linguistics, so I know something about how science works.

Nah, you don’t.

Boru

Well, I certainly understand how science works better than the vast majority of the people, since the vast majority of people have never published a scientific paper and I have.

---

Well, I have published a few papers about linguistics, so I know something about how science works.

How does studying linguistics lead to 'expertise' in the health benefits, or lack thereof, of coconuts?

It does not, but it familiarizes you with how science works.

[arewethereyet]

Yes, it would be unethical, and no, we don’t jump to a scientific conclusion in the absence of better information. That’s the opposite of how science works. We say “we don’t/can’t know for sure.” Especially considering the fact that not everyone with elevated LDL levels will eventually develop heart disease. That’s why it’s not scientific to say “food X causes disease Y.” We normally say nutrient X can raise bio markers that are associated with certain disease risks. If I eat one coconut, will I develop heart disease? Two? One a week for six months? Three a week for six months?

If we say "We don't/can't know for sure.", then we basically say we do not know anything, since there is hardly anything in science we know for sure. What do you mean not everyone with elevated LDL levels will eventually develop heart disease? That is, as far as I understand it, true only because there are other causes of death, such as cancer and car crashes, that might kill us before we had a chance to develop heart disease. But one cannot live into the old age with elevated LDL levels, right?

---

Nah, you don’t.

Boru

Well, I certainly understand how science works better than the vast majority of the people, since the vast majority of people have never published a scientific paper and I have.

---

How does studying linguistics lead to 'expertise' in the health benefits, or lack thereof, of coconuts?

It does not, but it familiarizes you with how science works.

Considering how often you ask what someone means when they respond to you, I would guess that your linguistics training hasn't been all that successful.

[FlatAssembler]

If we say "We don't/can't know for sure.", then we basically say we do not know anything, since there is hardly anything in science we know for sure. What do you mean not everyone with elevated LDL levels will eventually develop heart disease? That is, as far as I understand it, true only because there are other causes of death, such as cancer and car crashes, that might kill us before we had a chance to develop heart disease. But one cannot live into the old age with elevated LDL levels, right?

---

Well, I certainly understand how science works better than the vast majority of the people, since the vast majority of people have never published a scientific paper and I have.

---

It does not, but it familiarizes you with how science works.

Considering how often you ask what someone means when they respond to you, I would guess that your linguistics training hasn't been all that successful.

Well, I have managed to publish some papers in peer-reviewed journals.

[paulpablo]

I love researching and trying out diets.

I lost a lot of weight on a very low carb diet combined with fasting.  I didn't really suffer from anything in particular.

I've never had a kidney stone but there are a few articles on Google about keto/low carb diets and kidney stones.

I used to follow Dr Eric Berg a lot who heavily promotes Keto low carb diets and I'm sure he would suggest healthy ways of avoiding kidney stones while on a low carb diet.

These days I don't even have the will power to stay away from carbs like I used to, I'd still be interested in trying it again maybe sometime. Hopefully without kidney stones.

[FlatAssembler]

I love researching and trying out diets.

I lost a lot of weight on a very low carb diet combined with fasting.  I didn't really suffer from anything in particular.

I've never had a kidney stone but there are a few articles on Google about keto/low carb diets and kidney stones.

I used to follow Dr Eric Berg a lot who heavily promotes Keto low carb diets and I'm sure he would suggest healthy ways of avoiding kidney stones while on a low carb diet.

These days I don't even have the will power to stay away from carbs like I used to, I'd still be interested in trying it again maybe sometime. Hopefully without kidney stones.

Proponents of low-carbohydrate diets, like I've said in the video, generally claim kidney stones can be avoided by reducing protein intake, but that, as far as I can see, is not based on evidence.

[LadyForCamus]

Yes, it would be unethical, and no, we don’t jump to a scientific conclusion in the absence of better information. That’s the opposite of how science works. We say “we don’t/can’t know for sure.” Especially considering the fact that not everyone with elevated LDL levels will eventually develop heart disease. That’s why it’s not scientific to say “food X causes disease Y.” We normally say nutrient X can raise bio markers that are associated with certain disease risks. If I eat one coconut, will I develop heart disease? Two? One a week for six months? Three a week for six months?

If we say "We don't/can't know for sure.", then we basically say we do not know anything, since there is hardly anything in science we know for sure.

No. That’s a false dilemma. In science we say as much as we can say based on the evidence we have, and we don’t say more until we have evidentiary support for it. In this case, we can make reasonable inferences based on the available data and use them to set guidelines for saturated fat intake, but what we cannot do is say “coconuts cause heart disease.” 

What do you mean not everyone with elevated LDL levels will eventually develop heart disease?

 
How was that ambiguous?

That is, as far as I understand it, true only because there are other causes of death, such as cancer and car crashes, that might kill us before we had a chance to develop heart disease.

Without a crystal ball, I’m not sure how any reasonable, evidence-minded person could make such an assertion as “they would have developed heart disease if only they didn’t die in that car crash.” How could anyone possibly know that? Have you any idea the myriad of factors that play a role in disease manifestation and progression? It’s not just one bio-marker.

But one cannot live into the old age with elevated LDL levels, right?

Of course they can. I was a clinical dietitian at a nursing home for several years. Almost every one of my residents had dislipidemia, lol. 

To be frank, I don’t think someone who still has so many questions (and I’m glad you have questions; that’s how we learn) should be posting YouTube videos from a place of self-ascribed authority on any of these issues; especially with the audacity to call opposing views “obvious nonsense.” I encourage you to take some courses in nutrition and dietetics if you’re interested in the subject, and spend a few years learning before making further clinical declarations about medical nutrition therapy and posting them to the internet.