This article left so many details out, and so much information vague, that I am having a hard time interpreting just how they got their conclusion. Right off the bat, they sully coconut oil as a bad saturated fat; then they automatically label safflower oil as a good polyunsaturated fat. Reading this from a primal perspective is enough to cause inflammation and constriction of blood vessels because this article is already promoting a highly refined, unnatural, and high in omega six oil versus a completely natural oil (they also never mention whether the coconut oil was pure or refined). Best of all, they do not provide citation to the actual study which they claimed as their source.
Bottom line: just another CW-styled bashing based on refutable evidence. What they do best is prime people right away to take the saturated vs. pufa side by claiming saturated is bad and pufa is good. After eating that PUFA-ladened meal, the next healthy step, as recommended by doctors, would take a Lipitor to make sure cholesterol stays low, tylenol for the joint pain you are having lately, Nexxium for all that acid reflux, and finally an Ambien so you could fall asleep through all the bodily signs of diet-realted distress.
EDIT: found the citation. http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.c...13386/abstract
I am really no expert in biochemistry or biology, but there are still some methodological flaws in this study:
1. Very small sample size (14 is tiny; even us psychologists-in-training are taught to get at least 30 to get a half-descent bell curve)
2. They did not state what they ate with the oil during their meals. That could very well be the causation of any inflammation.
I may also be missing a lot of the biological details so I won't even try to pretend I know what I am talking about