. . a lot of what I saw there is based on recent "legitimate" research but I'd have to look more closely to form a solid opinion.

One thing you can depend on in almost every nutritional research project is that the opposing side will claim it's "bad science" and the researchers will clame the opposing side is based on "bad science". Both sides will be right in most cases.

Always remember my quote, "Today's medical knowledge is the quackery of tomorrow".

If a population that lives on pig fat (or coconut oil or whatever) doesn't have the symptoms indicated by theory, then the theory should be hauled up for serious questioning.

Instead, supporters of the dominant "medical knowledge" attempt to find an "unusual circumstance" in that population to explain why the theory isn't working.

When it was pointed out that the Inuit live on meat and blubber but don't have the predicted health problems, supporters of the AHA and others claimed, without evidence, that this population must have evolved a special immunity, ignoring that when they are "civilized" and fed a standard American diet high in transfats sugar and polyunsaturated oils they end up with the same problems regular Americans have.

Everyone should take Einstein's advice to the young Heisenberg as seriously as Heisenberg did. "That's not how scientists work at all. A scientist comes up with a theory and then attempts to devise experiments that prove the theory".

Of course Einstein spent the rest of his life regretting that wisecrack, but that's his problem.