New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

No, it's what some interpret the science to mean. It's not like the Carnivore Code is just a nonsense fad diet. It's a book describing the science behind it. You may or may not agree with its conclusions, of course.

And I'm not even suggesting to start eating a carnivore diet. I don't. I just think it's worth reading for some valuable insights.

Additionally, I would argue that the science on seed oils points to them being bad for our health. If you watch that video, the conclusions are all based on research.

There's no such thing as "the science", as if there's only a single conclusion that can be derived from experiments. That's not how science works.

Most pop science articles just dont have it

PROBLEM #2: high serum cholesterol is correlated to cardiovascular disease, but eating high saturated fat-diets is not.

ANSWER #2: It appears that studies that assess the effect of a particular diet depends a lot upon the health of the individual prior to the study start; thus, using a random population results in non-significant results.

Note that I agree with you otherwise. I would suspect that a diet high in saturated fats without any supplemental unsaturated fats would result in cell walls becoming so stiff that removal of cholesterol can no longer benefit the cell walls; if this happens in arteries, you get hardened arteries that can lead to heart disease.

I think it's interesting that all of three of these hinge on the same problem: human variability. I strongly suspect that humans are much more variable internally than conventional science and journalism accounts for.

The scientific method uses statistics which is important for showing aggregate effects but can also obscure variability. And journalists have an incentive to offer simplified guidance that is as widely applicable as possible.

The end result of a lot of information like "Do X" when what it should really be is "If you are like Y do X, if you are like W do Z."

This is a pattern I think of as "the missing parameter" that I see just about everywhere people give advice once I started looking for it. Examples:

- "(Static/dynamic) types don't help programming." For what kinds of programs? Developed by whom? At what scale and timeframe?

- "You (should/should not) use a schemaless database." How big is your dataset? What is the relative fraction of reads/writes? What kind of data? How many users? How much money do you have? What are your failure modes?

- "People should move (to/out) of cities." Which cities? What is the city's transit like? Which people? What activities do they prefer? Do they have kids? What's their economic status? Age? How important is it to be near a hospital?

- "You should eat less salt." For people of what age? Activity level? Diet?

- "Teach by example not generalities." Teach what material? To whom? How important is their understanding? How long should they retain it?

- "Children should go outdoors on their own more." What age? What personality do they have? Where do they live?

Whenever I see people arguing about some generality, what is often happening is that each party has implicitly filled in those parameters with different values, so they are all correct but talking past each other. When I see this happening now, I try to take a step back and figure out what implicit parameters they are assuming and see if there's a higher-level parameterized stance that unifies their arguments.