I do support cholesterol studies, if they are good studies. After reading Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes it was kind of settled for me that the current conception of what constitutes a health blood lipid panel is seriously flawed. And new studies that control for confounding factors properly seem to demonstrate one blatant truth.
This is all with people with LDL below 100mg/dl which is freaking good by "conventional standards", and yet if this is so good and the metric by which to judge heart risk then we shouldn't see much variance from other blood lipid factors. But oops...
"In this prospective study, independently of their plasma LDL-C levels, participants with high non-HDL-C levels, high TG levels, or with an elevated TC/HDL-C ratio were at increased CHD risk. CHD risk assessment algorithms as well as lipid targets of lipid-lowering trials may also need to consider other easily available parameters such as non-HDL-C."
Key numbers
"...individuals with TC/HDL-C ratio >5 had an HR of 2.19 (95% CI: 1.22 to 3.93) when compared with those with a TC/HDL-C ratio <5."
"...individuals with TG levels >150 mg/dl had an HR of 1.63 (95% CI: 1.02 to 2.59) when compared with those with TG levels <150 mg/dl"
I have HDL of 81 and trigs of 36. I eat straight beef fat (sometimes. Most of the time it goes with vegetables). Durr conventional diet advice.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20117361