Regarding the link between the consumption of saturated fat and raised cholesterol levels, Arch sites a couple of good examples. Both the Masai and the Inuit studies seem to contravene the consensus as they both sustained ‘good’ cholesterol levels on a very high saturated-fat diet. The second Masai study doesn’t disprove this. The high-fat Masai diet was consumed from the early teens onwards and resulted in remarkably low blood cholesterol levels, according to either study. Furthermore, prior to the age 40 mark, the researchers found no evidence of any significant fibrosis. What they found was a massive increase in the frequency if fibrosis from the ages 40+ (although notably no coincident increase in infarctions). It seems that other factors are coming into play.

‘The most striking thing about the Masai data is the extent of arterial lesions in a population with consistently low levels of cholesteremia.’
G Mann, author of the second Masai study (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/1/26)

And as far as blood cholesterol levels and diet go, unfortunately the studies that are out there all measure the differences between diets with a lot of cholesterol and diets with a little less. It’s only when you take out “all” dietary cholesterol that you see the real differences. The changes that people see on Ornish and other no cholesterol diets are dramatic compared with any other diet or drug. Mine dropped 50% after two months and has stayed there for 2 years. The problem with most studies is that it’s like they are looking at people who smoke 5 packs vs. 2 packs of cigarettes a day. Of course there’s little difference in effect because 2 is already enough to do you in. Like cigarettes, It’s probably that it’s that first little bit of cholesterol that hurts you the most. Piling it on doesn’t make it all that much worse, hence all this stuff about how dietary cholesterol doesn’t affect your blood cholesterol levels. Find just about anyone who has cut all cholesterol (and all oil for that matter since it raises cholesterol too) and you’ll see some dramatic drops in cholesterol that defy that logic.

However, I don’t buy the idea that animal-based intake level aren’t tied to blood cholesterol levels. I must be missing those studies, can you link me to them directly?

this refutation of the china study is worth a read:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

the gary taubes book is excellent aswell; there’s a lot of good material in there even if you go in or come away disagreeing with the conclusions.

personally i don’t subscribe to the idea that animal meat is bad for human health, long term or short term. meat has likely formed the basis of our diet across prehistory as you suggested in your last post and there are good examples of societies that eat lots of meat/fat and have very low levels of heart disease when compared to the current trends.

Dude, it’s as if sharks got civilized one day and determined sipping kelp juice was actually healthier for them. Mother nature gave them those teeth for a reason. I have lactase digesting genes. Sometimes you gotta dance with the one that brung ya.

Just kidding. I hate milk.