Lindeberg and associates (as in the Kitava studies) postulated that elevated uric acid protected the Kitavans from heart disease (it's a good antioxidant). To check this out they compared the blood uric acid levels of these non westernised islanders to a Swedish population. Uric acid levels are basically the same, maybe 10% lower on Kitava. Conclusion:
"The rather similar uric acid levels between Kitava and Sweden imply that uric acid is of minor importance to explain the apparent absence of cardiovascular disease in Kitava"
Lets go back to the low HDL-C and elevated triglycerides levels on Kitava, which also were essentially the same as those in Sweden:
"the relationship between TGs and HDL-C (in Kitava) was similar to that observed in Caucasians"
Yet the conclusion was
"Evaluation of TGs and HDL-C as cardiovascular risk factors must thus be restricted to the study population"
These two papers and statements were written by the same research group. Let's clarify. Essentially uric acid, triglycerides and HLD cholesterol were pretty much the same in Kitava or Sweden. The conclusions from this group are that uric acid is unimportant in keeping the Kitavan's healthy but "bad" lipid levels are important in Sweden yet not in Kitava. Don't forget the levels of uric acid, triglycerides and HDL-C were the same in both populations.
I hadn't read the uric acid paper when I posted on the Kitava study and metabolic syndrome... Nobody will be upset by uric acid bashing. Not so the lipid hypothesis. It just strikes me that researcher's conclusions are determined by their preconceptions
And their future funding.