I don't think much of the cholesterol hypothesis. OK, it's junk.
But I do find cholesterol levels interesting, in so far as they reflect the degree of carbohydrate poisoning a population is suffering. Researchers are starting to understand this, though I guess they still think the cholesterol levels really matter, rather than looking at the primary problems with glucose and insulin. Obviously low HDL and high triglycerides are appalling things to have because, in general, they represent sugar poisoning.
A chink of light occurred with this study. It's epidemiological, observational and not available in full text without being ripped off by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. So not much use to anyone. But the press release by the group contains one of the best lines I've ever seen and gets 110% for deep insightful perception. Here's the line I love:
"Previous research has identified ethnic differences in cholesterol and other blood fat levels that couldn't be explained by genes, obesity, lifestyle factors or diet, Merchant and his team note, but these analyses usually looked at dietary fat, not carbohydrate consumption"
Woo hoo, now there's a surprise! People are poisoning themselves with glucose and fructose and researchers were absolutely focused on dietary fat. FAT! This is not focus, this is preconceived blinkering.
I quite like this line too:
"Reducing the frequency of intake of sugar-containing soft drinks, juices and snacks may be beneficial"
Obviously elimination is highly preferable to reduction, but these people seem to know what they are talking about, though I suspect they still think of triglycerides in terms of hot fat down a cold sewer.
Actually, the other publication from this group looks very sensible too. I'll stop being grudging and just say THANKS.