The next in line is a genuinely anomalous study, the Caerphilly study. It's an observational study of ~2500 men in Wales that were followed for five years starting in 1979. This study showed a remarkable trend. Those who ate the least had the most CHD.
The finding was that total energy intake was the only statistically significant predictor of heart disease, and it had an inverse relationship with CHD. Yes, those who ate the fewest calories had the highest risk. This would overturn most of what we know about nutrition if true. 
In addition, this study is of questionable relevance to S-T and Krauss's study since it did not separately assess SFA intake, but only used a marker for "animal fat" ignoring possible plant based sources of SFA.
More importantly, the Caerphilly study continued on after the 1992 publication of that research. It continued to follow the cohort and it showed some very interesting findings. The investigators looked at five "healthy behaviors." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
They were: 1. Not smoking 2. BMI 18-25 3. Regular exercise 4. Low fat diet (<30%) with 5 servings per day of fruit/veg 5. Less than 3 drinks/day. People who did at least four of five had markedly lower rates of diabetes, vascular disease, all-cause mortality and dementia.
In addition, when we look at the 1992 paper we see a familiar issue popping up. The actual differences between groups were quite trivial. This is true for all nutrients, There just wasn't much variation in intake in Wales at the time.
Since the fats examined were only "total fat" and "animal fat" it is possible that trans fatty acids were the main substitute for animal fats in this population at this time. Since TFA are at best just as bad as SFA and possibly worse, this study can't hold much weight.
However we now have the first study in S-T and K's paper that actually didn't show SFA to associate with CHD. Tomorrow we will look at the Israeli Ischemic Heart Disease study.
I mean looking at it again, we're talking about .6 gm of fruit/veg per day difference between the two groups and 4 gm of animal fat ... 36 calories difference in daily intake.
