Some final thoughts on S-T & K's meta-analysis on SFA and CVD. When this was published back in 2010, headlines and news articles repeatedly called it "new research." The same canards were recycled when Chowdhury published a similar study 4 years later.
Of course, none of that is true. These were not new studies. Medicine is a human endeavor and people who are told there is "new research" that exonerates SFA should be getting actual new research.
A meta-analysis of tens of studies that shows no effect of SFA, when a detailed analysis of the individual studies shows a relatively robust effect of SFA on CHD is a form of lying. Remember, all the research is known to the researchers before they crunch numbers.
They can make the decision to include a study that looks at hemorrhagic strokes in survivors of atomic bomb blasts and ignore a study that shows starch prevents heart disease. circ.ahajournals.org/content/63/3/5… 
Saturated fat has not had any new research that exonerates it. What has been done, instead, is a form of cherry picking that gets to call itself by another name and adopt the veneer of respectability. The fact that the dairy industry funded the S-T & K paper seems important.
Finally, taking the quality of the various studies used and analyzing them individually strikes me as a much more productive and more likely to yield actionable information. Most of the studies looked at qualitatively different issues.
Mixing them yields heat, but very little light.
