There are hypo-responders and hyper-responders to dietary cholesterol. Over 2/3rds of the population are hypo-responders while less than 1/3rd are hyper-responders; and the hyper-responders just get bigger and safer LDL's- not to mention an increase in HDL, and the HDL/LDL ratio stays the same, not that it matters much.
I still hear people on this board are scared of saturated fat, when some of the most healthy populations in the world (Austrians, Dutch, Swiss, French, Masai, Inuit) eat loads of their caloric intake (14%, 15.1%, 15.3%, 15.5%, 66%, 75%) in saturated fat. Furthermore, Ukrainians, Azerbaijanis, and Georgians eat low saturated fat in regards to caloric intake (7.5% or less), yet have some of the highest cardiac death rates.
Here are some decisive studies:
In 1992, the Framingham studies showed that those who ate the most saturated fat weighed the least, and had the lowest cholesterol ??? oopsies!
The 2009 UCLA study studied the LDL number of heart attack patients in 541 hospitals. What were the results? 75% of people looked at had LDL in the ???safe??? range (<130mg/dl). 21% of these patients were on statins. That???s not all, but 50% of people had LDL in the ???optimal??? range (<100mg/dl).
The MRFIT (multiple risk factors intervention trial) said that people with the highest cholesterol levels had a 413% larger chance of dying compared to the people with the lowest cholesterol. By the end of the trials, 99.7% of the people with lowest cholesterol levels were alive, while 98.7% of those with the highest cholesterol were alive. Or to say it another way: .3% of the people with lowest cholesterol levels were alive, while 1.3% of those with the highest cholesterol levels died. 1.3 is indeed 413% of .3, but said another way: the difference in mortalities was 1 percentage point. And when you take out those with independent risk factors such as smoking, the percentage difference gets even lower.
Here are the outstanding results of the MONICA study:
http://oi40.tinypic.com/14xi7w6.jpg
This is not to say cholesterol is irrelevant. Oxidized LDL is very relevant to heart disease, as is Lp-PLA2. But many other markers exist such as high sensitivity C-Reactive Protein, HbA1c, Homocysteine, fasting insulin, serum ferritin, and vitamin D status. The Triglyceride/HDL ratio can tell you your LDL pattern (A is good, B is bad): less than 3 is pattern A, 3-5 is pattern A/B, anything above 5 is pattern B.
Unfortunately, there is only one lab to my knowledge that measures oxidized LDL, and a great ratio for detecting heart disease is the Oxidized LDL/HDL ratio (via Johnson et al).
Polyunsaturates should be viewed as the "saturated fat" and hydrogenated oils are where they should be. Polyunsaturates are very susceptible to free radical damage versus saturated fat and monounsaturated fat. When free radicals oxygenate a polyunsaturated LDL it becomes oxidized and can enter the endothelium. Keeping polyunsaturates to 3-6% of caloric intake is critical. None of this "LDL clogs your arteries" stuff is true, our arteries aren't like pipes.
As for statins, they only reduce risk of heart attacks in
men with heart disease, any other demographic the results are dismal to say the least, if not harmful (loss of memory, heightened suicide rates, depression, diabetes, and increased cancer mortality)
Though I'm glad people are catching on (at least here) that whole grains aren't all that is awesome in this world. I myself eat a fairly low carb diet (15%) while the majority of my calories come from fat (75%). When I was bulking I always used tubers/bulbs/roots.
Furthermore fruits and veggies contain plenty of antioxidents that will help combat these free radicals. 
because I won't be dragging out this thread any further.
