Has it really?
I see a lot of new contradictory results, but I am not aware that the medical consensus has changed (yet). I have seen articles blame fat as the, blame carbs as the bad guy and even some blaming protein. Refined sugar does seem to be particularly bad, but I have yet to see anything conclusive about carbohydrates as a food group (I searched pubmed a few months back).
Personally I am more confused than ever.
Actual studies linked within.
These findings provide evidence that consuming PUFA in place of SFA reduces CHD events in RCTs.
i.e. replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats reduces your risk of cardiovascular disease, which was my original claim.
From your article:
Saturated fats do increase cholesterol levels relative to polyunsaturated fats.
You need some fat in your diet, but the overwhelming evidence is that you're better off getting it from unsaturated (plant-based) sources.
""" Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid. """
Put simply, it is now thought that cholesterol is a plaster over the arterial inflammation caused by sugars. It is a symptom, not a cause of plaques.