The difference in the findings from the different kinds of studies above illustrates IMO why you can't rely on prospective or epidemiological/association studies so much like the "gold standard" of randomized controlled trials. The very first analysis quoted looked specifically at RTC's only, while the Harvard report was based only on prospective and epidemiologically-observed associations. So randomly controlled "gold standard" type studies show no health benefit to linoleic acid. But the Harvard professor reports positive associations between health and linoleic acid. Associations only, remember, that kind of studies can't ever prove causation. So how to explain the differences in findings between the two types of studies? Here comes my opinion: for one thing, certain professors at that particular institution seem to have had a strong bias for some time against saturated fat, so yes. Your biases, your own paradigm of things, will affect what you look for and what you find. Believing is seeing, etc. But a bigger factor, again IMO here, could be the healthy user effect. People for decades are told don't eat "bad" saturated fat; linoleic acid-rich polyunsaturated omega 6 seed oil is "good" for you. So who's listening and following this advice? Right. People concerned about their health, doing all kinds of other things to improve it, not the guy dining at Mickey D's. Same type of people as the women who were healthier while taking HRT for so many years until a real RTC showed it was bad. My take? I'm putting my eggs (and meat, butter and coconut oil ) in the saturated fat basket and avoiding those linoleic acid-rich industrial seed oils.