Does the Paleosphere Have Its Own Flawed Diet-Heart Hypothesis?

<Crossposted to PaleoHacks>

Back in March of 2011, I got a lipid panel run after eating a diet loaded with butter and cream and at or less than 100g of carbs per day for 6 months or so. Pretty standard "paleo/primal" or "perfect health" diet, right? My lipids were as follows: Total cholesterol: 393 (srsly) HDL: 55 Triglycerides: 54 LDL (Iranian): 271 BTW: My total testosterone the first time was low 300s, so my total cholesterol was actually higher than my testosterone! I didn't get it tested this time, but I can tell that it has increased dramatically (ahem). I had also gained 15lbs as a result of eating that diet. Obviously I said "LOL fuck this diet" and got rid of butter and cream and increased carbohydrates. Over time, I've stopped adding pretty much any extra fat to my diet from refined sources (I just eat the fat attached to the steaks, 3-4 egg yolks a day and a lot of raw sunflower seeds primarily) and I've greatly increased my intake of both carbohydrates from basmati rice(250g+ of carbs every single day) and fructose (I eat a metric fuckton of apples and other high-fructose tropical fruit every day). This is the result of yesterday's lipid panel: Total cholesterol: 190 HDL: 84 (srsly) Triglycerides: 39 (srsly) LDL (Iranian): 66 I can't possibly fathom how the latter could in any way be a worse result than the former or what benefit there could be from increasing fat or decreasing carbs/fructose, though I see people all the time recommend that for increasing HDL and decreasing TGs, respectively. That HDL is with zero coconut intake and a total fat % in my diet of about 30%. Considering To quote our good friend Mr. Taubes: What if it's all been a big fat lie?