Interesting that official recommendations are catching up to what some clinicians on the edge have been saying for years: inflammation may be a stronger predictor of heart disease than cholesterol. Clinician-authors like Dr. Gundry (who blame lectins/diet) have long argued inflammation is central, though their theories are more controversial and less trial-backed.
The argument, as I recall, is that the inflammation causes your body to want to treat the inflamed area and when coupled with cholesterol causes "cholesterol Band-Aids" to be plastered all over your arteries. The argument is that if you remove the inflammation, the cholesterol is not important because it's not trying to be made into a Band-Aid.
Gundry is a huge quack. Listen to him on Dr Mike's podcast: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LulcIT9XRFI -- Among many wtf claims, he claims that smoking is good for you because nicotine has antioxidants.
I think that’s a disservice to quacks - most of them are far better at dressing up their claims in something believable sounding. Gundry is just stark raving mad, it blows my mind that anyone gives him the time of day.
The argument, as I recall, is that the inflammation causes your body to want to treat the inflamed area and when coupled with cholesterol causes "cholesterol Band-Aids" to be plastered all over your arteries. The argument is that if you remove the inflammation, the cholesterol is not important because it's not trying to be made into a Band-Aid.