In the spring of 2026, a documentary began circulating in the corners of the internet where ketogenic diet enthusiasts, biohackers, and metabolic health skeptics tend to congregate. The Cholesterol Code made a striking claim: that a specific subset of people who adopt low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets develop extraordinarily high LDL cholesterol levels — sometimes three or four times the upper limit of what cardiologists consider safe — and that this elevation might not matter. Might, in fact, be a sign of metabolic excellence rather than metabolic danger.
The claim landed in fertile ground. Distrust of mainstream dietary guidance runs deep, and not without reason. The decades-long demonization of dietary fat, the food pyramid’s catastrophic carbohydrate loading, the margarine debacle — there is a legitimate history of institutional error in nutrition science that has made a generation of health-conscious people appropriately skeptical of received wisdom. Into that skepticism stepped a hypothesis with a name, a mechanism, and a small but passionate research organization behind it.
The people at the center of the hypothesis are called “lean mass hyper-responders,” or LMHRs. They are, by the account of the Citizen Science Foundation (CSF) that coined the term, a distinct metabolic phenotype: lean, physically active, metabolically healthy by most conventional measures, and prone to dramatic LDL cholesterol spikes when they restrict carbohydrates. The CSF’s argument is not merely that these individuals are unusual. It is that the usual rules may not apply to them — that the well-established relationship between LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease might be suspended in this population by virtue of their metabolic profile.
That argument deserves a serious answer. What follows is one.
What Cholesterol Actually Does in the Blood
Before engaging the LMHR hypothesis on its own terms, it helps to be precise about what we are actually measuring when we measure cholesterol — and why the distinction matters enormously for this debate.
Cholesterol is not, in itself, a villain. It is an essential molecule: a structural component of every cell membrane in the body, a precursor to bile acids, a building block for steroid hormones including testosterone, estrogen, and cortisol. The liver synthesizes most of the cholesterol distributed through the bloodstream; the brain maintains its own separate supply; dietary sources contribute a comparatively modest fraction. The problem is not cholesterol’s existence. The problem is its transportation.
Cholesterol is not water-soluble. It cannot travel freely through blood. To move through the aqueous environment of the circulatory system, it must be packaged inside specialized transport vehicles called lipoproteins — particles with a hydrophilic outer shell of proteins and phospholipids surrounding a hydrophobic core of fats and cholesterol. Think of them as sealed cargo containers designed to move oil through water.
Lipoproteins come in several classes, distinguished by their size, density, and cargo composition. Very low-density lipoproteins (VLDLs) are large, triglyceride-rich particles secreted by the liver. As they circulate, enzymes strip away their triglyceride cargo for use by tissues, and the particles gradually shrink and densify, eventually becoming low-density lipoproteins (LDLs). High-density lipoproteins (HDLs) are smaller, denser, and involved in reverse cholesterol transport — the process by which cholesterol is returned to the liver for recycling or excretion.
What makes certain lipoproteins atherogenic — capable of initiating and propagating the arterial plaques that cause heart attacks and strokes — is a protein called apolipoprotein B, or apoB. Each atherogenic lipoprotein particle carries exactly one molecule of apoB on its surface. This includes LDL particles, VLDL particles, intermediate-density lipoproteins (IDLs), and chylomicron remnants. The apoB molecule is what allows these particles to bind to proteoglycans in the arterial wall, become retained there, undergo oxidative modification, trigger an inflammatory response, and ultimately seed the plaques that narrow and harden arteries over decades.
HDL particles do not carry apoB. They are not atherogenic.
This is why the number that matters most in assessing cardiovascular risk is not LDL cholesterol — the mass of cholesterol carried collectively by LDL particles — but apoB: the count of atherogenic particles themselves. LDL-C, the figure that appears on standard lipid panels, is an estimate derived from the assumption that each LDL particle carries a predictable amount of cholesterol. That assumption holds reasonably well in many people. In others, it breaks down significantly, causing LDL-C to either overestimate or underestimate true particle burden. ApoB, which can now be measured directly and inexpensively, sidesteps this problem entirely. It counts the particles.
The reason this distinction is central to the LMHR debate will become clear shortly.
The Phenotype and Its Claims
The CSF defines the LMHR phenotype by a triad of lipid markers that appear together in certain lean individuals after they adopt a ketogenic or very low-carbohydrate diet. First, LDL cholesterol rises dramatically — often above 200 mg/dL, sometimes above 400 mg/dL, compared to the American Heart Association’s recommended ceiling of 100 mg/dL for the general population and 55 mg/dL for those at elevated cardiovascular risk. This rise in LDL-C is accompanied by a corresponding increase in apoB. Second, HDL cholesterol climbs to unusually high levels, typically above 80 mg/dL. Third, triglycerides remain low, usually below 70 mg/dL.
This lipid pattern is genuinely unusual. In conventional dyslipidemia — the kind associated with metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and elevated cardiovascular risk — elevated LDL-C typically accompanies high triglycerides and low HDL-C. The LMHR triad inverts two of those three markers. The CSF argues that this inversion is not incidental. It is, in their framing, evidence of a fundamentally different metabolic state.
Beyond the lipid triad, the CSF characterizes LMHRs as lean (body fat below roughly 15 percent for men, below 25 percent for women), physically active, and metabolically healthy by conventional measures: normal fasting glucose, good insulin sensitivity, low inflammatory markers. Many are endurance athletes or regular strength trainers. The CSF further notes that the dramatic LDL-C elevation on a ketogenic diet appears to occur specifically in lean individuals — those with a BMI below 25 — and not in those who are overweight or obese, which they take as additional evidence of a distinct phenotype rather than a generic dietary response.
The hypothesis built on top of this phenotype is where the controversy begins. The CSF proposes that elevated LDL-C in LMHRs reflects enhanced fat metabolism — a marker of the body’s efficient use of lipids for fuel — rather than a pathological accumulation of atherogenic particles. And some proponents extend this further, suggesting that because the elevation arises from a different mechanism than, say, familial hypercholesterolemia, it may carry a different — and perhaps negligible — cardiovascular risk.
The Lipid Energy Model: A Mechanism That Doesn’t Hold
To explain how LDL-C rises so dramatically in LMHRs, the CSF developed what it calls the “lipid energy model.” The model proposes a cascade of metabolic adaptations triggered by carbohydrate restriction. When dietary carbohydrates are severely limited, liver glycogen stores deplete. The body shifts toward fat as its primary fuel. Insulin and leptin levels fall, which increases lipolysis in adipose tissue — the breakdown of stored triglycerides into non-esterified fatty acids (NEFAs) for release into circulation. More NEFAs reach the liver, where they are repackaged into triglycerides and loaded into VLDL particles for export. These VLDLs are then rapidly metabolized in peripheral tissues, with their triglyceride cargo removed by an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase. As triglycerides are stripped away, VLDLs shrink and convert into LDL particles. More VLDL turnover, the model proposes, means more LDL — hence the elevated LDL-C.
The model is elegant in outline. The problem is that it fails at nearly every mechanistic step when examined closely.
Start with the claim about VLDL secretion. When the liver synthesizes more triglycerides in response to increased NEFA delivery, it primarily increases the size of individual VLDL particles — loading more triglyceride cargo into each one — rather than secreting more particles. This is a critical distinction. Atherosclerosis is driven by particle number, not particle size. If the liver produces larger VLDLs without producing more of them, the total apoB concentration in plasma does not rise meaningfully. The lipid energy model therefore cannot account for the enormous elevation in apoB that defines the LMHR phenotype. It explains bigger particles, not more of them.
The model’s triglyceride logic also contradicts itself. If the mechanism involves a large increase in VLDL particle secretion, plasma triglycerides should rise — because triglycerides within circulating VLDLs are the primary determinant of serum triglyceride levels. But low triglycerides are one of the defining features of the LMHR phenotype. The model predicts the opposite of what is observed. Proponents have responded to this objection by arguing that high HDL-C in LMHRs indicates rapid triglyceride turnover, which would explain why triglycerides remain low despite high VLDL output. But this is an untested claim layered on top of an already unvalidated model — and even if it were true, high VLDL particle numbers would still produce elevated steady-state triglyceride levels. The explanation moves the goalposts without resolving the underlying contradiction.
Most critically, the model’s final step — the conversion of VLDLs into LDLs via lipoprotein lipase activity — has never been examined experimentally in this population. The model requires that LMHRs exhibit elevated rates of VLDL lipolysis and high lipoprotein lipase activity. Assays capable of measuring both exist. Neither has been applied to this question. A mechanism that has not been tested is not a mechanism — it is a hypothesis about a hypothesis.
A more parsimonious explanation for the LDL-C elevation in LMHRs involves two well-established pathways: increased hepatic production and secretion of large, cholesterol-rich LDL particles, and decreased clearance of LDL from plasma due to saturated fat-induced suppression of LDL receptors and increased hepatic cholesterol synthesis. Neither of these requires a novel model. Both are consistent with existing lipid biology. Neither makes the elevated apoB any less atherogenic.
Two Studies, and Why Neither Settles the Question
The primary empirical support for the LMHR hypothesis comes from two studies conducted by researchers affiliated with the CSF, both highlighted prominently in The Cholesterol Code.
The first is a one-year prospective observational cohort — the Keto CTA study — that tracked coronary atherosclerosis progression in 100 LMHR or near-LMHR individuals using coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Participants had maintained a ketogenic diet for at least two years before enrollment, with a median LDL-C around 260 mg/dL. The investigators reported that over the study year, plaque progression was not associated with baseline apoB, change in apoB, or total LDL-C exposure. Plaque at baseline predicted subsequent plaque progression — but lipid levels did not. The headline interpretation offered by the study’s proponents: high LDL-C in LMHRs does not drive short-term atherosclerotic progression.
It is worth noting that this study was retracted from its original journal publication and, as of early 2026, exists as a preprint on medRxiv — a status that matters when evaluating the weight of evidence it carries.
But the more fundamental problem with the Keto CTA study is not its publication status. It is its design. Atherosclerosis is not a short-term process. It is the cumulative product of decades of apoB-containing lipoprotein exposure — the biological equivalent of compound interest, accruing slowly and largely silently until it manifests as a clinical event. A one-year observation window in a cohort whose members are, on average, middle-aged and have spent most of their lives at normal LDL-C levels is structurally incapable of detecting the effect it claims to measure. The relevant question is not whether apoB predicts plaque change over twelve months. It is whether sustained elevation over years and decades increases cumulative disease burden. That question requires decades of follow-up, not one year.
The study also lacked the control group that would have made its results interpretable. To demonstrate that LMHRs are genuinely different from other people with high LDL-C, the investigators would have needed a comparator group of individuals with similarly elevated LDL-C but a conventional dyslipidemic profile — high triglycerides, low HDL-C. If the LMHR phenotype truly confers protection, LMHRs should show meaningfully less plaque progression than this group over the same period. No such comparator was recruited. Without it, the absence of a short-term correlation between apoB and plaque progression in a relatively young, low-burden cohort is not evidence against causality. It is the expected result under a fully causal model — because the damage accumulates over decades, not months.
The second study, a cross-sectional analysis published in Metabolism in 2024, compared 80 LMHR individuals who had been following a ketogenic diet for an average of 4.7 years with controls drawn from the Miami Heart cohort study, matched for age, sex, race, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking status (Budoff et al., Metabolism, 2024). The LDL-C difference between groups was dramatic: a mean of 272 mg/dL in the LMHR group, with some values reaching 591 mg/dL, versus 123 mg/dL in controls. CCTA data showed no significant difference in coronary plaque burden between the groups and no correlation between LDL-C level and plaque in the LMHR cohort.
This study is more informative than the Keto CTA study in one respect: it includes a comparator group. But its design introduces a different and arguably more serious problem. The LMHR participants had, by protocol, maintained normal LDL-C levels — averaging around 122 mg/dL — for most of their lives before adopting a ketogenic diet roughly five years prior to the study. The Miami Heart controls, matched for the presence of hyperlipidemia at the moment of comparison, had almost certainly been living with elevated LDL-C for far longer. Matching on a single lipid measurement at a single point in time erases the entire history of cumulative apoB exposure — which is precisely the variable that drives atherosclerotic risk. The LMHR group had five years of high LDL-C. The controls likely had decades. Comparing their plaque burden at a single cross-sectional moment and concluding that LDL-C doesn’t matter in LMHRs is like comparing the lung health of a 30-year smoker and a five-year smoker at age 55 and concluding that cigarettes are harmless.
The matching inadequacy extends further. People who voluntarily maintain a strict ketogenic diet for nearly five years are not a random sample of the population. They are, as a group, likely more physically active, more health-conscious, better resourced, and more attentive to their overall lifestyle than the general population from which the Miami Heart controls were drawn. The LMHR group had lower BMIs (22.5 versus 25.8), lower inflammatory markers (hsCRP 0.5 versus 0.7 mg/L), higher HDL-C, and lower triglycerides. None of these advantages were controlled for. Any one of them could independently reduce cardiovascular risk. Together, they make it impossible to isolate the effect of elevated LDL-C from the effect of being, in almost every other measurable way, healthier than the comparison group.
The simpler interpretation of both studies is not that LMHRs are exempt from LDL-driven atherosclerosis. It is that they are healthier than their comparators in ways that the study designs failed to account for, and that five years of high LDL-C has not yet produced the plaque burden that decades of high LDL-C eventually would.
What Familial Hypercholesterolemia Actually Teaches Us
Proponents of the LMHR hypothesis frequently invoke familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) as a contrast case — and then argue that the contrast exonerates LMHRs. The argument runs roughly as follows: FH is a genetic condition that causes high LDL-C through dysfunctional lipid metabolism, specifically defects in LDL receptor function that prevent the liver from clearing LDL from circulation efficiently. LMHRs, by contrast, have high LDL-C through what the CSF characterizes as “functional” lipid metabolism — an adaptive response to fuel partitioning rather than a broken clearance mechanism. Different cause, different consequence.
The distinction is real. The conclusion drawn from it is not.
FH can arise through multiple genetic mechanisms: defects in the LDL receptor itself, variants in PCSK9 (a protein that degrades LDL receptors), or alterations in apoB synthesis. Each mechanism is distinct. Each produces elevated apoB through a different pathway. In every case, cardiovascular risk tracks with apoB concentration — not with the mechanism producing it. The arterial wall does not interrogate the origin of the particles accumulating within it. It responds to how many arrive and how long they stay.
The “functional” versus “dysfunctional” framing is a category error. Insulin resistance is also, in a narrow sense, an adaptive response — cells downregulating insulin signaling in the face of chronic energy surplus. That adaptation does not make it benign. The adaptiveness of a biological response and its harmlessness are separate questions.
There is also an irony in the FH comparison that the LMHR hypothesis’s proponents do not appear to have fully reckoned with. FH patients are born with elevated LDL-C and apoB. Heterozygous FH patients — those with one defective copy of the relevant gene — typically do not experience major adverse cardiac events until their third or fourth decade of life. Children with homozygous FH, carrying two defective copies and facing the most extreme LDL elevations, usually survive for a decade or more before suffering cardiovascular events. Atherosclerosis, even under conditions of severe, lifelong apoB elevation, takes time to manifest clinically. CCTA scans in young FH patients are often normal. The disease accumulates silently.
This is precisely the problem with the LMHR evidence base. The LMHRs studied in the Keto CTA and KETO Trial cohorts are middle-aged adults who have been on a ketogenic diet for an average of roughly five years. They spent the preceding decades at normal LDL-C levels. The FH experience tells us that even congenital, lifelong apoB elevation does not produce detectable clinical events for years. Five years of diet-induced hypercholesterolemia in a middle-aged cohort is not enough time to see what the FH literature took decades to establish. The absence of detectable harm at this timescale is not reassurance. It is the expected finding.
The Asymmetry of the Decision
Strip away the mechanistic debate and the study design critiques, and what remains is a practical question faced by real people: Someone adopts a ketogenic diet, feels better than they have in years, and receives a lipid panel showing an LDL-C of 280 mg/dL. Their triglycerides are 60. Their HDL is 85. Their fasting glucose is normal. They find the LMHR hypothesis online and wonder whether their numbers are a problem or a feature.
The decision framework here is not symmetric.
If the LMHR hypothesis is correct — if elevated LDL-C in this specific metabolic context genuinely does not drive atherosclerosis — then treating the LDL elevation with medication or dietary modification costs relatively little. The person forgoes the theoretical benefit of their elevated lipids, whatever that might be, and takes a medication with a well-characterized safety profile, or adjusts their fat intake, or both.
If the LMHR hypothesis is wrong — if elevated apoB drives atherosclerosis in LMHRs just as it does in everyone else — then dismissing the elevation costs potentially everything. Atherosclerosis is clinically silent for most of its course. By the time it produces symptoms or becomes detectable on imaging, the biological process is already well advanced. The damage is not reversible in any meaningful sense. The plaque that has accumulated over years of elevated apoB exposure does not dissolve when the apoB finally comes down.
Toward the end of The Cholesterol Code, one of the clinical team members suggests that a person should decide whether to lower their lipids based on the results of arterial imaging — in other words, to wait until the arteries show damage before taking action to prevent damage. This is a remarkable recommendation. It is the equivalent of advising someone to begin wearing a seatbelt after their first accident. Atherosclerosis is a process, not an event. Waiting for imaging evidence of its presence before intervening means waiting until the intervention is already late.
The tools available to reduce apoB are numerous, well-studied, and generally well tolerated. Statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, bempedoic acid — each works through a different mechanism, each has been tested in large randomized trials, and each reduces cardiovascular events in proportion to the reduction in apoB it achieves. The evidence base for their efficacy spans hundreds of studies, multiple genetic approaches including Mendelian randomization, and decades of clinical trial data. A 2017 European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement synthesizing this evidence concluded that LDL-containing lipoproteins causally drive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease — not as a correlation, not as an association, but as a cause (Ference et al., Eur Heart J, 2017).
Notably, the authors of the Keto CTA study themselves acknowledged in a published response to criticism that their results are “compatible with a causal role of apolipoprotein B in atherosclerosis” (Soto-Mota et al., JACC Adv, 2025). That concession is significant. The dispute is no longer about whether apoB causes atherosclerosis. It is about whether a specific metabolic context meaningfully attenuates that causal relationship. Demonstrating effect modification — showing that the same apoB exposure produces different outcomes in LMHRs than in everyone else — requires long-term, well-controlled prospective data showing different clinical outcomes at equivalent apoB levels. That data does not exist.
Absent it, the expected value calculation is clear. The potential upside of assuming LMHR status confers protection is modest. The potential downside of being wrong is irreversible.
What the Evidence Would Need to Show
The LMHR hypothesis is not without scientific value. It has prompted useful questions about the relationship between dietary pattern, lipid metabolism, and cardiovascular risk. It may yet contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how LDL-C elevation in different metabolic contexts should be interpreted and managed. That possibility deserves to be taken seriously.
But taking a hypothesis seriously means holding it to the evidentiary standard appropriate to what it claims. The LMHR hypothesis claims that a well-established causal relationship — between apoB-containing lipoprotein concentration and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease — is suspended or substantially attenuated in a specific subpopulation. That is an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence.
What would that evidence look like? It would require well-designed prospective studies with appropriate control groups — not cross-sectional snapshots, not one-year windows, but long-term follow-up showing that LMHR individuals with sustained apoB levels of 150, 180, or 200 mg/dL and above do not experience greater plaque progression or higher rates of cardiovascular events than comparable individuals with lower apoB and otherwise similar baseline risk. It would require mechanistic evidence demonstrating that apoB-containing particles in this population behave differently at the level of the arterial wall — that they either fail to enter the wall, fail to be retained, or fail to trigger the inflammatory cascade that produces plaque. And it would require a coherent, experimentally validated explanation for why particle number does not translate into risk in this specific context, when it does in every other context in which it has been studied.
For either of those last two conditions to be true, one of two things would need to hold: apoB-containing particles in LMHRs do not enter or are not retained in the arterial wall, or they do enter but do not trigger the inflammatory sequence leading to plaque formation. There is currently no evidence for either claim. Both would require a fundamental revision of established atherosclerosis biology — biology that has been confirmed across genetic studies, epidemiological cohorts, randomized controlled trials, and basic science research spanning decades.
Several studies have now demonstrated that LDL-C remains monotonically associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease even in the absence of conventional risk factors — in people without diabetes, hypertension, or smoking history (Masrouri et al., Atherosclerosis, 2024; Faridi et al., JACC Adv, 2024; Fernández-Friera et al., JACC, 2017). Preliminary, unpublished data presented by Dr. Deirdre Tobias of Tufts University suggest that higher LDL-C is associated with progressive elevations in all-cause mortality even in individuals with low-risk profiles that closely resemble the LMHR phenotype — normal HDL, low triglycerides, low BMI, no hypertension, normal HbA1c, nonsmoking. That data has not been peer-reviewed and should be treated accordingly. But it is consistent with the direction of every other line of evidence on this question.
Metabolic health matters. Being lean, physically active, and insulin-sensitive lowers cardiovascular risk through multiple pathways. None of that is in dispute. The question is whether those advantages are sufficient to neutralize the atherogenic effect of markedly elevated apoB — and the answer, based on everything currently known about how atherosclerosis develops, is that there is no reason to believe they are, and no evidence to suggest they might be.
The LMHR phenotype may be real. The Lipid Energy Model may eventually be refined into something more coherent. The studies may be followed by better studies with longer follow-up and more appropriate controls. All of that is possible.
What is not defensible, given the current state of evidence, is treating the absence of proof of harm as proof of absence of harm — particularly when the harm in question accumulates silently over decades, and the tools to reduce it are available, effective, and well understood.
Sources
- Segrest JP, Garber DW, Brouillette CG, Harvey SC, Anantharamaiah GM. The amphipathic alpha helix: a multifunctional structural motif in plasma apolipoproteins. Adv Protein Chem. 1994;45:303–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-3233(08)60643-9
- Soffer DE, Marston NA, Maki KC, et al. Role of apolipoprotein B in the clinical management of cardiovascular risk in adults: An Expert Clinical Consensus from the National Lipid Association. J Clin Lipidol. 2024;18(5):e647–e663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2024.08.013
- Blumenthal RS, Morris PB, Gaudino M, et al. 2026 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of dyslipidemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. Published online March 13, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.11.016
- Norwitz NG, Cromwell WC. Oreo cookie treatment lowers LDL cholesterol more than high-intensity statin therapy in a lean mass hyper-responder on a ketogenic diet: A curious crossover experiment. Metabolites. 2024;14(1):73. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo14010073
- Budoff M, Kinninger A, Manubolu V, Norwitz N, Feldman D, Soto-Mota A. The impact of sustained LDL-C elevation on plaque changes: Primary coronary plaque progression results from the Keto CTA Study. medRxiv [preprint]. Published January 16, 2026. Note: retracted from peer-reviewed publication; currently available as preprint only. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.01.15.26343955
- Soto-Mota A, Flores-Jurado Y, Norwitz NG, et al. Increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on a low-carbohydrate diet in adults with normal but not high body weight: A meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2024;119(3):740–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.01.009
- Norwitz NG, Soto-Mota A, Kaplan B, et al. The Lipid Energy Model: Reimagining lipoprotein function in the context of carbohydrate-restricted diets. Metabolites. 2022;12(5):460. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo12050460
- Javier DAR, Manubolu VS, Norwitz NG, et al. The impact of carbohydrate restriction-induced elevations in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on progression of coronary atherosclerosis: the ketogenic diet trial study design. Coron Artery Dis. 2024;35(7):577–583. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCA.0000000000001395
- Budoff M, Manubolu VS, Kinninger A, et al. Carbohydrate restriction-induced elevations in LDL-cholesterol and atherosclerosis: The KETO Trial. Metabolism. 2024;153:155854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2024.155854
- Garvey WT, Kwon S, Zheng D, et al. Effects of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes on lipoprotein subclass particle size and concentration determined by nuclear magnetic resonance. Diabetes. 2003;52(2):453–462. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.52.2.453
- Ference BA, Ginsberg HN, Graham I, et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(32):2459–2472. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx144
- Soto-Mota A, Norwitz NG, Manubolu VS, et al. Reply: The Keto CTA study. JACC Adv. 2025;4(7):101862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.101862
- Masrouri S, Tamehri Zadeh SS, Shapiro MD, Khalili D, Hadaegh F. Impact of optimal cholesterol levels on subclinical atherosclerosis in the absence of risk factors in young adults. Atherosclerosis. 2024;393:117520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2024.117520
- Faridi KF, Lahan S, Budoff MJ, et al. Serum lipoproteins are associated with coronary atherosclerosis in asymptomatic U.S. adults without traditional risk factors. JACC Adv. 2024;3(7):101049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101049
- Fernández-Friera L, Fuster V, López-Melgar B, et al. Normal LDL-cholesterol levels are associated with subclinical atherosclerosis in the absence of risk factors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(24):2979–2991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.024
- Tobias D. Unpublished data on LDL-C and all-cause mortality in low-risk individuals. Presented via X (formerly Twitter), April 2026. Note: not peer-reviewed; cited as preliminary. https://x.com/deirdre_tobias/status/1473636224258744322
