"During six years of follow-up, 166 cases of CHD were diagnosed and
matched with 327 controls
for age, smoking status, fasting status and date of blood drawing."

This is not controlled properly, though it might pass for "science"
these days.  They took the people who developed "CHD" and then
compared them to people without CHD, who they deemed to be similar.
For all we know, there could have been a large number of people with
high trans fatty acid levels and no CHD.  If you want to "believe," be
my guest.  However, if you want to claim that an unsaturated bond is
healthy in a configuratiion that is more likely to be degraded by free
radicals, whereas another unsaturated bond is very uhealthy, even
though it is more resistant, you are writing yourself a fairly tale.

Notice how MattLB does not address my point.  Where does it say that
they accounted for oxidized cholesterol or antioxidant intake?  In
fact, not all the naturally-occurring antioxidants contained in
"natural" foods are even known - he is so wrong it is laughable!

If you disagree, my offer is still open to anyone with several hundred
dollars to spare:

We will feed two dozen adult rats a diet of 30% fresh coconut oil (my
choice) or 30% canola and fish oil.  No added antioxidants, just a
basic vitamin/mineral supplement.  Otherwise, they get the same food,
with no other source of fat.  All else will be equal.  Then if the
coconut fed rats live to be the same age or longer, you will pay for
all expenses, whereas I will if the coconut fed ones live what is
considered to be statistically-significant shorter lives.

Note that as I said, I don't necessarily disagree with their findings,
but it is the mechanism that makes no sense.  There is no reason to
blame a trans fatty acid unless you also blame an unsaturated fatty
acid with the same number of bonds.  Trans fatty acids are naturally-
occurring, but in small amounts, just as most humans ate diets very
low in PUFAs until recently.  If you disagree, simple and inexpensive
experiments that do control for these factors can be done.  Also, you
might want to take a look at what Shils and Young have to say about
trans fatty acids in their massive nutrition textbook (written for
professionals).  They point out that fish oil is much worse in the
atherosclerotic context.  This was documented decades ago in
experiments that did control properly.  Nother MattLB claims can
change that fact.  Get the book and see for yourself.

Also note that I am willing to debate anyone on this issue, provided
that a mutally-acceptable person be appointed as moderator.  Calling
someone you disagree with on a scientific issue an "idiot" is clearly
not going to resolve anything.