I would take the results of this with a grain of salt. Linking saturated fats and coronary heart disease is not as simple as we'd like it to be. The first reference this article lists in particular has many reasons to stay skeptical[1].

[1] http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796/rr-4

fwiw: https://www.xperthealth.org.uk/Home/News/ArtMID/454/ArticleI...

The usual pattern of research is for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be performed to confirm or deny trends identified in observational studies. In the case of SFAs however, there have already been a number of RCTs performed; and even a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses pooling their outcomes (e.g. 6-11). This raises the immediate question, why are observational studies still being produced on the subject? It is notable that the evidence from these RCT’s and meta-analyses does not support the conclusions of the Harvard Group’s observational data. For example, a recent Cochrane review (the gold-standard of evidence) found that there was no statistical difference in all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality in participants with higher SFA intake (12).

There's a difference between dietary and saturated fat.