I don't know if it's the most compelling, probably not, but I just googled.
But, you should really be looking at meta-analysis. Because you can find a single study showing almost anything. If you look at a few meta-analysis you'd find that it's undisputed that diets high in saturated fat increase your risk of CVD. It's very well supported and we understand the mechanism of action.
The recommendation of the AHA has been to have a diet high in fiber and low in saturated (animal) fat for decades now. It makes complete sense: more vegetables, more fruits, more avocados and nuts, less red meat.
As an aside: there's other problems with red meat outside of the risk of heart disease. It's also a group 2A carcinogen, meaning it probably causes cancer. Processed red meats are group 1, meaning they definitely cause cancer.
None of this is to say that you're gonna die and it's terrible for you. But when it comes to diet you need to look at the whole picture and consider balance. Eating almost anything is fine in moderation proportional to how harmful the food is. For most people, it's enough to just use your intuition and not hyper-optimize. Eating a cheeseburger is fine, but you should also eat plenty of fruits and vegetables. If you're eating mostly cheeseburgers, milkshakes, steak... yeah that's probably not good in the long term.
That particular study doesn't support that saturated fat causes heart disease.
What it does is suggest that eating more saturated fat in some people raises the LDL cholesterol metric, and others have showed a correlation between a higher LDL cholesterol level and heart disease.
This particular study doesn't make the claim that it's causing heart disease, but so far all the studies I've seen that are probably used in the meta analysis do the same thing. To interpret these studies as showing saturated fat causes heart disease is to use correlation to claim causation. That's the problem I saw with a cursory look at a bunch of the sat fat studies. Meta analysis is problematic because it takes dozens of these studies and makes a claim but when you go into the details the studies themselves either have major flaws or don't support what the meta analysis claims.
As far as moderation and all I agree. Though of course we disagree on which foods are harmful and those should be moderated down to a very small amount. I think moderation with some things - processed foods for example, and I include 99% of what is for sale in a grocery store that has more than one ingredient, is zero or very close to zero. I try to eat only things whose ingredients are recognizable as mechanically separated whole pieces of a single species.
I would bet if there were a study that watched a cohort eat more saturated fat than another and monitored health outcomes, they wouldn't strictly control for saturated fat alone, if you could look at exactly what everyone is eating, they'd probably have the one cohort eating fast food burgers and processed meats and dairy vs the other eating more vegetables - or something along similar lines that confounds the results.
A fairer comparison would be to have two groups both eating healthy / real food diets, but one uses canola or sunflower oil for everything and the other uses butter or coconut oil, and monitor total health outcomes over a longish period. It might not take that long even a year should show a difference. I've only seen two studies that tried to do that and both showed that though the LDL cholesterol was higher in the sat fat group, mortality was higher in the other group, but I'm not claiming they prove anything.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39111551/
I don't know if it's the most compelling, probably not, but I just googled.
But, you should really be looking at meta-analysis. Because you can find a single study showing almost anything. If you look at a few meta-analysis you'd find that it's undisputed that diets high in saturated fat increase your risk of CVD. It's very well supported and we understand the mechanism of action.
The recommendation of the AHA has been to have a diet high in fiber and low in saturated (animal) fat for decades now. It makes complete sense: more vegetables, more fruits, more avocados and nuts, less red meat.
As an aside: there's other problems with red meat outside of the risk of heart disease. It's also a group 2A carcinogen, meaning it probably causes cancer. Processed red meats are group 1, meaning they definitely cause cancer.
None of this is to say that you're gonna die and it's terrible for you. But when it comes to diet you need to look at the whole picture and consider balance. Eating almost anything is fine in moderation proportional to how harmful the food is. For most people, it's enough to just use your intuition and not hyper-optimize. Eating a cheeseburger is fine, but you should also eat plenty of fruits and vegetables. If you're eating mostly cheeseburgers, milkshakes, steak... yeah that's probably not good in the long term.