--from a clinical perspective, I still don't think the researchers really have a handle on exactly what drives cardiovascular risk when it comes to particle size and number.

Certainly, the correlational studies don't provide a lot of strong absolute evidence for any particular size or number of particles resulting in greater infarction risk without other factors being taken into account, such as blood sugar, blood pressure, triglycerides (yours are impressively low), and measures of inflammation such as C-Reactive protein levels. There are plenty of people who go around with pretty high levels of "harmful" particles who because of healthy measures on some or all of these other levels are at relatively low risk for cardiac incidents--and a goodly number who have been found to have "good" cholesterol profiles as currently defined who are at high risk for events due to high blood sugar readings, high blood pressure, high inflammatory levels, and the like.

More reserach is certainly needed, but these situations are complex and multifactorial, and a lot of it is driven by heredity as well as lifestyle--although at least lifestyle is alterable. What makes me wary is how the "acceptable" lab levels have been driven down over time--Total cholesterol normal has gone from less than 240 to less than 200 over the last twenty years, and now many want to set it at 170--without REALLY good solid evidence that these have significant salutary effects. (We do need a certain amount of cholesterol available for our brains and other tissues--hypocholeterolemia is not good for body functioning, either.) I often wonder how often these decisions are driven by the lobbying of big pharma wanting to sell new product rather than by good research into actual health outcomes.