This just sounds like a semantic disagreement. I believe the evidence base presented in the paper is a pretty fair representation of the field, and justifies the authors’ statement:
> the totality of the evidence supports the recommendation to limit SFA intake to <10% TDE for the general healthy population
I would call this pretty good evidence. Perhaps you wouldn’t but, as I say, that’s probably just a semantic disagreement.
Sure, I would too. I wouldn't call it strong evidence one way or another. The error bars suggest there is too much in-population variance to come up with useful general guidelines. (Frying an egg in a tablespoon of lard every day wouldn't constitute 10% TDE on a 2,000-calorie diet, for example.)
We have evidence to suspect this [1]. We are not yet able to predict in which people it’s the case moreso (or at all) than others.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34649831/