Posting this because the summary going around does not say what the paper says, and the difference matters for how people here are using it.
ApoB is the more informative number and it is cheap. LDL-C estimates cholesterol mass in atherogenic particles; ApoB counts the particles, and it is particle count that tracks risk — which is why the two can disagree and why the disagreement is the clinically interesting case. Triglycerides fall substantially with weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity, HDL moves modestly, and LDL-C often barely moves at all, which surprises people who expected everything to improve together.
Where I think it is weakest: the population was selected and supported in ways a real cohort is not, so I would read the effect size as a ceiling rather than an expectation.
So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: whether an unchanged LDL-C alongside a large triglyceride fall is a good result or a bad one, because ApoB and LDL-C seem to be telling different stories. Practical detail welcome, however dull — the duller the better.
Note on sourcing:
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.