RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Dietary cholesterol myth

Dietary cholesterol myth | Result: Moved to Dietary cholesterol. Doesn't look like anyone wants to delete it anymore.

Dietary cholesterol myth (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. This is not a myth. The most recent high powered studies find that it increases both blood LDL cholesterol, CVD risk and all cause mortality risk:

   https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/109/1/7/5266898

   https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2728487

   And other high quality studies finding that it increases total blood cholesterol have been around for decades:

   https://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112?ij

   Even if all of these studies were wrong (I don't believe they are as they are higher quality than many of those mentioned in the article), it would clearly still be a matter of scientific debate, not a myth.

   In general the whole article contains many poor quality sources and unsourced misleading claims (for example that only vegans promote this idea) while consistently ignoring higher quality sources like those above.

   I suggest the page be deleted, or at least the name of the article should be changed to "debate" not "myth" and the extreme bias against the above science and any other bias should be corrected. AlecGargett (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   All incorrect. Dietary cholesterol does not increase CVD risk or LDL cholesterol in the general population. The dietary Guidelines For Americans 2015-2020 have removed limits on dietary cholesterol. Show a recent umbrella review or systematic review for what you are claiming. You cherry-pick a handful of cohort studies and an outdated paper from 1997. You are not doing science. Lastly Google "dietary cholesterol myth". Mainstream health agencies now describe it as a myth. Johns (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   That first claim is like saying heroin does not increase heroin levels in the general population (most people eat very little eggs, so of course it won't be significant), and it's not what the article claims. The article claims that there is a consensus of no risk, includes low quality studies while omitting *all* studies that contradict the claim of a consensus including the higher quality meta regression. "You cherry-pick a handful of cohort studies and an outdated paper from 1997." No, the meta-regression I linked included 55 studies and is higher powered than the umbrella studies. AlecGargett (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

   You were challenged to give a single systematic review to back up your claim that dietary cholesterol increases CVD risk and all cause mortality in the general population. You failed to do this, so you lost the challenge [1], you resorted to pasting in the same paper which you go on and on about because its the only evidence you have. You have not provided any new evidence compared to me pasting in loads and loads of reviews. I am not going to respond to you any longer because its clear you do not know how science operates. You say an umbrella review is low quality compared to a single meta-regression analysis. That is obviously not true. An umbrella review offers the highest quality evidence available (I am sure other editors here would back me up on this). This kind of review looks at many more studies than just 55 trials.

   In total I have provided 10 systematic reviews published from 2013-2020 and two umbrella reviews (I listed most of them) from 2020 that say dietary cholesterol from eggs does not increase CVD risk in the general population. Several of these concluded the opposite. For example they found that egg consumption has a significant reduction in risk of CVD. What you are claiming is a minority opinion not supported by the broad consensus which I listed. We do not ignore systematic reviews and umbrella reviews for a single meta-regression analysis that analyzed data from 2652 individuals. If dietary cholesterol significantly raises CVD risk then why does every health agency around the world claim the opposite and why are there no reviews that claim this? Have you thought this through?

   55 small sample studies from not even 3000 people is not conclusive evidence against hundreds of studies that have examined millions of people. The data from all the reviews I have listed adds up to millions of people from many different populations that is the best quality evidence in existence but you ignore it all for your minority view. You seem to be advocating a minority opinion because it suits your vegan bias so you just want to look at only a few thousand people sampled. Your claim that most people eat little eggs is not supported by any evidence either. See recent comment by another user on the talk-page. Japanese people have the highest life expectancy on the planet yet they eat the most eggs compared to any other country.

   According to what LeslyWilliams linked to [2] - A Japanese individual eats 320 eggs annually, does that appear to be a little amount to you? Lastly the meta-regression analysis you cite was mentioned in detail by the a panel from the American Heart Foundation they are more qualified than you and me on this topic and their review concludes dietary cholesterol does not increase CVD risk in the general population. They did their own meta-regression analysis and it contradicts the other "No significant association was observed between dietary cholesterol and LDL cholesterol or HDL cholesterol concentrations". Use the talk-page to continue any discussion about this but you lost the challenge so you lost the debate. You are not looking at what the majority of studies say. We should not give equal weight to minority viewpoints. I am looking at data from millions of people whilst you are looking at a few thousand. If you just ditched your pseudoscientific vegan diet and objectively looked at this you would agree with the scientific consensus. Johns (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

   How does AlecGargett explain this? https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/111/4/795/5713417 Association of egg intake with blood lipids, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in 177,000 people in 50 countries "In 3 large international prospective studies including ∼177,000 individuals, 12,701 deaths, and 13,658 CVD events from 50 countries in 6 continents, we did not find significant associations between egg intake and blood lipids, mortality, or major CVD events." Derek (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

2. Yeah this ain't debunking anything, merely presenting a weak argument, for once side of the scientific debate on the subject, whilst dismissing the other. The premise of the article, incorrectly calls out legitimate scientific evidence, as a 'myth', which is absurd. Judge Dredd (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   Unfortunately you don't understand this topic and have never edited a dietary related article on this website, you just want it deleted because you had your tech rights removed over that mess a few months ago, you blame me for that and now you log in here to eye up anything I edit. There is nothing I can do about that but dietary cholesterol does not increase total blood cholesterol and CVD risk in the general population. I have listed umbrella reviews and other evidence [3]. If you know anything about science you know that umbrella reviews are the best type of evidence we can get. It is very much a myth, even the NHS and British Heart Foundation says so on their websites. Eating an egg it does not increase blood cholesterol for most people, this is considered a 'myth' by mainstream health agencies. This is a scientific fact. It is a myth because it was once believed true. We don't need to delete a science based article. I don't think it needs a name change but if so we can discuss that. A deletion is way uncalled for. As for AlecGargett he is a known vegan activist. He wants the article deleted. Johns (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   Irrelevant. This page is not missional as written, under this title. Altering the page radically, moving it to a new title, and fixing the obvious errors, would in effect make it a new page. If you want to cite, certain bodies, you will note that other bodies disagree... hardly conclusive. Your assertions are not supported by your evidence. Judge Dredd (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

   No there isn't a 'huge' debate about this topic hundreds of studies have been done on this and only a handful say the opposite, we don't need to go with the handful, we reflect the consensus (the evidence from the majority of studies). But I changed the title because Alec has been moaning about it. Its only vegan bodies that disagree. If you look at the scientific bodies and mainstream health agencies or organizations - British Heart Foundation, NHS, HEART UK, British Dietetic Association, American Heart Foundation etc they have all said on their websites that dietary cholesterol does not increase CVD risk in the general population. There is no conspiracy, why are they all saying the same thing? They are not all wrong lol. This is a website that represents the mainstream scientific view on health topics, we do not need to cite fringe views or one study out of hundreds saying the opposite. If one vegan organization claims the opposite we don't go with the vegan one. I am not aware of a single health body that claims dietary cholesterol increases CVD risk. You have admitted to veganism [4]. That explains your bias against the mainstream health view. This isn't a vegan wiki. What I show is the mainstream view. The vegan view is not mainstream therefore we do not need to give it equal weight. Johns (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. If there are problems with the page, then improve it. Bongolian (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   OK I have done so, but there are also problems with the name of the article, because the name is misleading. Can someone please move it to "Effects of dietary cholesterol? Cheers. AlecGargett (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   I went ahead and improved it an my edits were all reverted. On the plus side, the article name has been changed. AlecGargett (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

2. Keep, per talk [5]. The current mainstream medical consensus from science-based medicine is that dietary cholesterol does not increase LDL blood cholesterol or CVD risk in the general population. Unfortunately, AlecGargett is a vegan conspiracy theorist (yes you can Google him to see who is he and his posts on a veganwiki). Johns (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
3. -Flandres (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
4. Per discussion on talk page. Would you have any confidence in studies offered by an anti-abortion agitator, claiming that abortion causes some kind of medical problem? The same principle applies here. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 05:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
5. The talkpage suggests that this is at least a relevant subject to have.Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
6. --Goatspeed. _{How's my editing}CircularRasoning^{My experiments} 01:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)