Talk:Dietary cholesterol

	This Food woo related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Issues with sources

I hate to resurrect the talk on this page since I see it has been archived, but I just made an edit to the main page since it misrepresents one of its sources and in general has a few problems. I realise that there might be little interest in these changes, but I think it's important to be consistent about using sources and to be less aggressive with its claims when they don't match the reference directly following. I think this page still has a large number of issues based on just following its own sources but some incremental improvements are a good start. In particular, I'm also going to put through an edit to change labeling someone (Mic the vegan) a "conspiracy theorist" since that's honestly rude and unfounded. Metaphoricallybad (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't keep creating new accounts, a scan through the archives shows you have had hundreds of accounts called (Alec Garrett) or similar pushing the same message on this talk-page in the past. You seem to ignore scientific consensus and will cherry pick anything against dietary cholesterol. 82.132.234.133 (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not Alec Garret or similar. Feel free to check the IP of my contributions and geo-locate them if that's a significant concern. I'm also not cherry-picking, in fact I was unpicking cherries from an existing source in the article. I haven't removed any sources and I haven't added any sources not. I'd say reading the whole of a study instead of just a specific quote is actually the opposite of ignoring scientific consensus. Metaphoricallybad (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no check user here and most users are on VPN so it is not possible to prove who is using a sock-puppet but based on behavioural evidence there was indeed an insane user saying the same thing over and over. I have looked over your edits, they are accurate. I have lost interest in this topic. The truth is dietary cholesterol is not a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in the general population but in specific cases it may be a risk factor for people with diabetes or for those who already have cardiovascular disease.

Nearly all data on egg consumption is taken from observational studies. There is consistent evidence that dietary cholesterol does not increase CVD risk in most populations. A good example is the egg consumption in China which has been found to lower risk of CVD and stroke. However, in America some cohorts have reported an increased CVD risk. A lot of this will come down to what else people are eating, their body weight etc which they can adjust for in the studies (to reduce confounding by other variables). There is also the issue of how the eggs are eaten, in America they are eaten scrambled or fried with bacon. That is a definite increased CVD risk. In many parts of Asia, the eggs are eaten raw or boiled and eaten with rice or other grains. One thing the article does not mention is dietary cholesterol and cancer risk. There actually is some evidence for that and it can be added. Johns (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Eggs raise serum cholesterol

The reason there is so much confusion here is the relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol isn’t linear, it’s log linear. At low levels of intake there are large increases but you get diminishing harm and hit a ceiling fairly early. Going from 0 eggs to 1 egg has a much larger effect than going from 5 to 6 eggs. The egg industry, intentionally or not, took advantage of this in the many studies they funded. They used subjects that already had high dietary cholesterol intake and showed adding additional eggs made little difference.

We have hundreds of metabolic ward studies proving conclusively that dietary cholesterol effects serum cholesterol levels

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9006469/

Non linear relationship discussed here

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522030866

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1534437/

And cross sectional analyses lack statistical power due to the size of genetic variations in cholesterol

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/313701/

None of the papers on the article address these limitations, cites cross sectional analyses but not a meta analysis of 400 metabolic ward studies. Only8livesleft (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You are quoting research from the 1990s that has since been corrected. That is discussed here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19751443/ "It is now acknowledged that the original studies purporting to show a linear relation between cholesterol intake and coronary heart disease (CHD) may have contained fundamental study design flaws, including conflated cholesterol and saturated fat consumption rates and inaccurately assessed actual dietary intake of fats by study subjects. Newer and more accurate trials, such as that conducted by Frank B. Hu of the Harvard School of Public Health, have shown that consumption of up to seven eggs per week is harmonious with a healthful diet, except in male patients with diabetes for whom an association in higher egg intake and CHD was shown."

Dietary cholesterol is a risk factor for diabetics and those with pre-existing CHD, it would also be a risk for carnivore diet clowns who eat 20 eggs a day, it is not a risk for healthy individuals in the general population. Eating 1 egg a day does not increase serum cholesterol. Saturated fat is the risk factor to worry about, not dietary cholesterol. 209.38.167.90 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)