Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

Talk:Dietary cholesterol

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon food.svg

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.


Not a myth tho...[edit]

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:

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

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) 03:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@AlecGargett Firstly, please don't argue that something is biased. That's a bad argument when you just say "this is biased". Because then I can respond "And you're biased against it, so what?" Secondly, please fill out the AfD properly. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
It would be a bad argument if it were my only claim and if I didn't explain exactly what I meant by it and exactly why the bias is problematic and provided evidence, which I did. I don't know what I did wrong with the AfD so you will have to explain it to me. AlecGargett (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
We encourage people to improve the articles, where possible. I don't think anyone would mind if you are willing to do a rewrite, as long as it is a documented presentation. If you think you can, give it a try.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem with that is it would require deleting almost every statement in the article, and changing the article title to "Effects of dietary cholesterol". But if you are OK with me deleting everything misleading in the article (which is almost everything) and replacing it with actual science then I can do that.AlecGargett (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I think we should start by renaming the article though to something objective like "Effects of dietary cholesterol" if we are going to keep it. AlecGargett (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie OK I've filled out the AfD correctly now, I think. AlecGargett (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@AlecGargett Dietary nutrition isn't a strong suit of mine, so I'm not really able to argue for the page as it stands, which in turn means I'd also be fine with a rewrite if no one else with more information chimes in. I only butted in to point out bad arguments and that the AfD hadn't been finished before. Speaking of, thank you for filling out the AfD. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Just my observation, but Alec is a vegan activist. He will cherry pick a couple of studies to support his view while ignoring the consensus of experts that says the opposite; the article writer instead appears to be a sceptic who goes by consensus and meta-analysis of studies rather than cherry picking. I suggest getting @Johns to respond since he wrote the article.Watchman (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't consider myself an activist and that's ad hominem anyway. Please provide evidence of the "consensus of experts" that you claim. The studies i included are meta studies, so you clearly have your own bias here, and your bias is based on fallacies. AlecGargett (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Your accusation of "cherry picking" is also false. If I accidentally left out studies that are of equal or higher quality, please feel free to link them. You are making baseless accusation. AlecGargett (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if your hypocritical and baseless accusation of bias will be criticised by @GrammarCommie, after he criticized my well sourced accusation of bias. Are you assuming Johns has less bias simply because he is non-vegan? AlecGargett (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I criticized the use of the term "bias" as a charge in and of itself. "This page is biased" is not as strong as "this page is incorrect on subject X due to reasons Y and Z.". Also, I really dislike the insinuation that I have some kind of agenda or that I play favorites when I very clearly stated my reasons for speaking at all, as well as admitting my weaknesses regarding the topic at hand, and did so in good faith. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Just wondering if you would be consistent. So far you haven't criticized the charge of bias against me even though unlike my charge it was not backed up with any actual evidence, just creepy stalker ad hominem. AlecGargett (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
In the past, you have reverted improvements to the article that made it less biased against vegans. Yet you don't seem to have a problem withe fact there is a picture of an egg with the word "yummy" under it. Forgive me for noticing that your inconsistencies tend in exactly one direction. AlecGargett (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
None of those people took it to the talkpage, and furthermore, I again resent the insinuations you're trying to make. If you want to accuse me of having an agenda, or a blind spot, or whatever, then do so. But don't do the "well you know what you're doing is bad and wrong" crap. You aren't demonstrating motive, merely discribing a set of actions and then making a leap of logic to infer a motive. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The changes so far seem reasonable to me. I'd like to hear what the creator of the page has to say (@Johns). Bongolian (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I'm not accusing you of having agenda, I wondered if you would be inconsistent, and the pointed out that you have been inconsistent and unfair. This seems to have contributed to what was an obviously unbalanced and misleading article. AlecGargett (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not under any obligation to be fair, as fairness for fairness' sake is not a viable worldview. If Johns or Watchman engage fallacious or weak argumentation I'll call it out if I see it. However, I'm not constantly monitoring this page so it's possible the conversation could outpace me checking in on it. I really don't see any reason to make a big deal out of my self admitted minor involvement, or to put me on the spot and demand I adhere to some kind of fairness doctrine. I was literally going to leave the discussion after my initial concerns were dealt with, yet I'm still here because you're demanding I yell at the other side. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, not demanding anything. Just wondering if you were being inconsistent, and then noting the inconsistency. AlecGargett (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I advise you not to get distracted by inconsistancy, argumentative or cursory judgements on the talk page. Please don't take our talk personally: we don't know you. You don't know us. Perhaps you will get used to us. Please stick to arguing about the article, and you should get on fine.Ariel31459 (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Happy to do so. AlecGargett (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The area is controversial between vegans and mainstream nutritionists because contradictory studies can be cited in this area but RationalWiki embraces the mainstream consensus on medicine and nutrition. The highest evidence that can be cited are umbrella and systematic reviews. Alec Gargett does not cite these because no recent review claims what he is saying [1], [2], [3]. About 85 percent of the cholesterol is made in the liver, it is not coming from dietary sources. Thus avoiding foods that are high in cholesterol will not affect blood cholesterol in most people. 30/40 years ago it was thought the opposite. Things have changed.

The article I wrote is the mainstream current consensus from science-based medicine. I am well aware of what the scientific consensus is and it is not what Alec Gargett is claiming. The current consensus is that dietary cholesterol does not increase blood LDL cholesterol for the average population (it may be a concern for those with diabetes) and does not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease for most people. Alec Gargett took his studies from the Science Advisory From the American Heart Association [4] which is a good source but the data cited is conflicting which the authors admit. He bases his information on a few cherry-picked observational studies but note that the majority of these contradict what he has cited. For example in the panel I link to it says "Findings from observational studies have not generally supported an association between dietary cholesterol and CVD risk" (it looked at 17 of these) and "In summary, the majority of published observational studies do not identify a significant positive association between dietary cholesterol and CVD risk" and "For both dietary cholesterol and egg consumption, the published literature does not generally support statistically significant associations with CVD risk".

The United States Department of Agriculture, Dietary Guidelines For Americans 2015-2020 no longer places a limit on dietary cholesterol [5]. Obviously Alec Gargett disputes this and wants a limit. A summary of the committee’s December 2014 meeting stated "Cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption" [6]

Again I want to point out that the current medical consensus is that dietary cholesterol does not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Proof of this is found from the NHS (in the UK), The Association of UK Dietitians [7], HEART UK [8], Cleveland Clinic [9], Harvard School of Public Health [10], Healthline [11], British Heart Foundation [12] etc etc all these websites say the same thing. These are mainstream health websites, there is no conspiracy they are not all wrong. Every public health agency, charity or organization in the world accepts this (apart from vegan organizations).

But to make clear the consensus is that saturated and trans fats in food cause greater increase in LDL cholesterol. The consensus remains that saturated fats and trans fats increase the risk of heart disease, not dietary cholesterol. Yes the may appear confusing (because some sources of cholesterol in the diet also are sources of saturated fat) but this is what it is. Claiming dietary cholesterol raises total blood cholesterol is no longer accepted by the broad consensus of the medical world. It is very much a myth.

Lastly the egg study cited by Alec on 6 cohort studies [13] was deeply flawed with limitations. You can find heavy criticism of this. The Americans eat a high-fat diet and the adults that were pooled were eating lots of red meat, high-fat dairy and other foods high in saturated fat. They fry their eggs with bacon. We shouldn't be citing limited cohort studies. We should look at systematic or umbrella reviews. Here is a recent one published this year which examined seven systematic reviews and fifteen meta-analyses "Recent evidence-based reviews conclude that increased egg consumption is not associated with CVD risk in the general population" [14]. There have been about 10 systematic reviews published on egg consumption and CVD risk in the last 4 years or so. They have pretty much all said the same thing. Again no conspiracy, dietary cholesterol from eggs does not increase CVD risk in the general population. Johns (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

How do I request a name change or move of the article to "Effects of dietary cholesterol"[edit]

How do I request a name change or move of the article to "Effects of dietary cholesterol". This is more objective and less misleading. AlecGargett (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You need Sysop privileges to do so. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a link on your talk page to create a draft for your article. Give it a try.Ariel31459 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Challenge to Alec Gargett - Dietary cholesterol is not associated with increased CVD risk[edit]

Above Alec Gargett says that egg consumption increases both blood LDL cholesterol, CVD risk and all cause mortality risk (presumably in the general population). He does not list a systematic review or an umbrella review to back up his claims. Among the highest evidence in medicine is an umbrella review. I am not aware of any claiming egg consumption does what Gargett says (excluding diabetic patients). Listing a few selected individual studies, only a few cohort studies or an outdated meta-analysis from 1997 is cherry-picking. This is not the way science-based medicine works. We need to look at many different modern studies in different populations and not just a handful from America. That is why reviews are more reliable. And we should not look at just one review.

My challenge to Alex Gargett is to show four of five systematic reviews or umbrella reviews revealing what he claimed above, i.e. egg consumption or consumption of dietary cholesterol (not saturated fat) increases CVD risk and all cause mortality in the general population. Please only cite 'recent' reviews (let's say from 2013 on-wards to be fair). I am willing to agree that high egg consumption (moderate may be ok) is not recommended for diabetic patients [15], [16]. The article is in reference to the general population 'most people'.

Here is the modern evidence contradicting Gargett's claims (I will focus this on egg consumption for now):

2020 reviews


Nuff said, I could cite many many more. Gargett's claims do not have a leg to stand on. There is a pattern in the data. It shows us dietary cholesterol is not bad for health. I would happily rename this article and remove "myth" if the evidence supported that, but see above especially the 2020 reviews I listed. Dietary cholesterol (egg consumption etc) is not a concern for the general population. It does not increase the risk of coronary heart disease, quite the opposite actually if you actually look at the data. I am willing to agree with vegans that eggs are not ethical to eat, but we can't lie about what the science says when it comes to their health outcomes. Johns (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly of all the claim of cherry picking is obviously false, because I left all of the studies against my position in the article along with the summaries of them. Furthermore, the article so far has been built on cherry picking, as it left out all of the studies, including the recent ones, that contradicted the view of it being a "myth". The studies I linked were actually of higher quality than some of those already included. The quality of studies actually is what matters the most. Yes, an umbrella review, if it is done well, is the best form of evidence. But if it simply lumps many low powered studies together with the smaller number of higher powered studies and finds no association as a result, this does not negate an association found when looking at just the highest powered study or studies. The highest powered study we have so far to my knowledge is the Mali meta-regression that you conveniently ignored which included 55 studies: Unlike some studies, like observational studies of an entire population that does not consume much eggs on average, I believe this study accounts much better for confounding factors. Even if the meta-regression is somehow wrong (very unlikely in my view), the article should not be pretending that there is a scientific consensus that this is a "myth" when there is no such consensus. There was an opinion blog in 2015 claiming there was a "growing consensus" which was misrepresented as proof of a consensus. Do you think the scientists involved in the Maki et al or Zhong et al ( agree with this supposed "consensus", or are you claiming that they aren't scientists? Talk about no leg to stand on. AlecGargett (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
By reverting my edits, you have removed all of the sources I added, while leaving in studies of lower quality. This is blatant support for cherry picking. AlecGargett (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
One of your own sources there contradicts your position. "No conclusive evidence" is a contradiction of the suggestion that there is a clear evidence of no risk, although you have provided no evidence of consensus even on the claim that there is non conclusive evidence. Instead you have merely hidden the evidence against that claim of a consensus. AlecGargett (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that you have not given me any systematic reviews or umbrella reviews which claim dietary cholesterol increases CVD risk because none exist so you just cling to the few limited studies you have cited before. You have nothing new and provided me no scientific evidence from reviews so you have lost this challenge and I will not further respond. No single study or a handful is going to settle anything but that is all you have given me. I want the highest evidence available (reviews) not a single study or meta-regression analysis. You choose to ignore recent systematic reviews and instead prefer weaker evidence from one population because it fits your vegan bias. We need to look at this topic systematically across many different studies in different contexts (for example, in many different countries and populations), not just one. You do not do this. So yes, the reviews are more reliable than what you cite because they are looking at way more studies than what you have cited. That is the way evidence-based medicine works. If we look at the totality of the evidence, it goes directly against what you are claiming.

One of the highest evidence obtained in medicine is from an umbrella review not a meta-regression analysis. Indeed, none of these reviews support what you claim, they say the opposite. There really is no conspiracy. You are just wrong at the end of the day. You cite the same cohort study and a meta-regression analysis because it supports your vegan world-view and ignore all the reviews I listed. The meta-regression analysis examined 2652 individuals (55 studies). No, I don't think it is conclusive evidence because there are so many limitations with these type of study (The AMA point this out, see below). They use Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. I don't think you should pretend you know what these are, I am not entirely familiar with all their methods either, I don't have to pretend to be. The studies they look at were small samples. The majority of studies with bigger samples contradict their conclusion.

I have given you systematic reviews and umbrella reviews which in total have examined the results from from different studies regarding millions of individuals from many different countries, not just 2652 individuals. The American Heart Foundation have also looked at this meta-regression analysis you cite [18] but concluded in looking at the totality of the evidence that dietary cholesterol does not increase CVD risk in the general population. Interestingly, the AMA wanted to isolate the effects of dietary cholesterol on blood lipoprotein concentrations, so they did their own meta-regression analysis. They acknowledge their are limitations with this type of study but the results found that "No significant association was observed between dietary cholesterol and LDL cholesterol or HDL cholesterol concentrations". LDL-cholesterol and dietary cholesterol did not fit a log-linear model in their analysis. This seems to contradict the meta-regression analysis you cited. You have cited American studies, so surely you should take interest in what the American Heart Foundation has to say about this topic? They are more qualified than you or me to evaluate the data. There was also recent US cohort study which also contradicts some of what you say, it found that "No significant association was found between dietary cholesterol intake and heart disease mortality" [19]. Maybe you should cite that as well because you like US cohort studies.

If you look at any diet or health topic you will be able to find a single study or a handful that go against the broad consensus. That has always been the case. I am interested in what the majority of the evidence says, not a minority. Hundreds of studies have been done on this and they are all saying the same thing that dietary cholesterol does not increase CVD risk in the general population, so that is the consensus. If I look at ten systematic reviews and two umbrella reviews which I have done and listed above they all say this. I am not going to ignore all these for a handful of US cohort study or a single meta-regression analysis. Are you actually claiming a meta-regression analysis that examined 2652 individuals is stronger evidence than countless systematic reviews and two umbrella reviews that examined data from millions of individuals? Hopefully not.

I am well aware about the Zhong et al study you quoted from 2019 (the same person also did research on red meat [20], but his egg study is the only negative one published in the last ten years or so. Why should we focus on one negative study when hundreds are positive? The American Heart Foundation put a panel together last year to look at dietary cholesterol and CVD risk (I listed that paper above). They noted "Findings in observational studies from 1980-2012, collectively with more than 250,000 subjects, have not supported an association between dietary cholesterol and CVD risk (fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke), particularly when adjusting for total energy intake. Similarly, egg intake is not associated with CVD risk". [21]. That is evidence from more than 250,000 subjects not just a few thousand. Cohort studies are actually a type of observational study but above you said you were not convinced by evidence from observational studies.

The US cohort study you cite from Zhong et al can not show cause and effect, it shows us an association. It isn't the best evidence out there that you seem to believe. The study was based on US adults who eat lots of red meat and other saturated fat foods, I believe this explains the results. They fry their eggs in bacon. There are problems with it because the cholesterol was measured in different ways in the cohorts to how the researchers obtained their data and most importantly the cholesterol was only measured once. This is problematic because people change their diets over time and they probably did over the period of follow-up which could have been as much as 30 years (median 17.5 years), that's crazy. Are you eating the same diet for 17+ years? There are too many limitations and loop-holes. It's not conclusive evidence. You can find a lot of criticism about it online from experts [22].

At the end of the day I am going to stick with the umbrella reviews and other systematic reviews because that is the best evidence available. None of them are claiming that dietary cholesterol increases CVD risk in the general population. This is the consensus view. What you are claiming is a minority viewpoint. You can find a minority viewpoint in every science field (biology, physics etc) But RationalWiki reflects the majority viewpoint (scientific consensus). Hopefully you understand this. This is not a vegan wiki. Johns (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Johns, there is also another way to disprove what AlecGargett is saying. You just need to look at average life expectancy and mortality rates against egg consumption. People from Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and Italy have the highest life expectancy in the world and they all consume eggs, they are not vegan or vegetarian. The average female from Hong Kong and Japan lives 87 years. This is far above America. The highest consumers of eggs in the world are China or Japan yet people from Hong Kong and Japan are living the longest on average on the planet. This link says Japan consume the most eggs in the world. It's always between China or Japan. On average, a Japanese individual eats 320 eggs annually link. If you look up the typical Hong Kong diet they eat much more eggs and fish than the west. Hong Kong are obsessed with quail eggs, salted eggs, red eggs, century eggs and tea eggs. They sell plenty of variation of eggs in Japan as well. They like to soak their boiled eggs in mirin and soy sauce. Japanese also eat raw eggs daily link
There is a much larger market and variation of eggs in Asia compared to America. Battery caged hens are not illegal anywhere in Asia. Asians slaughter billions of chickens every year and the hens live in horrific conditions yet Japanese are amongst the longest living people on the planet and consume much more eggs than Americans. AlecGargett is completely clueless and has no idea what he is saying. The longest living people (Hong Kong and Japan) are eating loads and loads of eggs so how does he explain this? He doesn't because vegans just promote their own agenda and ignore the science. At the top of this page AlecGargett says dietary cholesterol increases an all cause mortality risk. That is clearly NOT the case. LesleyWilliams (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I do agree but other factors need to be taken into account on all this. Interestingly China and Japan smoke more than Americans and Europeans [23]. I believe these people live longer on average because they consume less saturated fat and processed sugar than other populations and that is what the scientific evidence shows. An egg does not contain much saturated fat. A large egg contains little saturated fat (about 1.5 grams) [24] but 186 milligrams of dietary cholesterol. It's quite clear from the scientific evidence that dietary cholesterol in eggs does not increase CVD risk in most people. Hongkongers and the Japanese are living evidence of that. It's not just the long-living Japanese who eat lots of eggs. If you look at the "blue zones", the zones where populations live much longer than average they all eat eggs in high amounts. One of the blue zones is Sardinia. The typical Sardinian will eat 2 to 3 eggs, avocado with 2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil for break-fast. The Seventh-day Adventists in Loma Linda, California live longer than most on the planet. They are lacto-ovo vegetarian and get all their protein from eggs, they have even published studies supporting egg consumption in opposite to meat [25]. These people have a lower CVD risk than omnivores according this umbrella review [26]. The evidence is clear. Eggs do not increase all cause mortality risk. Obviously further research needs to be done but evidence suggests eggs reduce CVD risk in many populations. Johns (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Dietary cholesterol does not increase CVD risk and all cause mortality. The American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) who publish the Dietary Guidelines For Americans 2015-2020 do not restrict dietary cholesterol any longer in their recommendations. There is now no limit on dietary cholesterol but a limit on saturated fat. Reducing dietary cholesterol was part of the American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines on lifestyle management for many years link but its now been removed. Why would they remove it if it increases CVD risk? Makes no sense. Are you saying the AMA and the ACC are wrong AlecGargett and they actually want to kill people by telling them to eat eggs? That's quite a conspiracy. 2605:6400:30:F745:8BCB:6613:D6CC:6DBC (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Funny how this site is called RationalWiki yet I have never encountered more fallacies, strawmen and bad arguments in a single place in my life. Appeals to authority are a fallacy, but even if we use appeal to authority, the American Heart Association does recommend a maximum of 7 eggs per week. Johns removed this because it was interfering with the cherry picking and extreme claims of the article. I never said anything about a conspiracy, and even Mic the Vegan doesn't claim that they "want to kill people". Some people like Mic the Vegan and Dr Gil Carvallo have simply pointed out the fact (not conspiracy theory) that industries often publish poor quality studies that support their product, and this is the case also for the egg industry. The poorly designed studies can then influence others who are not directly funded by the industry. There are at least two types of poorly designed studies when it comes to dietary cholesterol and LDL/CVD. One type is a cohort study that overadjusts for lipids (or an umbrella review of such cohort studies). The other is a RCT on people who already have high cholesterol, because dietary cholesterol does not have a significant effect on those who already have high cholesterol. RCTs on people with lower cholesterol at baseline on the other hand do show that dietary cholesterol raises LDL to riskier levels. The meta-regression of 55 studies I linked is the highest quality study showing this, better than the umbrella studies given, and it is fairly recent and has so far been over-looked in favour of the lower quality studies. You can see how dishonest Johns is here, because the article claims that dietary cholesterol doesn't even raise "total cholesterol" or risk in "most people", yet it omits the fact that it *does* raise the type of cholesterol that matters, LDL, (So why even mention total cholesterol?) in people with previously healthy cholesterol levels, yet he removes the evidence for this on the basis that the study didn't look at CVD risk, which is irrelevant to the claim that it doesn't raise cholesterol/LDL. There is clearly no scientific consensus of no risk, not to mention no increase in cholesterol/LDL, and he is clearly cherry picking to make it look like there is. I think I'll just give up on this website if people can't see that. AlecGargett (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@LesleyWilliams Even Johns can see this is the stupidest possible argument that you can make, even if he puts it politely (and dishonestly) to keep you on side. It's like saying that Italians smoke a lot of cigarettes but they have a high life expectancy so smoking is totally fine! Ridiculous, but honestly the low quality umbrella studies Johns relies on aren't much better in their reasoning. AlecGargett (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Johns You misrepresent my position so many times but I'll just focus on one instance. I didn't claim Zhong et al was the best evidence (although it is recent study that uses data from the 6 most detailed prospective cohort studies, much better than some of the studies you have allowed to remain in the article). I claimed that the meta regression by Maki et al is the best evidence for dietary cholesterol raising LDL in the blood. Zhong et al is added to show that there is no scientific consensus that there is no CVD risk as the article dishonestly suggests. AlecGargett (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
AlecGargett , Johns has admitted on the article that egg consumption does not have a significant effect on (LDL) he is not saying there is no link at any-time whatsoever, because he said it might be a problem for diabetic patients, he's saying it doesn't significantly increase LDL in the general population. There is no denying it may improve HDL by a small amount, but it does not raise LDL or increase CVD risk. The consensus is that there is no significant increase. The second reference on the article says "Findings in observational studies from 1980-2012, collectively with more than 250,000 subjects, have not supported an association between dietary cholesterol and CVD risk". Your claim that eggs increase an all cause mortality risk is not in accord to the facts because the longest living peoples on the planet consume loads of eggs and have lower CVD risk than those who consume few eggs. Every year about 95 million dozen eggs are eaten nationwide but peoples health are improving by eating them how do you explain that ?!. If eggs were such bad for us and increasing all cause mortality world-wide we would certainly see that in the data but we do not. Those Japanese are eating plenty of eggs and fish but live the longest.LesleyWilliams (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The evidence indicates that cholesterol in eggs has minimal effect on blood cholesterol, it does not raise CVD risk at all. It may improve HDL which is good, but the reviews do not indicate it raises LDL. HDL is good cholesterol, it does not increase CVD risk, it does the reverse. Your claim that it increases LDL significantly is contradicted by the reviews Johns listed.LesleyWilliams (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Eggs do not contain much saturated fat, there is no reason to think they would increase LDL. You have said that eggs increase CVD and all cause mortality but no evidence in the real world supports this view. There is no such thing as a vegan civilization in the history of mankind. The longest living peoples on the planet eat a mixture of animal and plant foods. The typical Japanese diet consists of lots of raw eggs and fish yet these people live the longest on average. How does that fit into what you claim? These people eat millions of eggs every year. Surely if what you claim is true then they should have a higher CVD risk but the opposite is true. The reviews Johns listed contain the highest evidence available to data as they are based on hundreds of studies, not 55. The meta regression you cited examined about 2500 subjects from 55 small studies not millions like all the reviews have done. The meta regression meta-analysis you linked has been contradicted by another conducted by the American Heart Foundation, Johns linked to that. You are basically ignoring hundreds of studies because it contradicts your vegan world-view. All you want to read is the Maki paper because it confirms your bias. As Johns said why can you not link to a single systematic or umbrella review because none have been published for what you claim. What Johns has said is the current consensus. Just go and eat an egg it will make you live longer and you will feel better I promise. LesleyWilliams (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
bing bong Twodots (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe AlecGargett means well because he wants to convert the world to veganism which is a good thing for chickens but he is obviously a high-school drop out when it comes to science because he says that one regression meta-analysis of 2500 subjects is offering better evidence than two umbrella reviews that examined hundreds of studies from millions of subjects. You shouldn't debate someone like this because he will never change his mind. Veganism is like creationism, it is a religion. No matter how powerful the evidence is they will ignore any that does conform to their bias. 2A0B:F4C2:1:0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Johns asks AlecGargett for one systematic review to back up his claims. He provides none yet bangs on about the same regression meta-analysis he has cited 5 times. It's like talking to a brick wall or my ex-wife. Why debate someone like this. He's not interested in the totality of the evidence only little bits that support his vegan view. There are little bits of evidence that support the insane carnivore diet (yes it can help with weight-loss). Let's ignore all the evidence that it increases risk of heart disease and kidney failure though! LesleyWilliams (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is another 2020 study that contradicts what AlecGargett is preaching. 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) 02:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Harvard Health does not support AlecGargett's claims

"From what we know today, here's the bottom line: for most people, an egg a day does not increase your risk of a heart attack, a stroke, or any other type of cardiovascular disease. No more than three eggs per week is wise if you have diabetes, are at high risk for heart disease from other causes (such as smoking), or already have heart disease."

A large egg contains little saturated fat-about 1.5 grams (g)

"the moderate amount of fat in an egg, about 5 grams, is mostly monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat."

“There was never any data that showed that people who ate more eggs had higher risk of heart attacks.”

Eggs do not increase CVD risk. Derek (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Whilst eggs do not increase CVD risk in most people there is robust evidence that saturated fat does and this is caused by high LDL.
“Most publications that question the causal effect of LDL on the development of ASCVD tend to cite evidence from individual studies or a small group of highly selected studies, often without a quantitative synthesis of the presented evidence. Therefore, to avoid this type of selection bias, we have based our conclusions on the totality of evidence from separate meta-analyses of genetic studies, prospective epidemiologic studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized clinical trials. This evidence base includes over 200 studies involving over 2 million participants with over 20 million person-years of follow-up and more than 150 000 cardiovascular events. Together these studies provide remarkably consistent and unequivocal evidence that LDL causes ASCVD as summarized in Table 1.” [27]
Users instead of attacking each other on this talk-page should find common ground to agree on something. I think you all agree that LDL increases the risk of CVD. Iron (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Veganism turned me into a bowl cut head, wtf?[edit] Bowl Head (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Veganism is stupid. The longest living populations on the planet all consume a high amount of eggs yet vegans claim these type of food will kill you. Derek (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Another nonsense page[edit]

Dietary cholesterol does raise serum cholesterol level (mostly LDL and to a lesser extent apo-B), given that; a) baseline serum level is low enough b) baseline intake is low.


the impact of dietary cholesterol is in part dependent on your baseline serum cholesterol level and on your baseline dietary cholesterol intake. Given that the average american cholesterol level is 192mg/dl and the average daily intake is 300-400mg, most people are not likely to see a difference on their cholesterol level by adding more eggs, hence they come to the conclusion that eggs have no impact. But this is false when you start with a low (read normal) baseline intake and serum level.

Effects of dietary cholesterol on serum cholesterol: a meta-analysis and review When modest amounts of cholesterol are added to the daily diet, the major predictor of change in serum cholesterol is baseline dietary cholesterol. Thus, when one or two eggs are added to a diet that is typical for the average American (containing ı400 mg/d), little change would be expected. [...] These observations suggest that persons who are accustomed to a very-low cholesterol diet may be more sensitive to dietary changes.

Serum cholesterol concentration is clearly increased by added dietary cholesterol but the magnitude of predicted change is modulated by baseline dietary cholesterol. The greatest response is expected when baseline dietary cholesterol is near zero, while little, if any, measurable change would be expected once baseline dietary cholesterol was > 400-500 mg/d. People desiring maximal reduction of serum cholesterol by dietary means may have to reduce their dietary cholesterol to minimal levels (< 100-150 mg/d) to observe modest serum cholesterol reductions while persons eating a diet relatively rich in cholesterol would be expected to experience little change in serum cholesterol after adding even large amounts of cholesterol to their diet.

I could literally go on for hours. This is established basic science. Get it together. Look at how much egg producers spend - We weren't wrong about cholesterol, it's just very easy to manipulate the outcomes when there's an obesity crisis and everyone's consuming such a high amount of cholesterol anyway.

Effect of ingestion of meat on plasma cholesterol of vegetarians. Optimal low-density lipoprotein is 50 to 70 mg/dl: lower is better and physiologically normal. Meat raises cholesterol (heart disease risk) Relation Between Progression and Regression of Atherosclerotic Left Main Coronary Artery Disease and Serum Cholesterol Levels as Assessed With Serial Long-Term (>12 Months) Follow-Up Intravascular Ultrasound — Unsigned, by: Jwaters123 / talk / contribs

  • The consensus has shifted on this topic due to new scientific evidence. Saturated fatty acids have a greater effect on our blood cholesterol levels than dietary cholesterol, that is the current consensus. Yes, specific animal foods such as red meats or full fat dairy which contain a decent amount of saturated fat do raise LDL so they are indeed a problem. But eggs do not contain much saturated fat (only little!). Perhaps you should look up what eggs are made from. Do you know?! Did you know the cholesterol in an egg is only found in the yolk? Many vegetarians eat eggs.
  • The studies you cite are single trials with small sample sizes which are clearly not conclusive evidence. Your studies are all from the 1980s/1990s and quoting a single meta analysis from 1992 is not how science works, why nothing recent?! Is that good science to you? Quoting outdated studies? Is that fair? Science has moved on. We now have about 20+ meta analysis and reviews on dietary cholesterol from egg consumption published in the last 5 years and two umbrella reviews from 2020 all cited above on this very talk-page. There is a clear consensus that dietary cholesterol does not increase LDL levels for most people, the evidence suggests quite the opposite in fact.
  • The last study you cite does not mention dietary cholesterol. I believe you are not really reading these studies just the abstracts to support your biased vegan world-view from outdated cherry-picked studies you found. 50 or 60 years ago your argument would have contained weight. Indeed back then dietary cholesterol was demonized and considered a problem by dietitians and physicians. Science moves on. Health agencies no longer put restrictions on dietary cholesterol but they do on saturated fat. Your claim that "serum cholesterol concentration is clearly increased by added dietary cholesterol" is not supported by any recent science. Please do honest research and not just look at outdated stuff that supports your bias. Johns (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. Studies that don't account for base-level cholesterol show unsurprisingly that adding more cholesterol has little impact. Nothing posted above contradicts what I've stated - they show exactly what we'd expect. Again, this is very basic science that has been known for 80 years. Egg producers managing to spend enough money in the past few years to muddy the waters is not a coherent argument. Yes, you are correct it has little impact for most people - because we've reached a point where most people are in the high-risk category by default.
Dietary cholesterol and egg yolks: Not for patients at risk of vascular disease : 2010 :
The effects of dietary cholesterol on serum cholesterol are, in part, dependent on the diet and the characteristics of the individual consuming the cholesterol. Dietary cholesterol has a much greater effect on people consuming a low-cholesterol diet, with a threshold effect as shown by Connor et al (31)
Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases the ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in humans: a meta-analysis : 2001 :
RESULTS: The addition of 100 mg dietary cholesterol/d increased the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol by 0.020 units (95% CI: 0.010, 0.030), total cholesterol concentrations by 0.056 mmol/L (2.2 mg/dL) (95% CI: 0.046, 0.065 mmol/L; 1.8, 2.5 mg/dL), and HDL-cholesterol concentrations by 0.008 mmol/L (0.3 mg/dL) (95% CI: 0.005, 0.010 mmol/L; 0.2, 0.4 mg/dL).
Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. : 2015 :
Dietary cholesterol statistically significantly increased both serum total cholesterol (17 trials; net change: 11.2 mg/dL; 95% CI: 6.4, 15.9) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (14 trials; net change: 6.7 mg/dL; 95% CI: 1.7, 11.7 mg/dL). Increases in LDL cholesterol were no longer statistically significant when intervention doses exceeded 900 mg/d. Dietary cholesterol also statistically significantly increased serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (13 trials; net change: 3.2 mg/dL; 95% CI: 0.9, 9.7 mg/dL) and the LDL to high-density lipoprotein ratio (5 trials; net change: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.0, 0.3).
Plasma lipid and lipoprotein responses to dietary fat and cholesterol: a meta-analysis : 1997 :
Predictions indicated that compliance with current dietary recommendations (30% of energy from fat, < 10% from saturated fat, and < 300 mg cholesterol/d) will reduce plasma total and low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol concentrations by approximately 5% compared with amounts associated with the average American diet.
Dietary lipids and blood cholesterol: quantitative meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies. : 1997 :
Avoiding 200 mg/day dietary cholesterol further decreased blood total cholesterol by 0.13 (0.02) mmol/l and low density lipoprotein cholesterol by 0.10 (0.02) mmol/l.
Effect of egg yolk feeding on the concentration and composition of serum lipoproteins in man : 1985 :
Upon egg yolk feeding the mean level of serum total cholesterol rose by 13%; the bulk of this rise was due to LDL cholesterol, which increased by 21%. VLDL and IDL cholesterol decreased by 19 and 11%, and serum total triglycerides by 17%.
Cholesterol feeding increases low density lipoprotein synthesis.
Egg supplementation raised high density and low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by 18 and 40%, respectively.
A dose-response study of the effects of dietary cholesterol on fasting and postprandial lipid and lipoprotein metabolism in healthy young men.
Fasting plasma total cholesterol concentrations increased by 1.47 mg/dL (0.038 mmol/L) for every 100 mg dietary cholesterol added to the diet (P < .001). Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol increased in parallel. Responsiveness varied but appeared to be normally distributed. Fasting plasma apoprotein B concentrations increased approximately 10% between the 0- and 4-egg diets and were correlated with changes in total and LDL cholesterol concentrations.
The serum lipids in men receiving high cholesterol and cholesterol-free diets : 1961 :
The addition of dietary cholesterol in the form of egg yolk caused a significant increase in the concentration of cholesterol and phospholipid in the serum. The serum cholesterol and phospholipid decreased greatly when egg yolk cholesterol was removed from the diet.
Ingestion of egg raises plasma low density lipoproteins in free-living subjects : 1984 :
Mean plasma low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol was 12% higher (p = 0.005) and mean plasma apolipoprotein B was 9% higher (p = 0.007) when eggs were being consumed than during the eggless period.
Effects of dietary cholesterol and fatty acids on plasma lipoproteins. 1982 :
Addition of 750 mg cholesterol to the diet with P/S = 0.25-0.4 raised LDL cholesterol by 16 +/- 14 mg/dl to 115% of basal diet values (n = 11, P less than 0.01); 1,500 mg increased LDL cholesterol by 25 +/- 19 mg/dl to 125% (n = 9, P less than 0.01).--Jwaters123 (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Lol quoting abstract from 1961 or 1984 papers? But seriously people have been eating eggs for about six million years. Your small sample studies from 1961 or 1984 are not evidence against egg consumption. That is just the quoted abstracts from outdated small sample studies from the 1960s/1980s some of which do not even show a significant increase. You have an obsession with talking about base-level cholesterol but the sampled men in your studies did not have base-level cholesterol. The consensus is that dietary cholesterol does not have a significant increase on blood cholesterol. Nothing you have cited contradicts that.
  • I could cite 10 old studies which say the exact opposite but that is not the way science works. What is the point in citing individual studies from 1961 or 1984? Should I go online and find something from 1970? Is that good evidence in your book? Anyone can do that and find something to support their bias but it isn't honest research. It seems you don't even have full access to the old studies you cite. You cite bits and pieces from the abstract and nothing else. You are not playing fair by citing those because there is recent evidence that totally contradicts it and the 2015 meta-analysis you cited which is actually a better source and already discussed on this talk-page contradicts your partial quote, "Reviewed studies were heterogeneous and lacked the methodologic rigor to draw any conclusions regarding the effects of dietary cholesterol on CVD risk" if you read that paper itself it came to the conclusion there was contradictory data and their overall conclusion was that there was no conclusive evidence dietary cholesterol effects CVD risk. That meta analysis is often cited by cholesterol denialists. Indeed, its funny how both cholesterol denialists and vegans will cherry-pick certain bits and ignore the rest from exactly the same paper.
  • Among the highest evidence in medicine is an umbrella review we have two of these that have examined many meta analysis which both have concluded dietary cholesterol does not increase blood cholesterol in most people and egg consumption does not raise CVD risk in the general population, that is the current consensus. You KNOW this. That's why you move goal posts and now talk about base-level cholesterol which is not what this discussion was originally about with AlecGargett. We have many meta analysis and systematic reviews this decade telling us dietary cholesterol is not a concern for most people and many have all been cited on this very talk-page we don't need to cite them again. Every single health agency (here in the UK) and in the USA now accepts this. The NHS, British Heart Foundation, HEART UK, British Dietetic Association and United States Department of Agriculture's "Dietary Guidelines For Americans 2015-2020" no longer recommend a restriction on dietary cholesterol or consider it a major CVD risk. All of them have disclaimers on their website stating that dietary cholesterol does not significantly increase blood cholesterol in most people. Now, this is not made up this is a fact! Google each of these websites. These are professional health charities or agencies. So when you come on this talk-page and put up your argument you are going against all of these health agencies. Is that rational? No it isn't.
  • Like AlecGargett you are invoking a conspiracy theory that the entire current consensus is wrong and you are right and the reviews that have data that contradicts your claims are funded by the egg industry. We can see that is not the case because most of the reviews are not funded by the egg industry. The best evidence to date is the two umbrella reviews. Both of these conclude that recent evidence medicine has shown that increased egg consumption does not raise total blood cholesterol or CVD risk in the general population. That is what this debate was about. AlecGargett was asked to provide an umbrella review for his claims and he failed to do this and left. You can't cite one either so will resort to citing mostly outdated studies from the 1980s. We have already had a huge debate above about this topic yet I get bombed by old studies. I get it you want to believe you are right at the end of the day in your head. It would be a waste of time to respond any further its all been said before. I am interested in recent scientific evidence. If you want to remain in the 1960s good luck with that! But this website is not about that. Your suggestions are not realistic and will not make it onto the article, so you are wasting your time here. Johns (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Johns is a well known anti-vegan who works for the egg industry. The entire page he wrote was to promote egg consumption (the photo is a give away). This website is clearly biased against vegans. Plant based diet can reduce heart disease, why don't you guys acknowledge this? Matt the vegan (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
AlecGargett told me about the bias against vegans here. I will not tolerate it. Here is the science that supports veganism and debunks RationalWiki , I will get all my vegan brothers over here to refuse Johns and this biased website. Vegan warrior (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
You know, threatening to brigade this site with your pals isn't likely to help your cause. Or keep you unblocked for long. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 15:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
"Johns is a well known anti-vegan who works for the egg industry." Ah, the old standby of the shill gambit. When you can't make a case, accuse your opponent(s) of criminal conspiracy. Slight problem, that's something you really should provide evidence for. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
These vegan dudes are just alt-right trolls flying a different flag. Twodots (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Eh, all cranks are brothers-in-arms. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yep. Twodots (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Vegan warrior the meta analysis you link to has already been cited by AlexGargett and that other vegan user about 4 times. It's from 1997. That is 23 years ago, I do not consider that honest to cite old studies when you know very well the same scientists that have done these have changed their view from new data in the last ten years. Science moves on. Recent evidence contradicts old findings. You might want to look more closely at the paper you cited. At the bottom of the paper it says it was funded by the British Heart Foundation. In the last 10 years the British Heart Foundation (BHF) has changed their view on dietary cholesterol. They represent the scientific consensus like all the other health agencies or charities in the world. That is the way evidence-based medicine works. It progresses and corrects old mistakes. In 2017 the BHF released a book on blood cholesterol [28] that can be downloaded for free. On page 26 is a section called "Myths: Eggs are bad for your heart": Here is what they say "Dietary cholesterol is found in food like eggs, liver and kidneys, shellfish such as prawns and fish roe. For most people dietary cholesterol has little effect on their blood cholesterol level. In fact, these foods are low in saturated fat." On their own website is this note "misconceptions around eggs and cholesterol largely stemmed from incorrect conclusions drawn from early research that dietary cholesterol contributed to raised blood cholesterol levels." Yes that is right, early research with incorrect conclusions. Eggs do not significantly raise blood cholesterol in most healthy people you can read it on their website [29] which is backed up by robust evidence. There really is no conspiracy, you are happy to quote an old paper funded by the BHF because it supports your bias but you ignore their recent publications. Eggs are one of the most nutrient dense foods we can eat. I agree the egg industry is not ethical but we should not confuse ethics with nutrition. Unless you can present any new scientific data I will not respond again. Please don't reply by pasting in studies from the 1980s like that other user Jwaters123. Johns (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Just leaving the latest *high quality* science here to be ignored or censored from the article by the anti-vegan activist Johns in favour of his much lower quality trash science.
Protein foods from animal sources, incident cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: a substitution analysis (2021). "Substituting eggs with unprocessed red meat, poultry, fish, nuts or whole grains was associated with 2–3% lower relative risks and 0.5–1.0% lower absolute risks for all-cause mortality when the substitution amount was one serving per week, and 11–22% lower relative risks and 3.5–6.8% lower absolute risks when the substitution amount was one serving per day"
One of the many reasons that results are inconsistent is that eggs can very often replace high-sugar breakfast cereals & other ultra-processed foods. The studies that actually compare eggs to other sources of protein like this one consistently find benefits of replacing eggs with nuts, and sometimes also with fish(observational) and legumes or whole grains (interventional), except perhaps when serum cholesterol it at saturation point from other foods regardless. Obviously the article should point this out, but Johns won't because he's a biased anti-vegan activist who cherry picks poor quality, low detail umbrella reviews that don't go into detail about what is being replaced. His censorship of the meta-regression by Maki is a joke. It is the best meta-analysis we have with regards to the effect of dietary cholesterol on LDL-C & ApoB, which he admits cause ASCVD, yet he even censors that. (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Johns also claims with no evidence that only vegans hold this position and there is a scientific consensus that eggs are completely harmless (which implies they are harmless no matter what they are replacing, for which he has no evidence whatsoever). Both claims are blatantly false, the former is completely irrelevant ad hominem, yet he even puts them in the article, and citing only blogs and other inadequate sources to back it up. (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
He blatantly ignores all the peer-reviewed evidence that there is no scientific consensus here, and lies about it here and in the article, and then claims vegans are the ones who are biased. (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
He also censored the fact that the American heart Association DO recommended limiting whole egg consumption to a max of 9 per week: (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Elsewhere the American Heart Association say one per day. However, these recommendation that small amounts (but not large amounts) are fine were made *before* the Maki meta-regression and the latest substitution analysis which found that moderate amounts have a significant effect on LDL-C/ApoB and mortality/CVD respectively. (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Also censored from this page is the fact that both the Institute of Medicine and the Dietary Guidelines recommend consuming "as little dietary cholesterol as possible". — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs