4 ms·

I think the dietary cholesterol == bad thing is just totally wrong. Sample size of 1 but i eat about 4 eggs a day and steak almost every day but it's not proces

I think the dietary cholesterol == bad thing is just totally wrong. Sample size of 1 but i eat about 4 eggs a day and steak almost every day but it's not processed fast food and my cholesterol, blood pressure, etc. are all _excellent_

sph 4y ago
Yes and no. Cholesterol by itself ain't bad, in fact it is necessary to synthesize sex hormones and vitamin D, among other things. High sugar in blood is bad. High sugar and high fat in the bloodstream is worse. Also, recent studies seem to show that cholesterol limits are arbitrary and don't mean much in a vacuum: there seem to be a correlation between high LDL levels and longevity—i.e. people that live longer tend to have higher levels of LDL than average recommendations. Go figure. The important levels for health are: stable glucose/insulin system, lower triglycerides, lower trig/HDL ratio. Everything else is too noisy a signal, including just measuring dietary cholesterol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgS3PuSuyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgS3PuSuyg
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  ApoB levels are the most predictive of cardiovascular disease, which represents the number of atherogenic particles in your blood. You may have high LDL, but a low particle count, and therefore be fine. Sugar and metabolic disease causes your body to produce larger numbers of smaller and less effective particles.
jacobmartin 4y ago
Here is a less anecdotal source to support what you are saying: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024687/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024687/ There is about 10x more unesterified (absorbable) cholesterol secreted into bile than one typically eats in a normal day. > Eating cholesterol has very little impact on the cholesterol levels in your body. This is a fact, not my opinion. Anyone who tells you different is, at best, ignorant of this topic. At worst, they are a deliberate charlatan. Years ago the Canadian Guidelines removed the limitation of dietary cholesterol. The rest of the world, especially the United States, needs to catch up. https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i/ https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-pa... The only caveat I would is that there is weak evidence for a "dietary cholesterol hyperresponder" phenotype that is more sensitive to dietary cholesterol than the general population. I probably have (heterozygous) familial hypercholesterolemia, so my diet (even saturated fat) unfortunately doesn't influence the (very high) levels I have anyways. I'm envious of people like you, for sure.
scythe 4y ago
The outsized emphasis on dietary cholesterol, a molecule, and its relationship to blood "cholesterol", a type of solid particle (many aggregated molecules) composed of fats held together by cholesterol and proteins, is mostly a verbal confusion. Your "blood cholesterol" is the number density of lipoprotein particles in your blood. It is not the concentration of dissolved cholesterol qua cholest-5-en-3beta-ol.
moneywoes 4y ago
Doesn’t it depend on ethnic background as well
steve_adams_86 4y ago
I agree that the cholesterol factor seems pretty well debunked, but I think the mistake originally appeared because dietary cholesterol is typically present with saturated and trans fats. These are known to typically function as a lever for blood lipid levels. If you eat them, your blood lipids will temporarily rise and gradually fall. The fact that this doesn’t become chronic for you seems abnormal (but great), and I spend so much time trying to understand it better. Very intelligent people are on both sides of this thing, saying blood lipids aren’t the issue or that they’re the core issue. As you mentioned, eating whole, healthily prepared eggs and meat makes a difference. If you were getting that much egg and beef from McDonald’s you would likely be buried in the ground by now. I used to eat like you and my blood work was horrifying, though. I’d say I was eating around 95% whole foods by volume, though I had a weakness for rice noodles and fermented sausages. I stopped that diet though and now my blood work is excellent, too. This is a contentious but super interesting thing. There are some factors here I suspect matter a lot, but haven’t been properly proven out yet. I do think in the next decade or two we will start to get a good grasp on it. One is gut flora and enzyme production. Essentially, where is that food broken down and what’s present as it happens? This is a big science experiment with significant variance across individuals. One common variable that’s becoming very obvious though is that people who adopt “western diets” tend to lose a staggering amount of gut flora diversity. I think this matters a lot for anecdotal but also research-oriented reasons. I had a chronic bacterial illness which required nuclear-grade antibiotic regimens and that completely crushed me. I was burping up the most putrid gases, getting awful cramps, and having bizarre GI motility issues for over a year after; I’d never had troubles with food in my life. I’ve wondered often if I’d done my blood work before that, when I didn’t feel like garbage eating that food, if it might have looked good like yours. I really wish I started doing blood work sooner. Regardless, I wonder if gut flora can protect us from the harms that the greater body of evidence implies high amounts of saturated and trans fats can cause. I’m totally plant-based now, and I meet countless people who say “I can’t eat like that because I just feel like shit all the time”. And I think yeah, I did too. I had to do all kinds of stuff to build my guts back up and now I’m a plant crushing machine. Had I eaten like this when I ate a lot of meat, I’d be bloated and miserable all the time. There’s no way I could handle so much fiber and sheer bulk. What your flora and system is accustomed to seems crucial to both what you’re able to eat, what you want to eat, and how well it supports your health. As for enzymes, we know various foods stimulate enzyme production and in their absence that enzyme will reduce or even vanish — sometimes permanently. What you eat with your eggs and steak, whether it’s with the meal or 12 hours later, very well could protect you from what harms others. This kind of thing is researched and there’s growing evidence for its importance, but it isn’t clear who/when/what happens since nutrition is so incredibly diverse. I can’t wait until we understand protective mechanisms (enzymes or otherwise) better. I suppose the best known is antioxidants, but there must be so many more. Finally, there’s the genetic factor question. We know there are hyper responders to saturated and trans fats. Are there hypo responders? I haven’t read up on that. If so, the greater body of evidence would indicate that most people are not hypo responders at all, and that saturated fat intake (animal or plant) can easily become excessive and harmful. All of this is to say that I doubt there’s a one size fits all in any case, but since saturated fat appears to become harmful in most populations, I think people should be careful and if it’s an option, so regular blood work. I’m also not aiming to be contentious or argumentative; I find this stuff interesting as hell and love to discuss it (and learn things — I’m by no means an expert and I don’t have all the data).
Supermancho 4y ago
> i eat about 4 eggs a day and steak almost every day I also had this diet for many years. Wait till you get older. This is a diet will run your cholesterol through the roof.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  Im curious, was your carb intake less than 50g per day during those years?
nradov 4y ago
There is little relationship between cholesterol consumption and serum cholesterol levels. It's a large molecule and can't be directly absorbed through the digestive system. Almost all of the cholesterol in your body was endogenously synthesized.
- mcphage 4y ago
  > Almost all of the cholesterol in your body was endogenously synthesized. From what?

sph 4y ago

Yes and no. Cholesterol by itself ain't bad, in fact it is necessary to synthesize sex hormones and vitamin D, among other things. High sugar in blood is bad. High sugar and high fat in the bloodstream is worse. Also, recent studies seem to show that cholesterol limits are arbitrary and don't mean much in a vacuum: there seem to be a correlation between high LDL levels and longevity—i.e. people that live longer tend to have higher levels of LDL than average recommendations. Go figure. The important levels for health are: stable glucose/insulin system, lower triglycerides, lower trig/HDL ratio. Everything else is too noisy a signal, including just measuring dietary cholesterol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgS3PuSuyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgS3PuSuyg

BobbyJo 4y ago
ApoB levels are the most predictive of cardiovascular disease, which represents the number of atherogenic particles in your blood. You may have high LDL, but a low particle count, and therefore be fine. Sugar and metabolic disease causes your body to produce larger numbers of smaller and less effective particles.

jacobmartin 4y ago

Here is a less anecdotal source to support what you are saying: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024687/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024687/ There is about 10x more unesterified (absorbable) cholesterol secreted into bile than one typically eats in a normal day. > Eating cholesterol has very little impact on the cholesterol levels in your body. This is a fact, not my opinion. Anyone who tells you different is, at best, ignorant of this topic. At worst, they are a deliberate charlatan. Years ago the Canadian Guidelines removed the limitation of dietary cholesterol. The rest of the world, especially the United States, needs to catch up. https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i/ https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-pa... The only caveat I would is that there is weak evidence for a "dietary cholesterol hyperresponder" phenotype that is more sensitive to dietary cholesterol than the general population. I probably have (heterozygous) familial hypercholesterolemia, so my diet (even saturated fat) unfortunately doesn't influence the (very high) levels I have anyways. I'm envious of people like you, for sure.

scythe 4y ago

The outsized emphasis on dietary cholesterol, a molecule, and its relationship to blood "cholesterol", a type of solid particle (many aggregated molecules) composed of fats held together by cholesterol and proteins, is mostly a verbal confusion. Your "blood cholesterol" is the number density of lipoprotein particles in your blood. It is not the concentration of dissolved cholesterol qua cholest-5-en-3beta-ol.

moneywoes 4y ago

Doesn’t it depend on ethnic background as well

steve_adams_86 4y ago

I agree that the cholesterol factor seems pretty well debunked, but I think the mistake originally appeared because dietary cholesterol is typically present with saturated and trans fats. These are known to typically function as a lever for blood lipid levels. If you eat them, your blood lipids will temporarily rise and gradually fall. The fact that this doesn’t become chronic for you seems abnormal (but great), and I spend so much time trying to understand it better. Very intelligent people are on both sides of this thing, saying blood lipids aren’t the issue or that they’re the core issue. As you mentioned, eating whole, healthily prepared eggs and meat makes a difference. If you were getting that much egg and beef from McDonald’s you would likely be buried in the ground by now. I used to eat like you and my blood work was horrifying, though. I’d say I was eating around 95% whole foods by volume, though I had a weakness for rice noodles and fermented sausages. I stopped that diet though and now my blood work is excellent, too. This is a contentious but super interesting thing. There are some factors here I suspect matter a lot, but haven’t been properly proven out yet. I do think in the next decade or two we will start to get a good grasp on it. One is gut flora and enzyme production. Essentially, where is that food broken down and what’s present as it happens? This is a big science experiment with significant variance across individuals. One common variable that’s becoming very obvious though is that people who adopt “western diets” tend to lose a staggering amount of gut flora diversity. I think this matters a lot for anecdotal but also research-oriented reasons. I had a chronic bacterial illness which required nuclear-grade antibiotic regimens and that completely crushed me. I was burping up the most putrid gases, getting awful cramps, and having bizarre GI motility issues for over a year after; I’d never had troubles with food in my life. I’ve wondered often if I’d done my blood work before that, when I didn’t feel like garbage eating that food, if it might have looked good like yours. I really wish I started doing blood work sooner. Regardless, I wonder if gut flora can protect us from the harms that the greater body of evidence implies high amounts of saturated and trans fats can cause. I’m totally plant-based now, and I meet countless people who say “I can’t eat like that because I just feel like shit all the time”. And I think yeah, I did too. I had to do all kinds of stuff to build my guts back up and now I’m a plant crushing machine. Had I eaten like this when I ate a lot of meat, I’d be bloated and miserable all the time. There’s no way I could handle so much fiber and sheer bulk. What your flora and system is accustomed to seems crucial to both what you’re able to eat, what you want to eat, and how well it supports your health. As for enzymes, we know various foods stimulate enzyme production and in their absence that enzyme will reduce or even vanish — sometimes permanently. What you eat with your eggs and steak, whether it’s with the meal or 12 hours later, very well could protect you from what harms others. This kind of thing is researched and there’s growing evidence for its importance, but it isn’t clear who/when/what happens since nutrition is so incredibly diverse. I can’t wait until we understand protective mechanisms (enzymes or otherwise) better. I suppose the best known is antioxidants, but there must be so many more. Finally, there’s the genetic factor question. We know there are hyper responders to saturated and trans fats. Are there hypo responders? I haven’t read up on that. If so, the greater body of evidence would indicate that most people are not hypo responders at all, and that saturated fat intake (animal or plant) can easily become excessive and harmful. All of this is to say that I doubt there’s a one size fits all in any case, but since saturated fat appears to become harmful in most populations, I think people should be careful and if it’s an option, so regular blood work. I’m also not aiming to be contentious or argumentative; I find this stuff interesting as hell and love to discuss it (and learn things — I’m by no means an expert and I don’t have all the data).

Supermancho 4y ago

> i eat about 4 eggs a day and steak almost every day I also had this diet for many years. Wait till you get older. This is a diet will run your cholesterol through the roof.

ashwagary 4y ago
Im curious, was your carb intake less than 50g per day during those years?

nradov 4y ago

There is little relationship between cholesterol consumption and serum cholesterol levels. It's a large molecule and can't be directly absorbed through the digestive system. Almost all of the cholesterol in your body was endogenously synthesized.

mcphage 4y ago
> Almost all of the cholesterol in your body was endogenously synthesized. From what?