Yes, but dietary cholesterol is still unhealthy. Your body makes it’s own cholesterol, getting it from your diet is like pouring water into an already full cup: the cholesterol “overflows” from your cells into your blood and clogs everything up. Video on how cholesterol is unhealthy Who Says Eggs Aren’t Healthy or Safe?

That small amount of cholesterol you need to live can be synthesized by your own body, which is also why animal products but not plant products have cholesterol (the animals you’re eating synthesized their own cholesterol) and also why vegans aren’t dropping dead of low cholesterol all the time

False. Here’s a short 4 minute video with several referenced studies by a renowned lifestyle medicine doctor debunking this myth: Does Dietary Cholesterol (Eggs) Raise Blood Cholesterol?. TL;DR: Even 90% of egg industry funded studies show eggs raise cholesterol.

I also wrote the below, on how bad studies funded by industry interests can be cherrypicked by journalists who want to conclude “<unhealthy food> is healthy, actually” such that these myths arise in the first place. I explored this particular example of “dietary cholesterol is good” by scrutinizing the first PubMed study I found on the subject, as an example of what to look for in good study design.

Saying that dietary cholesterol is good is factually insane, eating dietary cholesterol absolutely raises your cholesterol. However, it’s common to hold these false narratives about nutrition. The issue is that it’s incredibly easy to create a faulty study design if you go in trying to prove “eggs are healthy,” for instance. Take, for example, the egg industry, which has something to gain by convincing people that the massively high cholesterol in eggs isn’t bad for you, and oftentimes funds these biased study designs.

What does a biased study look like?

• Some examples of biased study design is taking 20 year olds, having them healthy salads vs massive steaks for lunch, then checking back and saying “none of them have heart disease, so steak is healthy” (because they’re 20, the age cohort was too young to be drawing those conclusions).
• Read a study that compared the intelligence of kids in Africa who got “meat” via an actual meal or “vegetables” via giving them straight vegetable oil (obviously unhealthy); the vegetable oil group still won despite the handicap. Aka choosing to compare something that is unhealthy with also unhealthy alternatives so you can say there was no difference -Even the traditional “a bit of wine is healthy in moderation” bit came from faulty studies which grouped “people who had to quit drinking after developing liver disease” with “people who have never drunk a single drop” in the “never drinkers” category, which made it appear as if drinking no wine was somehow less healthy than drinking some wine.

What does an unbiased study look like? The best study design, imo, is a meta-analysis of several randomized double-blind placebo-controlled intervention studies.

• Randomized = people assigned to the control vs the experimental group randomly
• Double-blind = both the researcher and the subject don’t know whether they’re giving/getting the placebo or the experimental (otherwise the researcher’s expectations can influence the subject to behave in a certain way)
• Placebo-controlled = giving a sugar pill with no medication control alongside an actual medicine pill, because oftentimes just the act of taking a pill can make people report less pain, that they feel healthier, happier, etc etc etc. In nutrition studies the equivalent of this may be giving tasteless supplements, shakes or muffins made with or without the ingredient to be tested, etc
• Intervention study = A study where you give group 1 thing A, group 2 thing B, and group 3 a control

In this case, I’m assuming you’re getting this false information from studies like this Dietary Cholesterol and the Lack of Evidence in Cardiovascular Disease which right off the bat raises red flags due to being written by a single author, saying ‘eggz are helthy,’ the funding section only being funded by some unnamed “institutional startup,” and finally only being a literature review (very easy to cherry pick bad data), not an intervention study of it’s own

One of the studies linked in that study, Egg consumption and heart health: A review (yet another literature review with no actual study) is mostly just saying 1) “cholesterol is often high in foods also high in saturated fats,” 2) “saturated fat is unhealthy,” 3) “ergo we can’t just conclude because something has cholesterol in it it’s unhealthy,” 4) “eggs are high in cholesterol but low in saturated fats,” 5) “eggs have all these nutrients that are useful,” 6) “therefore, eggs are healthy.”

The error in this logic is between 5 & 6. We’re starting with the (false) assumption that cholesterol isn’t necessarily unhealthy, but you can’t go from Maybe Not Unhealthy + Cherrypicked Good Components = Healthy, you have to actually test the food.

However, because everyone wants to convince themselves eating unhealthy food is healthy, faulty studies like this get reported in “health” magazines until when your doctor says “eating eggs is bad for you” you think “but I saw that study one time that says it wasn’t, maybe science just doesn’t know” (it does) and the egg industry is laughing all the way to the bank for successfully convincing you that the whole thing is too complicated for you to know or care.

I read somewhere that interpreting things like a clean sink or a clean room as a sign of success is actually counterproductive. You might think by thinking this way, that you’re motivating yourself to clean, but you’re actually just shaming yourself for not cleaning. It’s easy to think “cleaning is so simple, it should always be done” when in reality it should be “cleaning is such an optional task it’s okay if things build up a bit.”

By shaming ourselves for not cleaning, we’re really shaming ourselves for having a hard day at work, or going through a hard time, or being depressed. And let me tell you, more shame is not going to make any of those scenarios any better.

I mean, to play devil’s advocate, there are some subjects in which the person vouching for something being biased because they’re “too close” isn’t a concern: whenever there’s an objective benefit to whatever they’re doing

For instance, a person who runs marathons and has experienced runner’s high might say running is super fun once you get good at it and you should try it, and maybe you will and maybe you won’t, but trying to get good at running wouldn’t be a permanent life changing decision like having a child, and it would benefit your health rather than harming it like drugs

There are lots of thrills in life outside of drugs and instinctual hormone soups. Admittedly runner’s high is the healthiest example, but stuff like video games, sports with minor risk taking like snowboarding or mountain climbing, etc also fit the bill

As with many things, the underlying problem creating conspiracy theorists is the mediocre high school dropouts need to feel superior to others in a world that values you for your skills and education. American Psychological Association: “The researchers found that overall, people were motivated to believe in conspiracy theories by a need to understand and feel safe in their environment and a need to feel like the community they identify with is superior to others.”

If you can’t develop a sense of pride by working hard to create actual merit, why not just fake it by grouping together with a bunch of other flunkies to be like “actually, we’re all better than you, because you’re all just sheep who believe what the government tells you!”

Bonus points if you combine this line of thinking with some other forms of discrimination, but even traditionally marginalized groups can fall prey to this trap. I’m not sure how to solve it, perhaps a stronger social safety net would prevent people from losing their grip on reality just to feel safe from perceived threats. Then again to quite a few people “black people” and “women” and “people from other countries” and “trans people” are threats so perhaps nothing we do can make them feel safe enough to stop being annoying online

I agree! Wnt-1 truly is worth gold, we wouldn’t survive without this crucial developmental hormone :)))))))))))))