Dietary Cholesterol- Not a Concern?

[EquALLity]

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines ... 1/d1-2.asp

Cholesterol. Previously, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 mg/day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report.2 35 Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.

Opinions?

[brimstoneSalad]

From what I have read, 300 mg was not low enough, and there are diminishing returns from additional consumption.

So, unless you're eating almost no cholesterol whatsoever, it doesn't matter much how much extra cholesterol you eat.

300 mg may be the same as 3 grams. But 0mg is very different from either of them.

IIRC.

[EquALLity]

Can you give me a source for that, since it seems to contradict health.org?

[brimstoneSalad]

http://www.pcrm.org/health/health-topic ... rt-disease

Maybe. I think the discussion was on pcrm. I haven't kept track of it.

[PrincessPeach]

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines ... 1/d1-2.asp

Cholesterol. Previously, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 mg/day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report.2 35 Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.

Opinions?

Blood serum level's are there to help diagnosis the problem not the cause of higher cholesterol. Not everyone that will eat cholesterol will have high cholesterol those matters depend on genetic predisposition's.
Dietary cholesterol should be a nutrient for concern because; it comes with trans fatty acids you can not have added dietary cholesterol with out trans fatty acid's which are known for heart disease.

But fuck it throw out the recommendation for eating eggs only once a week and let them just have at it.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is the chart you're looking for:

http://www.pcrm.org/cholesterol



See how it curves up, and then kind of tapers off?

A little bit of cholesterol is bad. A lot of cholesterol is still bad, but not really much worse than a little bit of it.

Ten eggs a day isn't much worse than one egg. But one egg is waaay worse than zero eggs.

This is why health.gov changed its recommendations. People aren't likely going to eat no or almost no cholesterol, so why bother telling them to reduce their consumption if it won't make much of a difference?

As princess peach mentioned, there are also genetic factors to consider, but how those work is a little less clear. You can see from the chart that those points are all over the place.

[EquALLity]

Thanks!^

[garrethdsouza]

Conflicting information: cbsnews.com/news/saturated-fats-wont-raise-heart-disease-risk-omega-3s-wont-reduce-it-study/

[brimstoneSalad]

Conflicting information: cbsnews.com/news/saturated-fats-wont-raise-heart-disease-risk-omega-3s-wont-reduce-it-study/

Looks like old news. There are studies with mixed results all of the time as outliers. You can even make a study that shows that homeopathy works.

This is why we have experts who understand the body of the evidence.

The American Heart Association wrote in a blog post on its website that it has concerns "that the study's conclusion could be deceptive for some people as they decide what to put on their plates."

"The study published Monday doesn't change the American Heart Association recommendation of a diet that's rich in fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fish and unsaturated fats," said the AHA.

The AHA's commentary: http://blog.heart.org/study-raises-ques ... -bad-fats/

[garrethdsouza]

a good rebuttal can be found here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturat ... ontroversy
Also the summary table was informative.