[simonsarris]

Did you actually read that paper? It's an article, not a study. The article is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989358/

The USA is obsessed with cholesterol because of years of bad science. Here's a 2015 Japanese Supplementary Review on Cholesterol and Mortality Rates: Higher Cholesterol = Longer Life

https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/381654

It concludes:

> Our fervent wish is that, through this supplementary issue, people can see that the cholesterol hypothesis relies on very weak data—and sometimes considerably distorted data. Indeed, many studies in Japan actually show that cholesterol plays a very positive role in health. We hope that JAS, and the government authorities that defer to JAS’s recommendations, will move toward recognizing cholesterol as a friend not an enemy. In the meantime, we will continue pushing for acceptance of the anti-cholesterol hypothesis, to reverse what we see as the biggest mistake made by medical science in the previous century.

[mjlangiii]

I agree with many of the critical points they make in this Japanese review. There should be higher standards for nutritional research.

The main idea seems to be that in Japan because there are some positive patterns observed regarding all causes of death and high cholesterol levels and because other studies showing high cholesterol is bad were all flawed, therefore it is warranted to recommend eating more cholesterol.

Well, the notion that eating cholesterol effects your cholesterol level goes against your first comment.

Then the sentiment that you can throw the baby out with the bath water seems extreme, if you can find a flaw in studies that disagree with you then your studies that agree with you prove the point. I mean, I agree that when there is no un-flawed data it is hard to draw conclusions, but are their studies all really as so unblemished. A main criticism of theirs is studies citing rates of death for certain diseases without mentioning the rate for all causes of death, but a lot of their cited studies do the exact same, only some of them reported rates for all causes of death.

Finally, and I know you're surprised, I am not persuaded by them that eating cholesterol or having high/"normal" cholesterol levels is neutral or positive in affecting your health. I agree with them that we need much better data. I understand that in Japan they observed lower rates of date from all causes. But the only question I really have is what should I eat to avoid dying as an American, and this article just doesn't really cover that one way or another. I'm very grateful for sharing it, there are a lot of good insights in there.

[AstralStorm]

The notion that direct intake of cholesterol is bad is itself problematic. Off the top of the head I can recall at least 3 studies getting null results. Can't link you then on mobile, maybe late if you're still interested. (There are very rare genetic exceptions where body does not automatically balance intake with less internal production.)

The problem is likely that cholesterol itself is a coincidence, and that intake of too much red meat, sugar, heavily processed foods and also just to many calories in are the major problem.

And likely trans fats are much more damaging. Plus not enough vegetables or vitamin D or B12 in diet.

It just so happens that there's cholesterol in three of these four.

Right now there is more emphasis on lipid ratios (including IDL and VLDL) rather than total number anyway. Those seem much better correlated to cardiac endpoints.

[mjlangiii]

I read it a few years ago. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.