Completely unscientific - but when you see programs on TV about people that eat a lot, the food tends to be highly processed and low in nutrients, I've been wondering the same thing.
This type of food is - coincidentally - always extremely high in calories.
But the relationship is orthogonal. You can make processed non-nutritious food that is low in calories, and you can make healthy food that is high in calories. The former happens rarely.
6 raw eggs lemon juice (1 lemon, squeezed) 378 calories in total, of which 227 are fat and 144 protein. just enough sugar to help you digest it without bloat. awesome anabolic effects from the eggs.
lunch: 6 raw eggs 200ml whole unhomogenised milk (raw if possible) similar effect but even more anabolic
dinner: 200-300g of fresh steak (beef) cooked blue. can be replaced with lamb or other nutritious meats, but certainly not chicken breast which has nearly no nutritional value whatsoever compared to something like sardines
salmonella is a problem of industrial farming
I wish there was a salmonella vaccine for humans and be done with it, because raw-ish eggs can be quite delicious.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-3010...
1) Doesn’t say it has no effect, it has “clinically insignificant especially when compared to saturated fat”. Not the same as no effect.
2) “ However, in the minds of the public, cholesterol in the diet, specifically from eggs, continues to be viewed with suspicion and that view is still reflected in the advice of some professionals.”
Professionals are still telling people to reduce cholesterol intake when your blood results show high cholesterol. How many people do you think spend every waking hour scouring for new health articles?
This is also just one study, maybe let’s not invalidate the many years of people reducing cholesterol intake to reduce cholesterol so quickly?
Most foods found in nature will fill you up long before you can eat enough to gain hundreds of pounds.