Hacker News Reader

Comment by shlant | Hacker News Reader

let's say that what you are claiming is true (although your reference leaves much to be desired) - that doesn't mean that there is no "eggs-cholesterol danger", just that it was used as a narrative to combat inflation.

View on HN

In general it seems like -- and this is my outside perspective, not informed by any expertise, just casual reading -- the trajectory of nutritional science has more or less been "if something is bad in your body, then consuming it as part of your diet is bad; if something is good in your body, then consuming it as part of your diet is good" followed by later research saying "no, it turns out bioavailability doesn't work that way, and anyway the thing might have been a side effect rather than a cause of harm". See: dietary cholesterol, dietary fat, omega-3, probiotics, iron supplements, anti-oxidants

>> let's say that what you are claiming is true (although your reference leaves much to be desired) - that doesn't mean that there is no "eggs-cholesterol danger", just that it was used as a narrative to combat inflation.

But the message itself was deceptive. Regardless of the truth value of "eggs-cholesterol danger" the reason for telling people was something else - to combat inflation. There are a number of problems with that kind of manipulation, one of which is that the truth value of the statement will never be ascertainable due to biases all around.

BTW eggs contain everything you need (except air and water) to make a chicken. How bad can they be?

It depends on what you consider "danger". If you drink too much water that can be dangerous. I believe the general consensus is that 1-2 eggs a day is not harmful. I believe they've also shown that saturated vs unsaturated fat intake is the main driver of cholesterol (plus carbs), not cholesterol consumption itself.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...

> although your reference leaves much to be desired

Is NPR not considered a trustworthy source? I thought they were generally fairly well regarded in that sense.

NPR is just referencing a quote from someone in a book. Not saying NPR is untrustworthy, just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

> NPR is just referencing a quote from someone in a book.

"Just"?

Have you considered the verification processes NPR employs before it includes references in broadcasts and published articles?

What is extraordinary about a claim that eggs do or do not raise cholesterol negatively?

the extraordinary claim is that the narrative was made up to serve an alternate motive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com