>>16867399
Most people don't absorb dietary cholesterol and the little amount of saturated fat in eggs isn't meaningful for LDL cholesterol production. But if you're a hyperabsorber, either stay clear of eggs or add ezetimibe.

>>16867399
Most diet research is to support advertising a product. Egg council is small potatoes.

>>16867399
>this science is broughted to you by Big Egg
:O

>>16867399
They should've asked the physicists. They are the best and most smartest scientists.

>>16867399
These studies have been saying the same shit for decades:
>eggs are very nutritionally dense so there is a lit of benefit to consuming them.
>eggs are high in cholesterol so there exists a risk if you happen to be sensitive to it
These studies often overshoot or undershoot these risks and benefits but the key takeaway is that, since they're so nutrient dense, it really doesn't take that much to benefit from eating them. If you had a couple for breakfast this morning then you probably had plenty.

>>16867431
astronomers should look at the eggs with the jwst at the very least

>>16867399
good for some, bad for others. why is that hard for chuds to understand?

>>16867399
>cholesterol
re-running the "humours" shit. need more vaccines and healthcares

"Nutrition" is a branch of Catholicism. It cannot make a single definite claim since it is based on several Catholic (pagan) assumptions:

1. Being alive is good.
2. Eating is good.
3. Life should be protracted as much as possible at all costs.
4. Eating should be coextensive with life and its protraction.
5. There is a 1:1 correlation between what is ingested and the properties of the body that ingests.
6. The body that food supposedly modifies has no end other than to continue living just to continue eating.
7. Abstinence is taboo.

If we subject these scabrous assumptions to a Reformation, namely:

1. Being alive is bad.
2. Eating is bad.
3. Life should not be protracted.
4. There must be an end to eating.
5. There must be an Epistemological purge toward banishing food from anatomy.
6. There must be a model of the body that categorically excludes eating, more eating, and nothing but eating, as its end.
7. Dietary laws and restrictions should be deemed good and caloric maximization deemed absurd and pathological.

Then, perhaps, the first nutritional claim will be uttered.

>>16867945
>"Nutrition" is a branch of Catholicism. It cannot make a single definite claim since it is based on several Catholic (pagan) assumptions:
Remember when this board had vaguely intelligent schizophrenics? How come all the new ones are just 85 IQ /pol/trannies?

>>16867965
Because posters like you invoke /pol/ all the time, which sets the expectation that /sci/ equal /pol/.

>>16868004
I invoke it when I see posts like yours that have absolutely nothing science-related in them but fit right in with /pol/tranny culture.

>>16867437
The main issue is people dont get these individualized tests to find these things out. People find out they have MTHFR or other weird gene mutations because they go to the doctor for some issue and after a battery of tests eventually they find out - nobody is getting tested for being sensitive to cholesterol, and therefore they try to make these sweeping blanket statements to cover the whole population which end up being useless in the end.