Calorie Budget Calculation

[learning2023]

I have used the BMR calculator from the site and then looked at the Harris Benedict Formula which is where I have a question: When I select the version of activity that applies (little, light, moderate, extra, or very active) does that mean I should not track exercise calories in my daily budget? i.e. is it assuming that I will run/walk/lift x amount of calories across the week and therefore putting them in and giving myself those additional calories means I am double counting?

 

[ianf0ster]

This probably isn't what you want to hear, but several studies have shown that additional exercise for most dieters is of no use in actully reducing weight.
2 reasons:

1. The calories burned through exercise is much smaller than people think - certainly compered to BMR.
2. Exercise makes you hungry (and so liable to overshoot by eating more calories than were used up.

For many/most trying for T2 Diabetes remission, a Low Carb way of eating appears to raise BMR, controls Blood glucose and normalises both weight and blood pressure.
I have been in T2 remission (normal BG with no diabetes medication ever).
This intro to low carb was written by one of our members from her own experiences : https://josekalsbeek.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-nutritional-thingy.html

 

[learning2023]

Thank you for your reply. Two clarifying questions:

1. You said "additional exercise," does this mean more than specific amount of exercise or are you trying to say that exercise isn't something people trying to get healthy and lose weight should be doing?

2. Can you please provide the links for the "several studies" you referenced?

For the majority of exercises the calories burned is far smaller than BMR (I ran a marathon and burned more calories than my BMR for the day as an example of the rare exceptions) ... and can still have a solid impact in the creation of a caloric deficit. Mild to moderate exercise can actually help to limit hunger. It is the heavy exercise that often creates the hunger that you described.

I appreciate the info and I am really trying to figure out the way calorie budgeting is supposed to be handled when using a combo of the BMR and Harris Benedict Formula. If you (or anybody else) has any info on that, it would be most helpful!

 

[KennyA]

I have used the BMR calculator from the site and then looked at the Harris Benedict Formula which is where I have a question: When I select the version of activity that applies (little, light, moderate, extra, or very active) does that mean I should not track exercise calories in my daily budget? i.e. is it assuming that I will run/walk/lift x amount of calories across the week and therefore putting them in and giving myself those additional calories means I am double counting?

Hi and welcome. I have never counted calories and lost >25kg without any exercise. The issue for me, and arguably for anyone with insulin resistance/T2, is reducing carbohydrate and consequently glucose, rather than energy intake/expenditure.

I do think exercise has a lot of value in terms of maintaining muscle, fitness and feelgood - it doesn't play a big role in fat reduction for me.

 

[ianf0ster]

I didn't get a chance to get the study details. I first saw it from some medical professional on Twitter and then saw it covered very briefly on those 'Con or Cure' shows that Dr Xand van Tullken did about 3 or 4 months ago on BBC TV (in the mornings) - unfortunately he didn't quote the names of the study he was particularly referencing, but that it was done over a 30 day period at which point neither the control or the exercise group had actually lost weight. The shows are still available on BBC IPlayer and it was near, of not at the end of the series. Can't see it in the synopsis, sorry.

Personally I follow the NHS guideline for exercise (I have done since my 3x bypass about 16 months before my T2D diagnosis). That is take brisk 30 min walk (brisk = you can talk but not sing) 5 times per week. Actually I attempt one every day to make up for days missed due to weather or other commitments.

 

[learning2023]

Hi and welcome. I have never counted calories and lost >25kg without any exercise. The issue for me, and arguably for anyone with insulin resistance/T2, is reducing carbohydrate and consequently glucose, rather than energy intake/expenditure.

I do think exercise has a lot of value in terms of maintaining muscle, fitness and feelgood - it doesn't play a big role in fat reduction for me.

KennyA,

Thanks for taking the time to respond! I appreciate you being willing to provide some of your story! I know that you can lose weight without exercise, and it is harder to not also lose a meaningful amount of muscle when doing so. I counted calories when I lost 70ish pounds near the end of my 20's and have found that things are a bit different this time around. I have put a lot of effort into lifting and it has paid muscle dividends. I am now at a place where I am looking to lose some weight and maintain that loss. I have chosen to count calories and I am trying to make sure I am using the tools (BMR + Harris Benedict Formula) correctly.

Cheers on your >25kg loss!

 

[learning2023]

I didn't get a chance to get the study details. I first saw it from some medical professional on Twitter and then saw it covered very briefly on those 'Con or Cure' shows that Dr Xand van Tullken did about 3 or 4 months ago on BBC TV (in the mornings) - unfortunately he didn't quote the names of the study he was particularly referencing, but that it was done over a 30 day period at which point neither the control or the exercise group had actually lost weight. The shows are still available on BBC IPlayer and it was near, of not at the end of the series. Can't see it in the synopsis, sorry.

Personally I follow the NHS guideline for exercise (I have done since my 3x bypass about 16 months before my T2D diagnosis). That is take brisk 30 min walk (brisk = you can talk but not sing) 5 times per week. Actually I attempt one every day to make up for days missed due to weather or other commitments.

Thank you for the clarification! I love running and I am trying to better understand how to factor my activity into my caloric budget. I will look for the segment you referenced.

 

[ajbod]

How old are you, as this will have a bearing on whether calories really are the right option for you. For years my weight fluctuated between summer and winter, after winter i rapidly lost what was gained. But after i turned 40 it took longer to come off each year, eventually i reached the point where it didn't. That's when i did Keto, losing 25kg in about 3 months, i also lost some muscle mass, as i was not in position to exercise due to circulatory problems.
Low carb is the way to go, forget calorie counting, there is no need to fear muscle mass loss, as the exercise you do will maintain it. You will lose weight, and when at a level you're happy at, increase the amount you eat until you stop losing.
Your Hba1c will drop. Your BMR will increase rather than drop if restricting calories for a length of time.

 

[MissMuffett]

I counted calories in the 70s and 80s as most people did if they wanted to lose weight but now research has shown (and the diabetes pandemic) that it’s the carbs/sugar consumed that’s the culprit. I lost 2 st in 3 months without doing any exercise, by just going very low carb, I never count calorie now.
I can’t remember the blokes name, but to prove a point (about saturated fat not being the bad guy) as an experiment, he averaged 5,000 calories a day but stuck to LCHF food and lost weight over the 3 months. He recorded his results and blood tests on YouTube.

 

[HairySmurf]

I have used the BMR calculator from the site and then looked at the Harris Benedict Formula which is where I have a question: When I select the version of activity that applies (little, light, moderate, extra, or very active) does that mean I should not track exercise calories in my daily budget? i.e. is it assuming that I will run/walk/lift x amount of calories across the week and therefore putting them in and giving myself those additional calories means I am double counting?

Yes, you'd be double counting. If you have a good way to calculate the calories burned during your exercise then use your your 'little' or 'light' activity value (Harris Benedict) to account for the basics of movement to keep yourself alive like cooking, cleaning house, travel to the shops etc., then add your exercise calories on top of that. If running is the primary exercise you do then maybe have a look at something like a running calorie calculator. There are some online but I can't post links at present.

If you know your percentage body fat then you have the option to use a BMR calculator based on the Katch-McArdle formula. This is thought to be a little more accurate than Mifflin St Joer, which uses gender instead of body fat percentage. Again, there are some online.

I experimented with using a Fitbit to track the calories I was burning but found that, for me at least, it overestimated my calorie burn by an average of 700 calories per day. Not ideal. I prefer to rely on a spreadsheet to calculate my average daily calorie deficit based on actual weight changes for past weeks, then use that information to guide my plans for future weeks as regards diet and exercise. The spreadsheet is based on the fact that one kilo of stored body fat, when burned, equates to approximately 7700 calories (7.7 calories per gram) - screenshot attached in case you might find it useful.

Using a cheap smart bathroom scales to estimate my body fat percentage, a Katch-McArdle based calculator online, and selecting 'Daily exercise' (which I think is the same as 'extra') to approximate the calories burned from a 3.5km daily walk, I got estimated values that matched my spreadsheet calculations plus my food tracking calories to within around 100 calories per day, averaged over a week. So in my experience at least the BMR calculator approach with Harris Benedict was close enough to accurate to be useful.

For the record I'm on a moderate carb, high protein, low(ish) fat diet at present. I hope that helps.

 

[philip_rotstein]

about saturated fat not being the bad guy

It's trendy now to praise Keto diet, but the thing is saturated fat is still considered the main culprit of raising LDL. I myself am suffering from high LDL. I had read first-source research papers that conclude that saturated fat is indeed "the bad guy". So I wouldn't take the risk. These youtube guys are there more for the sake of monetization and revelations, while proven and basic truth is boring. You can't make viral video of 2+2=4.

I have used the BMR calculator from the site and then looked at the Harris Benedict Formula which is where I have a question: When I select the version of activity that applies (little, light, moderate, extra, or very active) does that mean I should not track exercise calories in my daily budget? i.e. is it assuming that I will run/walk/lift x amount of calories across the week and therefore putting them in and giving myself those additional calories means I am double counting?

Exercising speeds up your metabolism. Which is known as the "afterburn effect" – when your body burns calories by itself, while you're resting.
It absolutely helps you lose weight. Just be sure to calculate your calorie deficit correctly, and you're way better off than you were yesterday. With the rest, HairySmurf's answer is very detailed and spot on.
Good luck with your endeavors! & take care

 

[HairySmurf]

It's trendy now to praise Keto diet, but the thing is saturated fat is still considered the main culprit of raising LDL. I myself am suffering from high LDL. I had read first-source research papers that conclude that saturated fat is indeed "the bad guy". So I wouldn't take the risk. These youtube guys are there more for the sake of monetization and revelations, while proven and basic truth is boring. You can't make viral video of 2+2=4.

Exercising speeds up your metabolism. Which is known as the "afterburn effect" – when your body burns calories by itself, while you're resting.
It absolutely helps you lose weight. Just be sure to calculate your calorie deficit correctly, and you're way better off than you were yesterday. With the rest, HairySmurf's answer is very detailed and spot on.
Good luck with your endeavors! & take care

The saturated fat thing is actually pretty complicated. This article lists most of the main saturated fat molecules found in food and describes their individual effects on LDL levels - Link. In addiction to those listed there are also two 'odd chain' saturated fats which are found in our food - Pentadecylic acid (AKA pentadecanoic acid) - Link and Margaric acid (AKA heptadecanoic acid) - Link.

Early research on the effects of saturated fats on LDL levels were done by formulating diets that had different levels of saturated fat in them (as a group) and comparing the effects of those diets with a baseline diet, something that is meant to be representative of what the average person might eat, usually in America. Those experiments do indeed show a clear relationship between saturated fat levels as a group and elevated LDL levels.

More recent studies which look at specific food types in large population studies appear to indicate some weird anomalies though. For example in study after study cheese is being shown not to have the effects on health which the levels of specific saturated fat molecules in cheese should be having. This study is a good example - Link. In that study the scientists looked at levels of the two odd-chain saturated fats listed above and used them as a marker for consumption of dairy foods. Dairy is the food type that is highest in these two specific fats. The research appears to indicate that there is something about some foods which makes them healthier than their saturated fat content would indicate. The exact cause of this is unknown and it'll be years before it's unravelled. Maybe there's something about the odd-chain fats that make them extremely healthy, or maybe where some other quality of cheese that either counteracts the effect on LDL levels or has some other healthy properties.

I've given up on learning more about this as I've decided it doesn't matter too much. I don't go overboard with saturated fats but I don't avoid them completely either. It's difficult and/or expensive to lower carb intake without eating saturated fats. Cheese and yogurt for example are cheap tasty foods that a person can happily eat for a lifetime. I've chosen not to worry overly much about saturated fat and to take a low-dose statin to counteract it's effects. I'm also likely to stay on at least a low-dose of Metformin even if I could strictly speaking go off it in terms of blood glucose control. This should counteract the biggest issue I personally have with statins which is that they might raise levels of insulin resistance. So far so good - I have nice low LDL levels (though the LDL result isn't actually the best marker for the risk of atherosclerosis that I'm trying trying to address) and I've been eating plenty of foods like cheese, full-fat yogurt, dark chocolate and some red meat. As far as I can tell I'm addressing all the risks quite well without having to live on foods like oily fish and avocados all the time. I think the best approach might be to see what a specific diet does to a person over time, check blood test results, and take steps either on the diet side or the medication side, or both, to balance all the known risks against one another. There is a big genetic, age and even a gender component to risk of elevated LDL after all. One-size-fits all dietary advice like 'saturated fat bad' may be a reasonable way to encourage an entire population to eat more healthily but it's not idea for a Type 2 trying to find the optimal dietary approach to suit their own situation.

On the issue of exercise and metabolism - regular exercise patterns appear to prompt the body to conserve energy by lowering effective metabolic rate. It's not an effect caused by a bout of exercise but an effect caused by high energy consumption due to regular exercise - Link. It is known for example that fit people have a lower resting heart rate. This is/was thought to be because they are so efficient in cardiovascular terms that their heart doesn't need to beat as frequently to get the job done, even at rest. While I was losing weight rapidly and exercising more I observed (via my Fitbit) quite dramatic changes in resting heart rate between times when I was losing weight fast for weeks at a time and times when I stopped losing weight for some time, like Christmas. I believe that resting heart rate is a marker for how hard the body is trying in order to conserve energy, a marker for adaptive changes to BMR basically. That's just my theory - I haven't seen any research on the subject but I can't possibly be the first person to observe resting heart rate changes relative to weight loss rate. Is the lower resting heart rate observed in fit people because of fitness itself? Or because of how much exercise they do? I can only speak for myself but I would wonder what would happen to the resting heart rate of a very fit person stopped exercising for few weeks.

 

[KennyA]

It's trendy now to praise Keto diet, but the thing is saturated fat is still considered the main culprit of raising LDL. I myself am suffering from high LDL. I had read first-source research papers that conclude that saturated fat is indeed "the bad guy". So I wouldn't take the risk. These youtube guys are there more for the sake of monetization and revelations, while proven and basic truth is boring. You can't make viral video of 2+2=4.


Exercising speeds up your metabolism. Which is known as the "afterburn effect" – when your body burns calories by itself, while you're resting.
It absolutely helps you lose weight. Just be sure to calculate your calorie deficit correctly, and you're way better off than you were yesterday. With the rest, HairySmurf's answer is very detailed and spot on.
Good luck with your endeavors! & take care

You might be interested in the considered opinion of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 18 August 2020.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874?via%3Dihub=&utm_source=arrow.proteinpower.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=the-arrow-188

Highlights:

• The U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend the restriction of SFA intake to <10% of calories to reduce CVD.
• Different SFAs have different biologic effects, which are further modified by the food matrix and the carbohydrate content of the diet.
• Several foods relatively rich in SFAs, such as whole-fat dairy, dark chocolate, and unprocessed meat, are not associated with increased CVD or diabetes risk.
• There is no robust evidence that current population-wide arbitrary upper limits on saturated fat consumption in the United States will prevent CVD or reduce mortality.

 

[philip_rotstein]

You might be interested in the considered opinion of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 18 August 2020.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874?via%3Dihub=&utm_source=arrow.proteinpower.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=the-arrow-188

Highlights:

• The U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend the restriction of SFA intake to <10% of calories to reduce CVD.
• Different SFAs have different biologic effects, which are further modified by the food matrix and the carbohydrate content of the diet.
• Several foods relatively rich in SFAs, such as whole-fat dairy, dark chocolate, and unprocessed meat, are not associated with increased CVD or diabetes risk.
• There is no robust evidence that current population-wide arbitrary upper limits on saturated fat consumption in the United States will prevent CVD or reduce mortality.

Thank you for the reading materials, Kenny! Nevertheless, when there was a period, I ate ice cream for several months and measured my LDL cholesterol. I noticed a big spike, and as soon as I stopped, it started gradually decreasing. Apart from that, it comes down to a person—whether he/she accepts to become a geinea pig and test SFA on themselves. Some YouTubers said, "Eat coconut oil; it's good for you," then after some time he said, "Well, I mean medium chain fatty acids (MCFA); those are good." So yeah, you see where I'm going with that. Anyway, thanks!

 

[LittleGreyCat]

@HairySmurf I thought that recent views were that LDL levels are not a good measure of risk per se, but the types of LDL and also the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL.

@KennyA Encouraging list of highlights for those who eat relatively high fat diets.

I have a relatively high total cholesterol but so far the ratios have been good and the surgery seem happy with that.
I have seen it suggested that higher cholesterol may be a benefit to older people, especially women.

 

[HairySmurf]

@HairySmurf I thought that recent views were that LDL levels are not a good measure of risk per se, but the types of LDL and also the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL.

@KennyA Encouraging list of highlights for those who eat relatively high fat diets.

I have a relatively high total cholesterol but so far the ratios have been good and the surgery seem happy with that.
I have seen it suggested that higher cholesterol may be a benefit to older people, especially women.

The gold standard test is for apolipoprotein B (ApoB) which is a protein on the surface of each 'bad' particle in the blood. That test gives you an approximate count of how many problematic particles are actually in there. It's better than the commonly-available tests as the count of particles is more important than how much cholesterol is actually in the blood. Measuring cholesterol isn't ideal as a lot of small LDL particles might show a similar result to a smaller number of larger particles. It's not the amount of cholesterol in the blood that matters but the number of individual particles in circulation banging into the artery walls over a lifetime. Unfortunately the ApoB test (in Ireland at least) is only offered to people who are known to have heart problems. It's only available privately here and it's not cheap.

The next best thing is the 'Total minus HDL' figure (non-HDL cholesterol) - total cholesterol in the blood which isn't contained in a HDL particle. This is roughly equivalent to Apo-B in most cases (Link) and is as good an indicator as most of us have access to.

The next best indicator is LDL. There are problems with this though as LDL is calculated based on the other measurements, not measured directly, and as mentioned above there might be lots of small LDL particles or a smaller number of larger ones which can make a big difference to the actual risk involved.

The 'Total to HDL' ratio has been discredited as a good indicator. HDL is known marker for metabolic health and for a good diet but when medications that artificially raise HDL were developed and tested in clinical trials they had no detectable effect on health outcomes. Thus by taking one of those meds a person's ratio would look very good while it wouldn't actually do anything. Why exactly high HDL is associated with good heart health is still being investigated but the ratio is now seen as the least valuable indicator of those listed above. It still appears on blood test results though, still used by the QRisk3 calculator, still taken seriously by many doctors, which says a lot about how far behind the times a lot of the testing and general knowledge around cholesterol is (even amongst many GPs).

The information above comes from a series of interviews with lipidologist Dr. Thomas Dayspring - knows his stuff, lectures doctors about cholesterol, rated amongst the top doctors in the US. Interview series linked here - Link. When watching those interviews I noted down the relationship between the different indicators and Dayspring's recommendations as to what levels a person might want to aim below (he talks about it in video 3 I believe). I haven't found any similar resource elsewhere and there's a chance I noted something down wrong here so take these figures with a grain of salt - this is the word of one doctor interviewed on YouTube:

LDL-C
2.59 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) - for the general population
1.81 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) - for those at increased risk
1.42 mmol/L (55 mg/dL) - for those at high risk

Non-HDL-C
3.36 mmol/L (130 mg/dL) - for the general population
2.59 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) - for those at increased risk
2.2 mmol/L (85 mg/dL) - for those at high risk

Apolipoprotein B
100 mg/dL - for the general population
80 mg/dL - for those at increased risk
65 mg/dL - for those at high risk
60mg/dL - aggressive treatment for people at very high risk

The reality is these levels are guesses to some extent, just like every cholesterol recommendation provided everywhere - they're very round numbers that approximate something that is unique to the individual. We can't actually know how far along the path to heart disease we each are without advanced testing which is not available to most of us. In my case, a person who was a smoker for 20 years, was obese for much of that time, did not exercise enough, was diagnosed diabetic (and so was likely on the path to that for years) and likely continue to be insulin resistant I see myself as somewhere between increased risk and high risk. For this reason I aim to achieve somewhere between 2.6 and 2.2 mmol/L on the 'Non-HDL' scale. I do pay attention to my HDL result but more as a general indicator that I'm eating well and getting enough exercise than as a target in itself to work hard at changing.

 

[Antje77]

Nevertheless, when there was a period, I ate ice cream for several months and measured my LDL cholesterol. I noticed a big spike, and as soon as I stopped, it started gradually decreasing.

I suppose the icecream had a lot of carbs as well as fats?
I don't know, you'd need to do more experiments with saturated fats without the sugars to know how your body reacts for a clear answer. But by stopping the icecream you cut out a lot of sugar. Ever considered that this might have been the cause of your elevated LDL levels, and not the fats?

I can only speak from my own experience, but this is what happened to my lipids after reducing the carbs and upping the fats (not minding saturated fats at all) for the last 8 years.
Ignore the first sharp drop in total cholesterol, that was a very short stint on statins, I haven't taken them since. https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/th...tion-book-recommendations.201616/post-2674018

 

[Chris24Main]

I think I need to see some, any, evidence that dietary saturated fat has any connection whatever to LDL (biologically it just doesn't), and then that LDL has any connection whatever in a causative sense, to heart, or in fact any disease. Hours and hours of lectures, tens of books digested on this from the perspective of nutrition, cell metabolism, lipid transport, clotting cascade mechanism, all lead me to feel more and more that the heart health hypothesis, all of which is based on poor science, and studies done a lifetime ago on sick men, is just eventually going to be thought of in the same way as we look back to when the orthodoxy burned heretics at the stake for claiming that the Earth revolved around the sun.

The science of all of this is shifting, slowly, but I there will come a time where it will seem just funny that we all twisted ourselves in knots trying to explain something just not explainable, because it was never true.

Actually - I can be more succinct and take the summary from the study that @HairySmurf linked -

SUMMARY Saturated fats are not as harmful as previously believed. Growing evidence suggests that there are no strong links between saturated fat and heart disease.

That's all you need.

 

[HairySmurf]

I think I need to see some, any, evidence that dietary saturated fat has any connection whatever to LDL (biologically it just doesn't), and then that LDL has any connection whatever in a causative sense, to heart, or in fact any disease.

Evidence that dietary saturated fat has a connection to LDL - study from 1998 - Link. This was a study that built on research carried out over the previous two decades. This study compared three diet plans - the average American diet (AAD), a diet titled 'Step 1' and a diet titled 'low-SFA'. The three diets vary by total saturated fat content.

I found that specific study by reading the references from a much more recent study which looked at the effects of a low saturated fat diet in African Americans specifically - Link. This one is interesting because it seems to show that going too low on saturated fat may elevate other risk factors, possibly for genetic reasons, or possibly not. Not eating enough saturated fat may actually be bad for a person. That represents the state of the art in saturated fat research. To find the evidence for the LDL thing you have to go back to the 80s and 90s, because it's very old news. Researchers try to answer questions left unanswered by previous research. Nobody spends years of their time trying to reinvent a 25 year old wheel or testing if that wheel still rolls. By reading some of the references on that paper, and then reading some of the references on some of those papers, and so on, I went back in time through the research to see how each piece of the puzzle was proven over time. That's how it's done. Have a go if you're interested. It does take a while, these things are hard to read, a lot of Googling unfamiliar terms involved, but it is a very informative process known as 'research'.

I stopped at this paper from 1997 which proved the mechanism by which saturated fats actually affect LDL particle concentration in the blood - Link. I felt I had kicked enough wheels by that point to be sure they were solid. Interestingly in reference to the cheese mystery I mentioned earlier, this study also used three diet plans - AAD, Step 1 and a Low-Sat. I believe the design of these studies is a flaw which might possibly have let cheese and other foods slip through the cracks, so to speak. Hopefully future research will examine individual foods rather than saturated fat as a broad grouping as if they were all the same (which they may not be).

To your second point, research on the connection between LDL (specifically) and causative effect in disease pretty much stopped some time ago because ApoB was determined some years ago to be the better marker to look for rather than LDL. Here's study from 2022 from China - Link - which looked at ApoB and all-cause mortality. That study did something interesting by also looking at markers for malnutrition. I'm not going to tell you what it says or interpret it for you because I don't think you'd take my word for it. If you are genuinely interested in seeing some evidence, as you say you need to, all you need to do it click on the links and read. I posted three of these three of these four links on this forum previously but, well.. things happen it would seem.

I'm no scientist. When I first joined this forum I believed that eggs are bad for health. I was of course wrong. They're only bad for a small subset of people who are genetically susceptible to high levels of dietary cholesterol, so called 'hyper absorbers'. I learned that, and everything else I needed to learn about cholesterol, so that I could determine which pieces of information posted on this forum are good and useful (eggs are in fact a fantastic food for most people) and which aren't factual. The work goes on and will never end, as there will always been some new science to read.

 

[Outlier]

Anyone perusing the science here needs to distinguish which experiments were conducted solely on men, and it's interesting how more recent studies that included women came to somewhat different conclusions. There is some way to go yet before hypothesis is supported by fact - and medical fact only lasts until the next study. So - a discussion well worth having, and thank you all for pursuing it.