And I think, I've seen a lot of studies that compare eating "normal" amounts of cholesterol to eating more than normal. But "normal" cholesterol levels in your blood still leave you with a "normal" American rate of heart disease, read, still very high. Those studies might not show much of a difference in disease rates. But studies on eating cholesterol versus no cholesterol are much clearer in showing a significant difference. On a plant based diet people can get their cholesterol below 60 and the disease rates for people with that low of cholesterol are much lower.
I firmly believe that its the sugar/insulin response that creates most of these health problems due to the inflammation. There's a few studies that scratch the surface of just how bad sugar is, but with all the focus on cholesterol, there's been no focus on how much sugar is in people's diets who also happen to consume high cholesterol.
I've been off and on a keto diet for the better part of 12 years. I don't eat like crap when I'm "off", but my entire body gets inflamed and I blow up like a balloon, compared to being on it. My resting heart rate rises. This should be impossible, according to the dietary cholesterol theory. My health should get worse, and blood cholesterol should raise. This does not happen. We've lived for 50 years under low fat high carb dietary recommendations, primarily because its so much easier to scale grain production. Now there's grams and grams of sugar in everything we eat.
I don't think there is one smoking gun for a chemical in food.
To me, I see a clear pattern. Reducing nutrition to consuming more of a specific chemical/molecule or consuming less of a specific chemical/molecule is always way more complicated than that. The best way to get the complicated combination/form of chemicals is to just eat as low on the food chain as possible in a minimally altered form.
Naturally occurring sugar in plants, say an orange, or rice, is good for you. Extracting sugar doesn't ever seem necessary for the American diet. The oil in a nut is good for you, extracting oil and using it to cook doesn't ever seem necessary for the American diet.
So I don't think it is controversial to say eating plans is good for you, especially say broccoli for your inflammation. The more broccoli you eat, the healthier you are; its really simple.
The second part of what I said, to try to eat low on the food chain is more controversial. But as soon as you combine that rice with meat, that sugar starts interacting in new more complicated ways and the it is no longer as simple as, the more rice you eat the healthier you are. It becomes, if you combine it with meat you have to limit the amount of rice you eat because together they spike your blood sugar level [0] study, image of that spike [1]. And I rarely hear, "the more meat you eat, the healthier you are".
So to me it seems like you can try to walk a tight-rope of eating the right amounts of the right processed and meat foods, or you can just eat things that generally make you healthier when you eat more of it.
That is a simple baseline that you adjust based on atypical differences you have, celiac disease, etc.
Regarding cholesterol specifically, and how you mentioned it conflicting with current theories that are being questioned (fairly enough) in this thread - here's some summary thoughts from the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Cardiology on it. [2] They might be helpful providing some color to the conversation.
