Agreed; this is particularly true for things like creatine. But most Americans have cholesterol higher than recommended, and most of the health risks I’m seeing associated with low cholesterol are “if your cholesterol suddenly drops without a known cause, this is a warning sign for disease.” Is there something else I should be aware of?
[edit] Thought I should quote the relevant section of the DRIs:
All tissues are capable of synthesizing enough cholesterol to meet their metabolic and structural needs. Consequently, there is no evidence for a biological requirement for dietary cholesterol. Neither an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), and thus a Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), nor an Adequate Intake (AI) was set for cholesterol.
Much evidence indicates a positive linear trend between cholesterol intake and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentration, and therefore an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). A Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) was not set for cholesterol because any incremental increase in cholesterol intake increases CHD risk. It is recommended that people maintain their dietary cholesterol intake as low as possible, while consuming a diet that is nutritionally adequate in all required nutrients.
Dietary cholesterol and lipid cholesterol aren’t the same thing either, and just as your body can compensate for an intake of 0 cholesterol, it can likewise compensate for an intake of excess cholesterol.
It’s not clear to me yet why I should expect a cholesterol intake above 0 to have superior health outcomes to a cholesterol intake of 0. You don’t need to argue that the body can compensate for excess cholesterol; even perfect compensation would just mean that small intake is just as good as 0 intake. You need to argue that without intake, the body will produce a suboptimal amount of cholesterol. Is there any evidence of that?
This is actually a bad example; humans can produce cholesterol, and so the FDA does not recommend intake.
“Can produce” doesn’t mean optimal intake is 0.
Agreed; this is particularly true for things like creatine. But most Americans have cholesterol higher than recommended, and most of the health risks I’m seeing associated with low cholesterol are “if your cholesterol suddenly drops without a known cause, this is a warning sign for disease.” Is there something else I should be aware of?
[edit] Thought I should quote the relevant section of the DRIs:
Dietary cholesterol and lipid cholesterol aren’t the same thing either, and just as your body can compensate for an intake of 0 cholesterol, it can likewise compensate for an intake of excess cholesterol.
It’s not clear to me yet why I should expect a cholesterol intake above 0 to have superior health outcomes to a cholesterol intake of 0. You don’t need to argue that the body can compensate for excess cholesterol; even perfect compensation would just mean that small intake is just as good as 0 intake. You need to argue that without intake, the body will produce a suboptimal amount of cholesterol. Is there any evidence of that?