Cholesterol: friend or foe?
Q. Everything I read says that salmon, tuna and other oily fish are good foods for lowering cholesterol. But on Nutrition Data, you note the high cholesterol content of these foods as "the bad." Is everyone else misguided?
A. I'm afraid you've put your finger on something that's been bothering me lately. You're absolutely right: Salmon and other oily fish are touted as good foods for reducing cholesterol because they are high in omega-3 fatty acids, which can help lower cholesterol levels. They also happen to be high in cholesterol, a nutrient that the USDA recommends we limit our consumption of.
In the ND opinion box, we summarize the nutritional highlights of foods. If a food is a good or very good source of a nutrient such as vitamin C or selenium, we list that under "the good." If a food is high in cholesterol, sodium, saturated fats, or trans fats--nutrients that the USDA considers to be dangerous when overconsumed----we list that under "the bad."
Here, for example, is what you'll see for Wild Salmon:
But you are not the first to question whether cholesterol really belongs under The Bad. After all, dietary cholesterol is no longer considered to be the villain in high cholesterol levels, as I discussed in this blog post. And as you've pointed out, many foods that are high in cholesterol are actually very rich in other heart-healthy nutrients.
I personally think that the USDA and the American Heart Association should rethink their recommendations on dietary cholesterol. But these wheels turn slowly. In the meantime, like you, I am also bothered by the fact that cholesterol content is listed as "The bad" on Nutrition Data. I've been thinking it may be time for us to adjust our nomenclature.
Because many people still want to monitor their intake of cholesterol, sodium, or saturated fat, I still think it makes sense to note when foods are high or low in these nutrients. But perhaps we could modify the labels to be more neutral. Instead of "The Bad," perhaps we could list these nutrients simply as "Of Note."
I'd love to know your thoughts. Do you find the "Good" and "Bad" summaries useful? Should we label them something else?
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Getting kids to eat veggies: Should you trick them? | | Nutrition Data Blog | | Basil a good source of protein? Not really. |
Posted by: Tammy | Oct 30, 2008 3:46:49 AM
I have a simple query about cholesterol: About 5 years ago, I had a check-up which included measuring my cholesterol level: it was 'very low'. It was measured again last year and the level was exactly the same, but this time it was 'high'.
Why did they change the goalposts?
And,should I really be worried about that ?- I'm nearly 70.
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 31, 2008 9:14:25 PM
Considering the fact that your body produces the cholesterol that it needs, seems rather foolish to ingest more than you need. Not sure what studies you're read but the ones I've read talk about the hazards of eggs and shrimp in general.
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 31, 2008 9:12:37 PM
Considering the fact that your body produces the cholesterol that it needs, seems rather foolish to ingest more than you need. Not sure what studies you're read but the ones I've read talk about the hazards of eggs and shrimp in general.
Posted by: petronio cesar | Aug 30, 2008 7:48:58 PM
I have eaten 36 eggs/week since last year and 2.4 g of omega3,I swim 10 miles/week.I feel great with my blood.I am Nutritionist and Physical Education teacher in Brazil.When I eat 3 ounces of meat,I eat less 2 eggs.I intend to give a chance for eggs again.When It was considered good,I was not born!!!
Posted by: Margaret Moss | Aug 29, 2008 12:44:49 PM
What matters is not how much cholesterol we eat, but whether the cholesterol in the blood is glycated. Glycation is the addition of sugar. Galactose from milk is a particularly harmful glycator, followed by fructose. Glucose is not as bad. Once cholesterol is glycated, it becomes oxidised, and that is where the problem arises. For health, eat lots of vegetables for fibre, vitamins and minerals; plenty of fish for omega three fats, but only the less polluted types; hard cheese, as that has had the galactose squeezed out of it; only a little sweet fruit; only a little omega six fat that has not been exposed to high temperatures; no sweet juices; no hydrogenated oil; no milk; no sugar; no additives.
Most of us can control our cholesterol. If we have a lot in the diet, we reduce the rate at which we absorb it, and reduce our own production. A few people have familial hypercholesterolaemia, and cannot control their absorption and production. They are like rabbits. This small group needs to bother about cholesterol in the diet,but not the rest of us.
Posted by: Family Nutritionist | Aug 26, 2008 7:18:26 PM
Good, Bad, and debatable. That's a good one!
Posted by: rrewth | Aug 25, 2008 6:38:26 PM
i agree with taking cholesterol of the "bad" list - and while you're at it would you please do something to highlight the fact that while cod liver oil is a fish oil, not all fish oils are cod liver oil. I take cod liver oil for the Vit A and D and have recommended it to others, many of whom tell me they are already taking it. When I enquire further I find they are not taking cod liver oil but fish oil and they are unaware that this doesn't contain the Vit A and D of cod liver oil.
Posted by: Victoria | Aug 25, 2008 5:33:03 PM
I find the "Good" and the "Bad" summaries useful. I think that maybe cholesterol should be taken off the bad list but saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, and sugars should stay.
Posted by: Bud | Aug 25, 2008 4:29:34 PM
From some studies I have seen and read from some major universities (I am not trying to be cryptic I just don't remember which off the top of my head) that almost half of people who die from atheroslerosis have normal cholestorol levels. Also a large percentage with high cholestorol live to a ripe old age. the studies I have seen seem to indicate triglycerides and inflammation as culprits. Also there is a study that indicates that if your total cholestorol is below 162 you are four times as likely to develope colon cancer. To much info can be confusing. The thing that raises triglycerides I think are sugar and carbs. Please correct if I am wrong.
Posted by: Trish | Aug 25, 2008 1:35:49 PM
I like the good and I'm not sure I dislike the bad, when the foods are really bad (loaded with saturated fat, trans fat and/or sodium). Is there room for Good/Bad and Of Note or is that overkill?
Posted by: Sam Hartman | Aug 14, 2008 12:42:54 AM
Yeah, it should really be "Of Note" - if you and ND are going to be on top of the latest Nutrition research then you need to ditch what the USDA is telling you; how many times have they mislead us before? Dietary fat, cholesterol probably aren't as evil as we think.
Posted by: Family Nutritionist | Aug 12, 2008 3:36:30 PM
And, since Wild Salmon has such a great omega-3/omega-6 ratio, and a nice big dose of omega-3, wouldn't it be nice to see that in the "the good" box?
Posted by: Family Nutritionist | Aug 12, 2008 3:33:21 PM
Monica, I think you may be right to update the recommendations to reflect the most current information. "What causes heart disease" is a really confusing subject.
Aren't high-fat, high-glycemic index diets implicated in both type II diabetes and heart disease? What can nutritiondata.com do to help users spot foods that will help them change their diets in ways that reduce risk?
Posted by: Chuck | Aug 12, 2008 11:44:56 AM
Monica - I'm also a little bit concerned about the inflammation factor on some of the foods.
Sure a little bit of olive oil is great for anti-inflammation, But If I'm doing Eco-Atkins, and start taking in 1000 calories a day of almonds/olive oil, My omega 6's are going to be at more then 14g's a day. Wouldn't at this rate that much olive oil/almonds actually switch over to being inflammatory instead of anti-inflammator?
Posted by: lily_pads90 | Aug 12, 2008 6:36:35 AM
@jj - yes, there is junk food everywhere. But countries like the US and Canada have exceptionally high rates of disease by almost any standard. "Healthy parts of the world" could refer to any country with lower rates of disease than us.
Posted by: jj | Aug 12, 2008 1:18:03 AM
Where are these "healthy" parts of the world anyway? In all cultures, there are high fat or high sugar foods, but it all depends on the individual on whether to consume them or not. Broad generalizations don't help. I agree a change to "Of Note" instead of "bad," would be more informative to people to be alert to information, rather than to judge it or feel bad about themselves because they happened to eat 2 eggs that week. In moderation, it's harmless. 4 eggs a day everyday, that's a different story.
Posted by: lily_pads90 | Aug 11, 2008 10:43:12 AM
Monica, I think there's more to this whole cholesterol story that meets the eye. It's true that dietary cholesterol does not seem to be directly related to blood cholesterol levels, but that does not necessarily mean that there isn't any danger whatsoever in over-consuming cholesterol? Blood cholesterol is not the be all and end all of health.
Keep in mind that our bodies make all the cholesterol we need, and that any cholesterol we get from diet is therefore unnecessary.
@jonathan: If I understood you correctly, you're saying that genes are more relevant to cholesterol levels than diet? If so, I would have to strongly disagree. Everyone in my family has high cholesterol, yet my total is 135. Also, when people from "healthy" parts of the world move to North America and adopt our diet, they start getting disease at the same rate as us.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 11, 2008 10:36:23 AM
Labeling "good" or "bad" implies an absolute value judgment. For most aspects of nutrition, the good/bad remains a matter of scientific debate, and is often conditioned on other aspects of health. I would agree that just noting that some ingredients of common interest are high/low is a better strategy. It would be cool if this could be individually customized, e.g. I could put total carbohydrates as something I always want summarized.
