A groundbreaking study shows that it’s not the cholesterol in eggs, but saturated fat in other foods, that raises the risk of heart disease.
Whether you prefer them poached, scrambled, or pan-fried, eggs are back on the menu. A new study from the University of South Australia has found that enjoying eggs for breakfast won’t harm your cholesterol levels as previously thought.
For years, eggs have carried a reputation for raising cholesterol and increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, researchers at UniSA have now demonstrated that the real concern isn’t the cholesterol found in eggs, but the saturated fat commonly found in other parts of our diet.
In what is considered a world-first investigation, scientists studied how dietary cholesterol and saturated fat each affect levels of LDL cholesterol (commonly known as the “bad” cholesterol). They discovered that consuming two eggs daily, when included in a diet high in cholesterol but low in saturated fat, may actually reduce LDL cholesterol and help protect against heart disease.
Cardiovascular disease remains the number one cause of death globally, responsible for close to 18 million fatalities every year. In Australia alone, CVD claims a life every 12 minutes and is the cause of one in every four deaths nationwide.
Rethinking Eggs in a Healthy Diet
Lead researcher, UniSA’s Professor Jon Buckley, says it’s time to rethink the reputation of eggs.
“Eggs have long been unfairly cracked by outdated dietary advice,” Prof Buckley says.
“They’re unique – high in cholesterol, yes, but low in saturated fat. Yet it’s their cholesterol level that has often caused people to question their place in a healthy diet.
“In this study, we separated the effects of cholesterol and saturated fat, finding that high dietary cholesterol from eggs, when eaten as part of a low saturated fat diet, does not raise bad cholesterol levels.
“Instead, it was the saturated fat that was the real driver of cholesterol elevation.
“You could say we’ve delivered hard-boiled evidence in defence of the humble egg.
“So, when it comes to a cooked breakfast, it’s not the eggs you need to worry about – it’s the extra serve of bacon or the side of sausage that’s more likely to impact your heart health.”
Reference: “Impact of dietary cholesterol from eggs and saturated fat on LDL cholesterol levels: a randomized cross-over study” by Sharayah Carter, Alison M Hill, Catherine Yandell, Lisa Wood, Alison M Coates and Jonathan D Buckley, 6 May 2025, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.05.001
The study was funded by the Egg Nutrition Center.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
9 Comments
The most important sentence of the article is at the end: “The study was funded by the Egg Nutrition Center”
Shame on you University of South Australia for polluting science by allowing clear opportunity for bias. You debase science more than even the conspiracy theorists and science deniers.
Opportunity is NOT the same as acting on opportunity. It certainly raises a red flag to be more cautious and skeptical than one might be otherwise (one should always be skeptical), but it is NOT evidence that the results have been corrupted by the source of the funding. It is the function of publication to provide the results to peers in the discipline to either find a logical mistake, or find that the claims can’t be replicated. Have you done either? The University of Australia and the American Journal of Nutrition both have reputations to protect; therefore, they have a vested interest in insuring that the researchers were objective. Someone who is upfront about potential conflicts of interest are more likely to be unbiased than someone with an undeclared hidden agenda, which seems to be all too common in climatology.
Shame on you AG3 for assuming the worst without any evidence to support your assumption. It is you who is debasing science by denying the results are valid without any evidence. Implicit is your assumption that people are incapable of resisting temptation and will always succumb to a temptation. It leads me to believe that you don’t understand how the Scientific Method works. Post-publication peer review is the necessary validation, not the personal opinion of some pundit who rejects things out of hand because of the funding source or their personal opinion of the publisher. There is no silver-lining in the Ag+3 cloud.
“financial support was provided by Egg Nutrition Center. ”
Every study ever published that shows eggs are not dangerous has this “harmless” conflict of interest.
Every study that is truly independent shows eggs increase mortality.
That’s all you need to know.
Genetics, laziness, cigarettes, sugar and processed carbs do it. Work out. Be from a good blood line. No tobacco and hope for the best. All this nitpicking about one bad actor or another, eggs, meat, is nonsense. I eat eggs, steak, whiskey, cheese and I love olive oil. I take numerous botanical substances and I drink a lot of coffee. I’m 62, I have low blood pressure and I’m strong as an ox. If I went to a doctor I’m sure they’d find some reason to pill me up, and those pills would kill me.
Another report that brings the word ‘groundbreaking’ into disrepute. Many more of these and civilisation will be in danger of foundering under the overwhelming weight of so many groundbreaking studies.
First they are harmful, then they’re not…same as coffee.
Anyone that believes eggs are harmful deserves the health reprocussions from it.
Did anyone READ THE PAPER?
Eating eggs increased the amount of small LDL. That alone warrants more research. Total LDL for most people is less important than their LDL profile – having large LDL is better than having lots of small dense LDL.
Science writers have become WAY too lazy.
“This work was funded by the Egg Nutrition Center, a division of the American Egg Board.”
What more do you need to know? ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Shame on you for promoting industry funded pseudoscience.