The Cholesterol Controversy

Cholesterol as a Vital Molecule

Cholesterol is often vilified in popular health narratives, but biochemically it is indispensable as a structural component of every cell membrane, providing both stability and fluidity. Beyond this, cholesterol serves as the precursor for all corticosteroid hormones—including cortisol, aldosterone, and corticosterone (which regulate stress, fluid balance, immunity, and metabolism)—and the major sex hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone. It is also required for the production of vitamin D and bile acids essential for fat digestion. Far from being a toxic or dangerous substance, cholesterol is a vital part of the body’s core metabolic biochemistry.

The Case Against Cholesterol: Mainstream Medicine’s View

The conventional medical establishment has argued that elevated blood cholesterol, particularly LDL (“bad” cholesterol), is a major risk factor for atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease. This hypothesis arose in the mid-20th century, largely following the work of Ancel Keys, whose “diet-heart hypothesis” suggested that saturated fat and cholesterol intake caused heart disease. This led to decades of public health campaigns urging people to reduce dietary cholesterol and saturated fat, adopt low-fat diets, and embrace cholesterol-lowering drugs, particularly statins.

Margarine vs. Butter: Industry Influence in the Cholesterol Debate

A major driver of the “cholesterol scare” was not just medical orthodoxy, but also industry interests. Margarine was invented in 1869 by French chemist Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès as a cheap butter substitute for Napoleon III’s armies and working-class families. The version that dominated the 20th century came after German chemist Wilhelm Normann patented the process of hydrogenation in 1902. This process turned liquid vegetable oils into semi-solid fats by bubbling hydrogen gas through them in the presence of a metal catalyst. It gave margarine its familiar spreadable texture but also created partially hydrogenated oils rich in trans fats—later proven harmful to human health.

By the mid-20th century, margarine manufacturers—most prominently Unilever—repositioned their product as a health food rather than merely a low-cost butter substitute. Campaigns for brands such as Flora in Europe and Becel (its very name derived from “Blood Cholesterol-Lowering”) were built around the diet–heart hypothesis, which linked butter and animal fats with high cholesterol and heart disease. These companies poured resources into marketing and sponsorships that aligned margarine with modern, “scientifically sound” dietary advice.

This support helped cement the perception that butter was dangerous while margarine was protective. Yet here lies a profound irony: margarine of that era, based on partially hydrogenated oils, was laden with trans fats. These unnatural fats were shown not only to raise LDL cholesterol while lowering protective HDL cholesterol, but also are incorporated directly into cell membranes in place of the natural fatty acids the body normally uses. Because trans fats have a distorted chemical shape, their presence alters the fluidity and function of cell membranes. That matters enormously: cell membranes act as the body’s microscopic gatekeepers, regulating the entry of nutrients and the removal of waste products from every cell. By disrupting this delicate structure, trans fats undermined cellular health in ways far beyond cholesterol numbers.

By the 1990s and 2000s, large cohort studies such as the Nurses’ Health Study confirmed that trans fats were among the most damaging substances in the modern diet. The FDA eventually banned them in 2015, declaring them no longer “generally recognized as safe.”

Thus, while butter and its natural saturated fats were demonized for decades, the supposed “heart-healthy” alternative was in fact fueling the very disease it was promoted to prevent. This miscalculation illustrates how commercial forces, selective science, and public health campaigns converged to make cholesterol and butter into scapegoats—while trans-fat-laden margarine quietly damaged cardiovascular and cellular health alike.

The Case for Cholesterol: Natural Health Advocates’ View

Natural health advocates counter that cholesterol has been scapegoated. They point to research showing that dietary cholesterol intake has little to no effect on blood cholesterol levels for most people. The liver regulates cholesterol production tightly, increasing or decreasing synthesis depending on intake. At the same time, they emphasize that cholesterol is indispensable for the body’s own production of corticosteroid hormones, sex hormones, and a wide range of other vital biomolecules. Large-scale reviews, such as those from the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in 2015, acknowledged that “cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.”

Critics also argue that the association between cholesterol and heart disease is far weaker than presented, with many heart attack patients showing normal cholesterol levels. They emphasize the role of inflammation, oxidative stress, and refined carbohydrates in cardiovascular disease, not cholesterol per se.

Another factor in the supposed "dangers" of cholesterol is the difference between oxidized and unoxidized cholesterol. Oxidation of molecules like cholesterol occurs when subjected to very high temperatures while lower cooking temperatures are less damaging. Accordng to this view, frying an egg on a high temperature skillet might oxidize (damage) cholesterol molecules making them less able to be converted to beneficial molecules like the sex hormones or anti-inflammatory corticosteroids. Boiling eggs (poached, soft or hard boiled) might preserve the cholesterol in its natural, unaltered form and therefore be safer and healthier for the body.

Statins and Their Controversy

Statins, the most widely prescribed cholesterol-lowering drugs, are heralded by mainstream cardiology as lifesaving medications. They lower LDL cholesterol and are associated with reduced cardiovascular events in certain high-risk groups. At the same time, they have become one of the most profitable drug classes in history, generating billions of dollars annually for pharmaceutical companies. Critics argue this profitability has fueled their over-prescription, with millions of otherwise healthy people placed on statins despite questionable benefit in primary prevention.

In fact, some natural health voices cite statins as among the most dangerous classes of prescribed drugs. By lowering cholesterol synthesis, they inevitably reduce production of the downstream biomolecules that derive from cholesterol—including the body’s anti-stress and anti-inflammatory corticosteroid hormones, as well as sex hormones such as estrogen and testosterone. Reported side effects include fatigue, muscle pain, memory problems, and lowered libido, among others.

A particularly serious concern involves coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). Statins inhibit the HMG-CoA reductase pathway, which the body uses to make both cholesterol and CoQ10. CoQ10 is essential for mitochondrial energy production and is especially concentrated in the heart muscle. Statin therapy is known to significantly lower CoQ10 levels, which critics warn may paradoxically increase the risk of heart failure and heart attacks—the very conditions statins are intended to prevent.

The Origins of the “Cholesterol Myth”

The conventional food industry and pharmaceutical sector both played pivotal roles in shaping the cholesterol narrative. Flawed early studies and selective data presentation created a foundation that was easy to market: demonize cholesterol and saturated fat, while promoting low-fat processed foods and cholesterol-lowering drugs as the answer. The food industry profited from an explosion of “fat-free” and “low-cholesterol” products, while the pharmaceutical industry built statins into one of the most lucrative drug categories in history.

Natural health authors such as Uffe Ravnskov and Malcolm Kendrick have argued that cholesterol was made into a “bugaboo” despite its essential roles, the victim of a simplistic medical hypothesis amplified by powerful commercial interests.

‍