I am also in this field. A low LDL-C per se, independent of all dietary and lifestyle factors, reduces risk of coronary heart disease. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16554528 "<130 is generally considered to be good." No. Once LDL-C passes 75 mg/dl there is a linear relationship for the acceleration of atherosclerosis. https://www.docdroid.net/phVPODB/01cir00001036644740649.pdf "Used to be a time in history where we thought that increasing our consumption of DIETARY cholesterol (e.g. eggs) increased BLOOD cholesterol, which we now know is a very weak link." Very false. The relationship isn't linear. If someone is already eating dietary cholesterol, then adds more, little change is seen in the serum. If someone isn't consuming cholesterol, THEN adds cholesterol to the diet, dramatic change is seen in the serum. https://www.docdroid.net/8wHNh57/cholesterol-curve.pdf Researchers have known since the 1970s that the only “appropriate design for demonstrating or refuting diet and coronary heart disease incidence is a dietary experiment.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/313701 https://www.docdroid.net/9zeKYqE/confusion-about-dietary-fatty-acids-recommendations-for-chd-prevention.pdf So when the appropriate study design is done, dietary cholesterol does impact serum cholesterol https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9006469 But, we see recent papers like this one: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/107/6/921/4992612 that uses an inappropriate study design to conclude that eggs are healthy. The inappropriate study design is epidemiological studies, which don't control for enough factors (e.g. baseline cholesterol)