Slashdot Mirror
Three or More Eggs a Week Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease and Early Death, Study Says (cnn.com)
It's been debated for years: Are eggs good or bad for you? People who eat an added three or four eggs a week or 300 milligrams of dietary cholesterol per day, have a higher risk of both heart disease and early death compared with those who eat fewer eggs, new research finds. From a report: "Eggs, specially the yolk, are a major source of dietary cholesterol," wrote Victor Zhong, lead study author and a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. In a study published this month in the medical journal JAMA, he and his colleagues noted that a single large egg contains about 186 milligrams of cholesterol. The researchers examined data from six US study groups including more than 29,000 people followed for 17 and a half years on average. Over the follow-up period, a total of 5,400 cardiovascular events occurred, including 1,302 fatal and nonfatal strokes, 1,897 incidents of fatal and nonfatal heart failure and 113 other heart disease deaths. An additional 6,132 participants died of other causes. Consuming an additional 300 milligrams of dietary cholesterol per day was associated with a 3.2% higher risk of heart disease and a 4.4% higher risk of early death, Zhong's analysis of the data showed. And each additional half an egg consumed per day was associated with a 1.1% higher risk of cardiovascular disease and 1.9% higher risk of early death due to any cause, the researchers found.
Wait a week, there will be new advice.
After all these years with conflicting nutrition advice, I've come to the conclusion that we have no idea what we're talking about when it comes to the human body. Sure; we're pretty sure about the big things, but the details still throw us.
Avoid the processed crap, get some exercise...that's pretty much the best you can do.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
this is what the chickens would have us believe.
In my 43 years eggs have gone from:
1. Healthy
2. Terrible. They will kill you!
3. Maybe not so bad, cholesterol intake isn't what causes high cholesteral.
4. Terrible! Three or more a week will kill you!
Also dietary advice has gone from.
1. Fat is good for you! Drink whole milk!
2. Fat is the devil! Eat rice cakes.
3. Actually, forget that last part. Carbs are the real problem.
4. Well, if you eat fat you might lose weight but have a sick heart.
5. The FDA food pyramid is for raising livestock! Eat real food.
6. No carbs! Keto baby!
What the hell are we supposed to do with this information? Seriously! No wonder there is such a distrust of experts in the USA!
Eggs are bad, Mmmmkay?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
"People who eat an added three or four eggs a week or 300 milligrams of dietary cholesterol per day" "a single large egg contains about 186 milligrams of cholesterol" So, if a single egg contains 186 mg of cholesterol, how does three or four eggs a week add up to 300 mg per day???
No, there is never new advice. The advice is always the same; eat a traditional diet with lots of fruits, vegetables, fiber, and whole grains, limit sugars, fats, and highly processed foods.
The study is being misrepresented in the media to focus on eggs, even though it looked at total cholesterol not eggs. They're taking numbers for cholesterol, telling you how many eggs they think that is equivalent to, and then using wording that tricks the media into saying "eggs" in the headlines. This isn't even about eggs. And it contradicts a lot of past research. And it is based on what people report about their eating habits, which is not even scientific.
It may be, for example, that people who eat more than 1lb of breakfast sausage per week tend to under-report it. It may also be true that people who report eating 2 or more eggs per day are more likely to eat breakfast sausage. There is all sorts of problems like this when you go by what people report that they ate.
From everything you read about nutritional research, it's important to remember that unlike nearly all areas of science, they perform no actual rigorous research on this. Instead, it's meta-analysis of self-reported data that hunts and seeks patterns (instead of coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it).
In many cases, it's meta-analysis of meta-analyses.
In none of the nutritional research studies presented do they create control groups where they accurately measure and monitor all food consumed and report it over a lifetime. It's just nearly impossible. So instead, any sort of nutritional results get completely caught up with household income, other food being eaten, genetic predisposition and just plain garbage data.
Perhaps people who eat 2+ eggs per day are having them via egg sandwiches with bacon, cheese and white bread while sipping coffee. The actual causes could be those other things (bacon, cheese, coffee) rather than the eggs themselves.
Not that big of a fan of eggs anyway.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
It might be in the study but it's in none of the news reports. Hard-boiled? In omelette with sausage and bacon? As a "breakfast sandwich" from McDonald's. This would seem to be a huge factor. Also is it actually the eggs or some common cause? I don't expect much from news media but for a /. story, I'd like to see some of this answered.
People who care about not eating too many eggs just care about what they are eating... The other group just does not. So, the results of the study should read: "If you do not care about what and how much you are eating you have 4% chance of earlier death." Simple. Stop blaming the eggs!
Just take a choline supplement instead. It's the only valuable nutrient that is unique to eggs (though shrimp have it too). Everything else in eggs you can easily get from healthier and (IMO) tastier sources.
Or....eat eggs. You only live once.
They probably feel the same about your round retarded ass too.
That would mean I am over 100% likely to die of egg, I suppose.
Did he study egg whites vs egg yolks?
Sounds like jibber jabber to me.
This is what itâ(TM)s like when worlds collide.
I think it's important to note that this study had a 21% death rate, that implies the participates where older individuals. Looking at the actual study, it says that the mean age at the start of the trial was 51.6 years old. The median study follow-up was 17.5 years, so the mean age at the end of the study was 69.1 years old.
While this study is indeed interesting, I would like to see another study involving healthy young and middle aged adults.
"People who eat an added three or four eggs a week or 300 milligrams..."
Is this added eggs in the same way we talk about added sugar? As in, it's fine for me to cook up some eggs and eat them, just like it's fine to eat an apple (which does naturally contain sugar), but when we're adding them to other foods, there's a problem?
I'm active in the gym so hopefully it counters.
A few years ago I was listening to a lecture on TED (can't remember which) by a neuroscientist. He said when you hear about a study reported in the press, ignore it because it's wrong.
For example, years ago people were buying Mozart CDs for their babies and it turned out to be nothing. The trouble with our science reporting is that these studies come out and are hyped beyond belief. People make lifestyle changes and it turns out it was for nothing and in some cases detrimental.
On the other hand, if making lifestyle changes makes your life and the world a better place, then by all means do it regardless of the science - like global warming. Doing what we can to reduce global warming only has an upside and no downsides - unless one insists on subsidizing coal miners and the fossil fuel industry. Oh, and the rednecks who like internal combustion engines that spew black smoke to "stick it to the libs" or whatever it is they think they are doing in their little worlds.
This is looking at previous studies, not new studies. Plus, they're mostly surveys, filled out typically one time (that's once, not per year, or month, or even decade), then extrapolated over the study period. Tell me, how many eggs did you eat a year ago? How about 10 years ago? Has your diet changed since then? Or been anything close to consistent for a significant period of time? There have already been many learned people condemning this "research". It's just another attempt by big food and big pharma to discredit what they see as a threat to their bottom line. In this case, it's low carb/LCHF/Keto/Atkins. They did this before when Atkins was gaining traction in the 70s and 80s, when their millions could flood the media and there was no recourse for their target, being much less well funded. The internet is helping to level the playing field this time. Hopefully.
Scientists Continue Waffling on Eggs
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
"Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for someone to do a study on the impact of Nutella and Pop-Tarts on our kids health. But no, it’s always meat and eggs. Wonder why?"
https://twitter.com/MadPharmacist1/status/1108037690241531904
The actual study is paywalled.
It would seem to make a huge difference what eggs are eaten with, as they usually are consumed with other foods - you'd hope they would have controlled for that...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Your response is off-topic and you seem utterly deranged, without speaking to the topic you're trying to bring up.
If they weren't, the news would say "People who eat 3+ eggs a week also have higher risk of heart disease, but association w/ eggs disappears when controlling for other cholesterol intake."
See https://twitter.com/juliaonjob... for context.
"Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
Nutritional scientists keep trying to run correlation/population studies with these "controversial" foods.
How 'bout this:
- Gather a small group of people. Split into two groups.
- Take blood samples.
- Feed "group A" an egg. Feed "group B" no-cholesterol egg substitute.
- Wait an hour.
- Take blood samples
- Wait another hour
- Take blood samples
- Wait 4 hours
- Take blood samples
- Thank the subjects for their time
Now, go take your samples to a lab and measure serum cholesterol levels. You now have some pretty good evidence of what this controversial food does to serum blood cholesterol.
The fact that these population studies keep being the ones that are published and PR-ed into widespread coverage would seem to indicate this simple experiment doesn't reveal anything particularly interesting. Thus indicating there isn't a direct link, and that egg consumption is really correlating with something else like lack of exercise.
well, I guess it's just meringues for me from now on. On a more serious side note it would be interesting to see a similar study on subjects outside of the U.S. Say South America or areas of Asia and Europe where eggs are a staple breakfast food.
First of all, the idea that *dietary cholesterol* influences *blood cholesterol* is a fake. Blood cholesterol is produced by the liver from sugar.
Second, there are eggs and eggs. Those made by chickens stored in the dark along with their millions of other friends in the same warehouse, and that are fed with (GMO) corn-based food, will contain high levels of omega-6. That's what creates inflammation, and heart-related problems. I'd be curious to find studies on participants eating organic or omega-3 enriched eggs.
That 3.2/4.4% difference, if it is statistically significant, maybe measures how consumer habits are correlation: those living an unhealthy lifestyle (eating more sugar, processed food) might be more likely to buy low quality eggs. Maybe it has to do with how wealthy participants are?
This has got to be bogus.
I eat at least a dozen eggs a week and I get a blood test every year.
My LDL is 80 and my HDL 55 as per my last test.
Eggs aren't doing anything to my cholesterol...
He lived to be 93, and was still riding a motorcycle from Washington State to Kansas at 91. He had two fried eggs, bacon or ham and toast with real butter every day for most of his life. He also rolled his own smokes for 66 years too, which is really what did him in. Otherwise I'm sure he would have made it to 100 and beyond.
I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
Consuming an additional 300 milligrams of dietary cholesterol per day was associated with a 3.2% higher risk of heart disease and a 4.4% higher risk of early death, Zhong's analysis of the data showed. And each additional half an egg consumed per day was associated with a 1.1% higher risk of cardiovascular disease and 1.9% higher risk of early death due to any cause, the researchers found.
Let's give the researcher the benefit of the doubt, and assume there is a real statistical association here. Hell, let's make a big assumption this is CAUSAL, and not just a fluke.
The headline really should read "Eggs a negligible risk factor for heart disease". Seriously, who cares about an additional 3% risk? If my chances of dying of a heart attack went from 10% to 10.3%, should I really care? In reality, it's GOOD news, not bad news. Eggs not serious risk factors!
Real increased risks are things like smoking. Non-Smokers have about a 1% chance lifetime risk of lung cancer. Smokers have about a 17% lifetime risk. That's a 1700% increase! But telling people not to smoke isn't news. Putting these risks into perspective is a much better way of thinking of living with them, however.
There are two kinds of cholesterols depending on the kind of cholesterol containers (lipoproteins) is cholesterol transported in: LDL (low-density lipoprotein), sometimes called “bad” cholesterol and HDL (high-density lipoprotein), or “good” cholesterol. Lipoproteins' walls, as you can guess from the name, are made of proteins. When your diet lacks proteins or has too much cholesterol compared to proteins, then your organism produces more low-density lipoproteins (LDL) which have greater capacity but much thinner walls. This is when the atherosclerosis starts. But when your diet contains enough proteins you'll be fine. Eggs have very high biological protein value among natural products and that amount of protein is much more than enough to compensate the cholesterol. This study might have methodological flaws since many other studies didn't show such findings, some even showed the opposite.
The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, "Well, I just ate the eggs!" So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I'm really fucked! Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're good, the whites are good, the yellows - make up your mind! It's breakfast I've gotta eat!
Lewis Black, The White Album
Did not RTFA, but a piece in the NY Times a few weeks ago talked about how the recollections and dietary logs of food study participants are unreliable. Studies rely on participants keeping a journal of everything they eat, over long periods of time. The accuracy of the study is only as accurate as the recollections and journal entries of those who are eating.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Everything in moderation; nothing in excess.
Everything is going to kill you nowadays, might as well enjoy it.
This is one of many examples of the media taking a study and trumpeting grand conclusions that aren't supported by the data, or if they are, ignoring contradictory studies and potentially confounding variables (which might well have been discussed at length in the actual study). The problem isn't so much that these meta-analyses are being done- they might well be worthwhile to read for scientists looking for additional research topics, but the fact that they are being reported as if the grand council of science has weighed the evidence and come to a final definitive conclusion. This tends to undermine public trust in science. Worse, you see it in reporters who supposedly focus on science reporting. The problem is the media is in the business of attracting eyeballs, and an accurate report about one of these meta-analysis studies wouldn't attract many.
Say it with me.
Correlation is not causation.
Correlation is not causation.
Correlation is not causation.
Unless the study SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIES EGGS AS THE CAUSE, and the particular METHOD by which it causes the condition, there is no CAUSATION.
This is akin to saying that breathing oxygen 7 days a week increases your risk of heart disease because you haven't *died* from other causes. Try again.
These are state actor trolls shitstirring. Slashdot should do more about it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"Eggs, specially the yolk, are a major source of dietary cholesterol,"
so? Dietary cholesterol isn't the cause of heart heart desease. It's like saying: ban fire trucks, at every fire we see fire trucks, so they must be responsible for the fires.
The study probably has problems with confounding factors: People who eat many eggs, ignoring dieteay advice, tend ot ignore other advice (like exercise, don't smoke and so on), which is the real reason for their higher/earlier death and disease events. This is just a guess, though. Didn't look.
The dietary heart hypothesis has been debunked. It was fake news by the seed oil industry. Read Nina Teichholz.
"Everything in moderation, including moderation." - Oscar Wilde
Frank covered these recent studies, which would be laughable except people will die because of this horrible science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDNiFJbnd_E
This morning I woke up and found out I wasn't live.
... just read "The Great Cholesterol Con" by Dr Malcolm Kendrick. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/...
Although it's sufficient to know that, long before his death, Ancel Keys, who was responsible for the whole "cholesterol" scare, had placed on record his considered opinion that:
1. Dietary cholesterol has no effect on blood cholesterol.
2. Blood cholesterol has no effect on mortality or cardio-vascular disease.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
This is CNN so you have to invert the information.
"People who eat an added three or four eggs . . ."
Added to what? More eggs? Susan Scutti, CNN writer needs a grammar review, but the report is much worse than that:
Dietary cholesterol is largely unrelated to cholesterol circulating in the body. Many of us can eat cholesterol till it's coming out our ears and have no problem. But some people's bodies insist upon having high cholesterol, even if they eat very little. This should have been known by every health worker in the last decade or two.
...omphaloskepsis often...
They probably feel the same about your round retarded ass too.
Whoah there buddy, why the hate?
This isn't a scientific . One uses observational studies to develop hypotheses which can then be tested for verity by constructing controlled experiments where countervailing factors can be eliminated.
What you have here is someone stating authoritatively conclusions arrived at by doing 10% of the work of a scientist and then saying to themselves, "Well a controlled experiment with all other environmental influences removed on a large enough population would be too expensive or unethical, so I'll just stop here and get a bunch of headlines with statistics... because statistics don't lie!."
People who are health conscious have been avoiding eggs for decades now, whether or not that is good advice. People who are health conscious and avoid eggs also probably more likely to avoid smoking or drinking to excess, go to yoga/run/bike, keep a trimmer waist than people who do eat eggs.
I wonder how that might skew the study. You should too.
Suck it.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I'm having spam spam spam eggs and spam.
You can't increase cholesterol by eating it. Eggs have no impact on your cholesterol level. We've known that for over a decade.
One study seemingly contradicting decades of research isn't significant. Show me the evidence and the significance level.
Cholesterol is produced by the body, it cannot be absorbed in any significant amount.
Odds are, what they're seeing is a correlation between some unhealthy breakfasts and other unhealthy behaviours linked to high bad cholesterol.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
that the observed circulating cholesterol is cholesterol that was introduced via the digestive system and not cholesterol produced by the liver? Are we saying that cholesterol (a specific type of fat) is absorbed and circulates intact (ie, that it is not metabolised)? Was the digested cholesterol radio tagged?
If that is the case, then why do statins inhibit the liver pathways that produce cholesterol from raw ingredients? Would it not be better to have a drug that prevents the intact cholesterol from being absorbed directly?
I do not understand ... and I do not think the doctor dingus does either.
Repeat after me: "dietary cholesterol has no statistically significant effect on serum cholesterol." Take your bullshit study and shove it. "Doctor" (scare quotes because he had a doctorate but was turbo full of shit) Ancel Keys could almost single-handedly be blamed for the abysmal state of the American diet today. All evidence presented since Ancel Keys's time show that eggs are one of the absolute best things you can possibly consume, especially the yolk. I'm so sick of this bullshit. Saturated fats are good for you, unsaturated fats are not so good for you, eggs are extremely good for you, red meat is extremely good for you, simple sugars and refined carbohydrates are the worst thing you can eat, carbs in general are only good for you in small, limited amounts, and low-fat foods have poor satiety which leads to overeating (ignoring the fact that many low-fat foods have added sugar to make up for the lost taste.)
Any study that says eggs will kill you faster is pulling a big fat "correlation = causation" fallacy. My best guess is that the guys who died earlier and ate more eggs also ate a lot more biscuits and cereal and extra slices of toast with jelly, but hey now, let's not control for THAT shit, guys, we're ONLY interested in a headline. They even say in the damn study that they cobbled together piles of data from six different places that were collected starting from 1985, but I have no way of discovering how that data was collected or what it contained or what they controlled for because the actual study text is locked up behind a fucking paywall like so much science seems to be.
Eggs are good for you, especially if you have Type 2 diabetes. It's low carb. If you are on the Keto diet eggs are a major ingredient to many recipes. I control my glucose level with diet, excercise, and intermittent fasting. The meds will mess you up. I can count on an omelette, hard boiled, scrambled, or deviled eggs not spiking me. My cholesterol is perfect, my glucose well... it's a struggle to keep it under 140mg/l without meds. I'd rather have it a little high, than perfect with the meds because the meds have serious side effects.
is it news for nerds - no
is it stuff that matters - no
is it even news? - no.
USA, one of the least healthiest western countries and you do a health study on one type of ingredient?
pop ate 3 eggs a day for 80 years, more or less, and that was just breakfast. Not counting enormous amounts of baked goods. He died at 94
I'm retired, work out 3 days a week, I eat cereal those days (fast, cheap, and don't sit in my gut FTW). Saturdays I hang with a group of old farts, we usually end up eating breakfast together. I alternate between an omelette and a burger. The other 3 days? 2 egg omelettes. Colorado, asparagus and feta, shrimp, mushroom and cheese, whatever. I cycle around them. I also sometimes get into poached, fried, or scrambled eggs.
In other words, in my mind my choice is either packaged cereal (fast, cheap), or eggs (slower, tastier, healthier, less cheap). Oatmeal Only way I can eat it is with more sugar than my cereal has. Fruit? Sorry skinny puppies, not filling. Other options? Love to hear them, cuz at 60 I'm tired of the whole eggs/cereal routine.
Another point to consider. I can eat a bowl of cereal 30 minutes before class and I'm good. Same thing with eggs 90 minutes before class? Every move I make I feel that breakfast working it's way down my gut.
The methodology of the study is garbage and useless for drawing any kind of conclusion. It combines the answers of 6 self-selecting and self-reporting studies of food polls with very poorly written multiple-choice answers that are not reflective of many ways of measuring food intake. It then looks for correlations to support a conclusion the researchers were already looking for, and ignores any other data.
And the reporters on this are parroting each other like good little idiots. Instead of actually being educated enough to look at the study, understand how the scientific method works, and realize this study is trash, they just read the study and nod and drool, type up a piece that also sounds science-ish but really isn't, and publish it hoping it makes enough numbers they don't get fired this week.
Not a guaranteed death, but if you keep telling me what to eat, you may be risking an early death.
Look, the last person I'm going to listen to is some journalist nitwit that is currently telling me that Venezuela's population is in revolt against Maduro and that Assad has been gassing his civilian population for fun for the last 10 years.
Where's the paper?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Now, if you could only learn to spell "triple."
Were they eating bacon with those eggs?
it's just that with the 24/hr news cycle the papers report preliminary surveys as though they're research. See here
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This much larger study reported in the British Medical Journal reported that "Higher consumption of eggs (up to one egg per day) is not associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease or stroke." The data in the study reported on here don't appear to change this overall result.
What if a person smokes enough pot every day to kill a horse? What does that do?
Nobody gets out of here alive.
Dietary cholesterol has nothing to do with raising cholesterol in the bloodstream. Zero. Nothing. Nada.
BTW, bloodstream cholesterol is a protective outcome. It is good when your body needs it. The root causes is what needs to be solved.
All of this has been proven by other studies, using control groups, not just looking through other study's data.
After decades of reviewing these studies, I've come to the conclusion that the FDA and all its goofy studies are a bunch of bupkus. :P
the only truth is the bible.
They have no idea what these people are actually doing in their lives to affect their health. This so called study was about as accurate as an internet survey.
Hell if I vigorously jerk off twice a day and like to drink energy drinks I have a greater increase than what their so called study found in terms of cardiovascular causes of morbidity. Pretty sure most people will lie about habits like that.
The body needs cholesterol to make testosterone.
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
Most research into diet involves Medical Reductionism, which means the study changes some one thing in the diet and measures what happens. But that's irrelevant (as a way to measure things) because only a substantial change in the diet is actually meaningful. Read the works by doctors Steven Gundry ("Plant Paradox") and David Perl mutter ("The Grain Brain") to understand a meaningful change and read T Colin Campbell ("The China Study" to understand the pernicious effect of medical reductionism. There has been much meaningful research done since 2000, but since the best recommendations involve a serious diet change and *no* drugs lots of researchers and doctors are not interested.
"Eggs, specially the yolk, are a major source of dietary cholesterol,"
It is the yoke. All of the cholesterol is in the yoke, as it is fat soluble, and the white contains no fat. This whole piece should be specifically talking about "egg yokes", the whites are fine.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
We should stop eating, drinking, breathing, etc.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The liver produces upwards of 1-2 g/day of cholesterol on its own, quite a bit more than the cholesterol in a few a couple eggs.
What's probably more interesting here is the oil used to cook these eggs. Things like canola oil and vegetable oil are high in Omega-6 and are inflammatory in the body.
I wouldn't be surprised if the actual culprit here was the fairly unnatural oils the eggs were cooked in.
This keeps going back and forth it is completely ridiculous. I have read studies over and over that say if you eat the WHOLE egg it is a perfect balance and very healthy for you. The egg is only harmful if you eat only the whites or only the yoke. So which is it? Today it is bad next week it will be healthy. .... Oh yeah were are we at with coffee?? Bad or Good?
Everything in moderation; nothing in excess.
How many cigarettes/day is a moderate amount for a 6 year old ?
Sigh..life is over.
What about all those fitness freaks out there, who dies prematurely.
Doctors claimed it was the roids causing heart damage, and now it clearly shows it is chick yolk!
It is a proven fact that every single person who has ever consumed as little as 1 gram of Tofu has either dies, or is going to die, and very many of them will die decades younger than their life expectancy.
"Studies" are the new "appeal to Authority" fallacy. Everywhere one looks, people can now be seen advancing all sorts of ideas and justifying them by pointing to some "study". The problem is made even worse by the fact that so many of the ofc-cited and over-hyped studies are themselves bad causation-correllation fallacies wrapped in academic paper lingo.
Protein intakte*without* *exercise* may increase risk, but that's due to getting extra fat, not due to eggs.
That's like saying jumping in front of a red truck will kill you so avoid those and choose the blue ones.
Eggs are a perfect source of nutrition if you're on a diet and want to lose weight. Three trick is to make that one egg a day your only meal and then get moving.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
correlation does not imply causation. Most likely they did not look at all the other dietary causes. Don't do statistict unless you've actually studied it at a higher level.
I have given up on all the “advice” since it is changing all the time. I’ll just keep eating my oatmeal (porridge? Or what’s it called in English) every morning. I believe at the moment that is considered somewhat healthy but I can’t keep up with the trends and I guess I will keep eating it. :)
L'Idiot
This isn't true.
This summary tells me nothing. cholesterol is one of the many reasons you would eat eggs.
Sounds more like life extension to me, this exact kind if study has been done before, and that one was wrong too.
Don't believe anything you read online.
Genetics plays a role. But from what I've read, the biggest factor is gut flora and bacterial infection; often from bad oral hygiene (gingivitis). Meaning plaques build up in the brain and ostensibly the cardiovascular system as well.
https://www.health.harvard.edu...
Life is not for the lazy.
Your body produces the vast majority of cholesterol in your blood, it doesn't come from what you eat. In fact, you would be DEAD without cholesterol, it is a building block of the body. This is a well-known and accepted fact.
Now - can what you eat affect the amount and type of cholesterol in your blood? Yes. Is high cholesterol always bad? No. Is LDL always "bad" and HDL always "good"? NO. There is so much nuance to this that it isn't even funny. Our bodies are highly complex, we need to stop representing everything in such simplistic polar answers. This summary is bunk and can't even be taken at face value. It uses terms like "associated with" and a percentage of risk, which by themselves mean nothing. Is that relative risk or absolute risk? What other factors were controlled for, or not controlled for, in the study.
These things are mentioned in the paper abstract, and it really can't be effectively summarized without reading the full paper (which you have to purchase). Here is the meaning based on the findings:
Among US adults, higher consumption of dietary cholesterol or eggs was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD and all-cause mortality in a dose-response manner.
There are definitely some red flags in that statement. "dietary cholesterol or eggs". I would also like to know what other dietary and lifestyle factors were controlled for.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
This is an observational study, not a clinical trial. That is a very weak form of research.
If it was a clinical trial, we would have a control group vs a test group, where the only different is the amount of cholesterol or eggs consumed. Because this is is an observational study, there would be many other differences in diet and lifestyle.
For example: some people are more likely to follow the guidelines for diet and lifestyle than others. One of those guidelines is "eat less eggs", and others would be "eat less of various other unhealthy things" and "get more exercise". As a result, that group would be healthier, but it may be completely unrelated to the eggs consumed. In other words, it is association, not causation. The egg consumption and the CVD percentages may not be causally related to each other, but may be causally linked to another factor "follows mainstream guidelines".
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
This bullshit has been going on for decades.. They started telling us how bad eggs were back in the late 80's or early 90's.
Eggs are good.. Eggs are bad.. Back and forth so many times.. At this point they can all go screw themselves.. I'm eating eggs.
I know I am going out on a limb here but if we "follow the money" my SWAG would be that whoever funded the study has a financial interest in getting people to eat less eggs. Maybe some consortium of breakfast cereal manufacturers? The maker of Pop Tarts maybe? Besides this isn't serious news. It was reported on CNN.
Fruits and whole grains are just sugar; it doesn't matter that they're more complex.
Vegetables are mostly sugar, too, but have a lot of other nutrients that worth getting.
Excess protein is broken down into, you guessed it, sugar.
Fat is extremely important for powering your body; as a fuel, it is an alternative to sugar, and it barely raises your insulin levels.
Keto all the way baby. It's how humans work.
As someone with a degree (admittedly ancient and unpractised) in medical science maybe I can be of some help here.
It is my understanding that there is little relationship between dietary intake of cholesterol and the cholesterol levels measured in the blood, even the so-called "Bad Cholesterol". Sorry, I can't provide a reference.
Confounding factors may be influencing the result of this study; for example, the frequent egg eaters (perhaps at breakfast) may tend to be the ones that like a lot of meat at their evening meal, perhaps with gravy. The authors of the study adjusted for some things, but I didn't see any indication that they separated out these factors.
-- I was a perfectionist; now I am much better - I'll compromise.
Not to be fecetious, but did they study caviar or chicken eggs?
What bothers me is that a lot of these nutrition studies seem to be correlational headline grabbing nonsense. So they observe that there is a link between eating more eggs and higher rates of cardiovascular disease. But they aren't controlling for other factors and for sure they aren't demonstrating that eating more eggs CAUSES cardiovascular disease. I don't even think they've demonstrated that higher dietary cholesterol is a such a bad thing.
What happened to HDL vs. LDL and VLDL and the ratios between them and all that stuff?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!