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.

14 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a week by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Wait a week by quenda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait a week, there will be new advice.

      What advice? There is no advice here, just an observation of a small correlation. And even that has been very badly reported.

      Our modern diet, with plenty of meat, dairy, fruit and vegetables is a huge improvement over what out peasant ancestors ate.
      We are stronger, healthier and more intelligent from improved childhood nutrition, and living decades longer.

      Sure, get some exercise, and avoid food that makes you fat.

  2. Math fail by FritzTheCat1030 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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???

    1. Re:Math fail by Woldscum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This and to this day. Not a single paper even. Has linked blood cholesterol levels to dietary cholesterol. Not one scientific provable link and been found.

  3. Dietary Studies are NOT Advice!!! by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Dietary Studies are NOT Advice!!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, there is never new advice. The advice is always the same

      Indeed. If you get your advice from doctors or nutritionists it is steady. If you get it from CNN, it is not.

      The study is being misrepresented in the media to focus on eggs, even though it looked at total cholesterol not eggs.

      It also is only a correlation, and the researchers explicitly make this clear in their paper.

      People that forgo eggs are likely to eat healthier in general, exercise more, and are likely better educated and wealthier. The eggs themselves may not be the causative factor.

    2. Re:Dietary Studies are NOT Advice!!! by nmb3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. If you get your advice from doctors or nutritionists it is steady. If you get it from CNN, it is not.

      This just isn't true -- and if it is then it's only because your doctor hasn't read any medical literature for the last 40 years. The impact of dietary cholesterol has gone back and forth repeatedly for the last decade in peer-reviewed journals. CNN has nothing to do with it.

      The OP is, sadly, very correct. Despite 100+ years of advanced medical research into nutrition we still apparently don't know jack shit about what makes an ideal healthy diet. It's easy to say "avoid overly processed foods and get exercise", but when detailed questions come up like "how much dietary cholesterol should I eat each day?" you'll never get a satisfactory answer.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    3. Re:Dietary Studies are NOT Advice!!! by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's easy to say "avoid overly processed foods and get exercise", but when detailed questions come up like "how much dietary cholesterol should I eat each day?" you'll never get a satisfactory answer.

      You're missing the simple and obvious answer that was already given to you.

      "how much dietary cholesterol should I eat each day?"
      The answer is: That is the wrong question. "avoid overly processed foods and get exercise." That literally is the answer. Stop trying to count that shit. Counting the cholesterol will not somehow magically stop the cheeseburders and oreos from giving you heart disease. People who eat a traditional diet, made from whole ingredients instead of processed partial-ingredients, and including sufficient fruits and vegetables, already don't have the diet-related problems.

      Imagine if the question was, "How can I fly by flapping my arms" and the answer was, "You can't fly by flapping your arms, but if you exercise you can jump higher." And you simply complained, "But that still doesn't tell me how to fly by flapping my arms!" Yeah, duh.

      It has been well established, scientifically, that medicine currently has no useful advice to give you specifically to cholesterol intake, and yet, it does have lots of useful advice about which of those foods whose cholesterol you would measure are traditional healthy foods, and which are processed foods.

  4. Of all science, nutritional research is the worst by Echoez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Expert: someone incapable of saying "I don't know".

  6. 21% death rate? by nbritton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. It's like that with ALL science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's like that with ALL science. by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quitting petrochemicals cold turkey would be an apcalyptic nightmare scenario. It would we a race to see which one of us ended up dead first. You might go first despite me having a very big lead on you.

      Your entire society runs on energy much of it derived from fossil fuels and all manner of critical devices also largely composed of fossil fuels.

      You can't live in the future (like some Apple weenie), you have to deal with the world and technology as it exists now. Otherwise you end up with power outages, disease, starvation, and death.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  8. bullshit by molecular · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.