Eggs. Demonized again. Sigh

(Janelle) #1

What can we even eat any more? Big study. Stuff taken into consideration for the first time. Correlation isn’t causation. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Are eggs good or bad for you? New research rekindles debate
Are eggs good or bad for you? New research rekindles debate
NY Times article about eating eggs 3/15/19
Article: "Are eggs good or bad for you? New research rekindles debate"
Eggs, oh my?
Bad Eggs
(bulkbiker) #2

more bollocks from the stupid jurno’s who seem incapable of critical thought… I fear for mankind …

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #3

Interesting . . . even fucking Ancel Keys refused to believe that dietary cholesterol had anything to do with serum cholesterol.

(bulkbiker) #4

and yet 70 years later we still get the same old crap… hey ho…

(Full Metal KETO AF) #5

Really bad news for @Digital_Dave :grin:
I remember when everyone was calling him Pickle_Dave but my vote goes for “Dave is the Eggman”, koo koo cachoo. Let not even bring up the Egglady in Pink Flamingoes (oops, I just went there). In retrospect an all egg diet should have been super keto, but it didn’t seem to help her. But John Waters might have been into something there. :grin:

@PaulL Shouldn’t this thread be moved to humor? :bacon::bacon::bacon::bacon::bacon: (I added the bacon to go with the :egg::egg::egg: and to make sure that I got Paul’s attention. :cowboy_hat_face:

(Amanda) #6

Let them fear eggs; more for me!!! :smiling_imp::egg:

(Windmill Tilter) #7

Nearly half of American adults suffer from Type1/Type2 diabetes or prediabetes at this point and the number is growing. The American Diabetes Foundation estimates the annual cost at $327 Billion which is 1 out of every 4 healthcare dollars spent in the US.

And they still want to argue about the dangers of fucking eggs??? Seriously???

(John) #8

I tend to average about 10 eggs a week. I figure that is within safe limits for any type of eating plan.

News articles want clicks and ad revenue. I pretty much no longer trust any media to provide accurate information. That is no longer their intention (if it ever was).

#9

Without seeing the paper, this is probably the most important issue, and even they recognized it as a problem:

We have one snapshot of what their eating pattern looked like,” Allen said. “But we think they represent an estimate of a person’s dietary intake. Still, people may have changed their diet, and we can’t account for that.”

(Allan Misner) #10

No. Link. To. The. Actual. Study.

#11

koo koo cachoo indeed. :smile: :+1:

A week? Wow, I don’t think I could handle just 10 a week. - Hell, I probably hit that damn near every two days. But only in one day in some instances. :slight_smile:

#12

Yea, they don’t even mention the actual name of the study or where (or whether) it was published. The news source is the university that ran the study, so not sure which way to consider that.

(Andi loves space, bacon and fasting. ) #13

How much did the carbage lobby pay for this study that tells us that eggs are “bad”?

(Linda) #14

Actually I was more amused at a different article from that site.

Here’s a quote:

“We are delighted to partner with the Peterson Center on Healthcare to advance a patient-centered approach to treatment planning and delivery,” said David Cella,…

One must wonder what the approach to treatment planning is now.

(Carolus Holman) #15

The key there is 327 billion dollars, they are making so much money off of treating Diabetes, anything that works without their involvement is a threat to their business. It seems everyday there is another medication out there!

(Windmill Tilter) #16

Agreed. People complain about “big food” which is silly. It’s all about the health care industry. To put the $327,000,000,000 spent annually in perspective, the total beef industry ($67.56B), poultry/egg ($48.3 billion) industry in the US is only $116 Billion. Wheat is a tiny $9.1B!!!

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #17

I don’t believe it’s even been published yet. This is publicity-seeking of the first order.

I fired off an e-mail to the university’s publicity director; we’ll see how she responds. I wasn’t all that nice and told her I expected better of Northwestern. I also asked her how they justified their fear of cholesterol when several major studies have shown either no association with cardiovascular disease or else an apparent protective effect. I wonder if the university will bother to reply.

(Andi loves space, bacon and fasting. ) #18

Here it is:

(Todd Allen) #19

“Our study showed if two people had exact same diet and the only difference in diet was eggs, then you could directly measure the effect of the egg consumption on heart disease,” Allen said. “We found cholesterol, regardless of the source, was associated with an increased risk of heart disease.
…
The new study looked at pooled data on 29,615 U.S. racially and ethnically diverse adults from six prospective cohort studies for up to 31 years of follow up.

It found:

  • Eating 300 mg of dietary cholesterol per day was associated with 17 percent higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease and 18 percent higher risk of all-cause deaths. The cholesterol was the driving factor independent of saturated fat consumption and other dietary fat.
  • Eating three to four eggs per week was associated with 6 percent higher risk of cardiovascular disease and 8 percent higher risk of any cause of death.

This doesn’t make sense. Pooling data from several prospective cohort studies does not in any way allow one to make a claim of directly measuring an isolated effect such as that of egg consumption on heart disease. The strength of their finding was quite small and the accuracy of data in these sorts of studies is very poor.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #20

each additional 300 mg of dietary cholesterol consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; adjusted absolute risk difference [ARD], 3.24%) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.18; adjusted ARD, 4.43%), and each additional half an egg consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.06; adjusted ARD, 1.11%) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.08; adjusted ARD, 1.93%).

A hazard ratio of 1.17 is minuscule, even when n = 29,615. By comparison, Bradford-Hill found a dose-dependent hazard ratio of 15-36 for lung cancer caused by smoking. I believe it was Ioannides who observed that a hazard ratio under 2.0 is too likely to be confounded with other factors to be worth worrying about. Malcolm Kendrick says that this low a hazard ratio tells us that the study should be printed out, and the printout crumpled up and tossed in the wastepaperbasket.