The associations between egg consumption and incident CVD (adjusted HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.93-1.05]; adjusted ARD, −0.47% [95% CI, −1.83% to 0.88%]) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.97-1.09]; adjusted ARD, 0.71% [95% CI, −0.85% to 2.28%]) were no longer significant after adjusting for dietary cholesterol consumption.
It appears that the eggs themselves are not at fault, only the addition of cholesterol. Wonder why journalists “failed” to notice…
I’m going to actually take the opposite side on this one, insofar as it is perfectly appropriate to publish a study that runs counter to other studies findings. We should even expect over a large enough looked at topic to find experiments, studies, etc. falling on either side of an issue, with presumably the more reliable effect showing more studies on it’s side of the balance. With anything, there are often too many factors to really control for, flaws that creep into methods, and science deals a whole lot with probabilities rather than guarantees.
And if no one published research that was counter to prior research or understandings, we wouldn’t have progress. Sometimes that counter research will turn out to be itself wrong or flawed, but it’s frequently not clear immediately which things are mistaken or why.
Yes, but is it at all acceptable to publish a fear mongering story about such research with a headline misrepresenting the (in)significance of the research?
If you haven’t watched this yet, it explains everything wrong with these studies. It’s Tom Naughton’s presentation “Science for Smart People” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0
Are you sure? I thought Nina T said he tried to prove the link between dietary fat, serum cholesterol and heart disease.
When one of his detractors tried to show it was triglycerides he was sidelined and silenced
But I could be remembering it wrong - I’ve slept since I read her book 
That’s a judgement call. And given the source it should kinda be expected this isn’t unbiased journalism so much as advertising (it’s Northwestern talking about something Northwestern did).
And the writer likely has no clue about other research or how this could be insignificant, they just know what they heard and could piece together from the scientist they talked to (the ones that ran the study, that work for the same organization). It would be great if everyone was an expert and journalists were all equally skilled in understanding the topics they write on, but more typically their skill set has to do with writing about an event in certain accessible ways. But, I kinda have pretty low expectations of journalism in general at this point, so this doesn’t seem to underhanded for the field to me.
It seems everyone’s bullshit detectors are working very well today. Love this thread. These articles are just pure comedy.
The food industry still stands to lose a huge amount of profits with keto even if much smaller revenue than medicine. Those rich executives aren’t going to sit idly by and watch their fat bonuses and perks evaporate - they will spend big bucks to fight back.
So will Big Pharma. The American Heart Association accepted $1.5 million in the 1940’s (lot of money back then) from Proctor & Gamble.
Poor eggs - they have been jerked around so much… 
Eat them, don’t eat them, eat them, only eat part of them, eat the heck out of them, don’t even think about them…
#perfectfood
#iain’tworryin’
Humans and their genetic predecessors have been eating meat, fish, and eggs for millions of years. That is plenty of time to either move us to a plant based diet like other primates or breed out the people who could not thrive on animal foods. Nobody thought these foods were unhealthy until the last 50 years, the era of processed food whose only claim to fame is they are more convenient than cooking from “scratch”. All the animal based foods have been systematically and relentlessly attached, no exceptions. If they were even a little bit bad for us the human species would be extinct because, hey, it’s a jungle out there.
Yes it strikes me as completely typical, negligence not malevolence. But why not challenge it when there is the potential for public harm?
The darn thing won’t let me comment on it… 
It really is the same old soup of association being confused with causation, etc. Can’t see the full text of the study without paying… Back to
Calling the study and message out for being likely flawed publicly is fine. I’m just saying it doesn’t seem a particularly unacceptable piece as advertisement-journalism goes for the specific reasons stated, and we shouldn’t expect the writer to be an expert on the topic, they just relate to an audience what they heard from experts of a company they work for. Their field is publicity, not science.
Reformat:
Good news for egg lovers:
Higher consumption of eggs and lowering your sugar (sucrose and fructose) and grain intake while increasing your consumption of cholesterol is good and decreases heart disease and death risk!
What the sugar and grain industry fears?
I can just imagine who funded that research?
Take advantage of the damage you are doing then exploit it by blaming the solution to the cure using scientists as pawns?
If their is a hell I have pretty good idea who has exclusive tickets to the festivities?
I can just imagine all the fatty livers being created with this rhetoric? DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE A CONSCIENCE?
Exactly why mainstream journalism about science is just utter bollox and cannot be relied on to convey anything valuable. Bottom line, the journos are there to get an audience. They are performers. It’s also why mainstream news is just utter bollox. Truth and accuracy is very low down the priority list.
Yes ^^ this!!! I can smell the lobbying effort from here in the publication of this study! You can’t package and brand a keto diet, or any healthy diet. The big food companies like Nestle and Pepsi stand to lose tons of money as people shift away from the SAD.
Thinking about how I almost never buy anything in a box or sealed bag big food might be getting pisssed.
I love this!
I just rolled my eyes when I heard this on the morning news. But this is what they want to feed the masses and they eat it up.
I’ve been reading through these comments while eating a bowl of eggs, cooked in butter.
Well, while we’ve been rolling around conspiracy theories, I’m not really sure the grain industry benefits from this type of news that much. Perhaps the packaged food industry does or some other related industries, but not the grain producers.
I say that because theoretically more animal and animal product consumption means more grain (and grasses like alfalfa, etc) consumption, since that’s what the animals are fed with (particularly to fatten them up), and energy is lost at each stage. More stages means more is necessary lower down to sustain higher up.
While chickens can eat bugs, worms and such, a lot of chicken feed seems to have many various grains and grasses in it today. So, presumably maintaining chickens and getting the eggs means grain/farmed grass consumption (perhaps not as much as cows).
This makes me think that industry would favor more egg eating rather than hate it. The only exception to this would be if the margins were so significantly higher on sales to companies using the grains in human foods than they are to livestock feed that it wouldn’t be offset by the larger volume. I’m a bit skeptical of this myself, but possibly. From what I understand, many grains and other products are already far overproduced for demand anyway that it becomes a problem for the farmers as that lowers the prices, so higher demand even for cheaper ends seems beneficial.
Maybe a grain farmer could correct me on that (or I guess I could just call my Uncle about it, even though he now raises sheep).