Associations of egg consumption with cardiovascular disease(heart.bmj.com)
heart.bmj.com
Associations of egg consumption with cardiovascular disease
http://heart.bmj.com/content/early/2018/04/17/heartjnl-2017-312651
103 comments
There's more research linked here, with mostly good news for you:
https://examine.com/nutrition/are-eggs-healthy/
E.g.: "Observational studies in middle-aged Japanese people and in people on a Mediterranean diet found no association between egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease. Another observational study found no increase in the risk of stroke or coronary artery disease in people consuming 1–6 eggs per week, whereas “greater than 6 eggs per week” appeared to increase the risk of coronary artery disease only in diabetics."
E.g.: "Observational studies in middle-aged Japanese people and in people on a Mediterranean diet found no association between egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease. Another observational study found no increase in the risk of stroke or coronary artery disease in people consuming 1–6 eggs per week, whereas “greater than 6 eggs per week” appeared to increase the risk of coronary artery disease only in diabetics."
https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/05/07/-eggs-not...
Well, according to this study, eggs do not do anything for diabetics.
I'm pretty sure all of those observational studies (including the one I cite) are severely flawed.
Well, according to this study, eggs do not do anything for diabetics.
I'm pretty sure all of those observational studies (including the one I cite) are severely flawed.
My original title for this submission was "Moderate level of egg consumption (<1 egg/day) lowers risk of heart disease". It was edited probably because it was clickbait-y? [1] Nevertheless, I feel that the summary was quite surprising - "Daily consumers also had an 18% lower risk of CVD death and a 28% lower risk of haemorrhagic stroke death compared to non-consumers."
[1] An egg a day might reduce your risk of heart disease, study says - https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/health/eggs-heart-disease...
[1] An egg a day might reduce your risk of heart disease, study says - https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/health/eggs-heart-disease...
Your title implies a causal relationship, which cohort studies are notoriously bad at probing.
Furthermore, mammals have been eating dinosaur eggs for over 100 million years, humans have certainly continued this habit. Chances are very good that eggs are excellent nutrition for most humans.
Yeah me too. I consume 3 to 4 eggs a day as they are more filling and very handy. I am often puzzled with egg research and their conclusions.
it's more complicated than that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2644251/Un-scrambl...
Not all eggs are treated the same. I don't see how this study accounts for what kind of eggs or how they have been processed. It matters, a lot, if your eggs are bleached or how they have been stored.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2644251/Un-scrambl...
Not all eggs are treated the same. I don't see how this study accounts for what kind of eggs or how they have been processed. It matters, a lot, if your eggs are bleached or how they have been stored.
What is typically eaten alongside eggs in China?
Ingredients of food in cuisines are clustered. They cannot be treated as if they were independent. For example egg consumption might be highly correlated with bacon consumption in one population, and spinach in another: the recommendation to eat more eggs based on studies of the latter population might have unintended consequences if adopted by the former.
Ingredients of food in cuisines are clustered. They cannot be treated as if they were independent. For example egg consumption might be highly correlated with bacon consumption in one population, and spinach in another: the recommendation to eat more eggs based on studies of the latter population might have unintended consequences if adopted by the former.
Take from this what you can take from many studies of this sort: Eggs have a fair amount of nutrition, and there's no sign of significant downsides or vast advantages to eating them in moderation.
It's unlikely that any reputable study is going to show them as a surprise miracle superfood, and if you're consuming them as a major part of your diet that's not "in moderation" and this study is not relevant to you.
It's unlikely that any reputable study is going to show them as a surprise miracle superfood, and if you're consuming them as a major part of your diet that's not "in moderation" and this study is not relevant to you.
As a non-native English speaker, I find the conclusion sentence very confusing: "Among Chinese adults, a moderate level of egg consumption (up to <1 egg/day) was significantly associated with lower risk of CVD, largely independent of other risk factors."
Don that mean that it's best to eat a lot or less eggs ?
Don that mean that it's best to eat a lot or less eggs ?
I second that. had me confused for a while. I think more than the English, its the way scientific and academic papers are written.
Confusing to native speakers too. But I think the context is comparison with those who don't eat eggs at all.
Their study showed more eggs MAY reduce some Cardiovascular disease. The language used is pretty typical for academic studies, but isn't that easy to read without familiarity.
I would be interested to know, for the people not eating at least one egg a day, what were those meals instead? It could be a case of "an egg is healthier than [Unknown]" instead of "an egg makes you healthier."
I would be interested to know, for the people not eating at least one egg a day, what were those meals instead? It could be a case of "an egg is healthier than [Unknown]" instead of "an egg makes you healthier."
One paraphrase of the quote you provide is "Among Chinese adults, consuming less than 1 egg per day is associated with lower risk of CVD".
An even simpler paraphrase is "eating less than 1 egg a day is associated with lower CVD".
To answer your question directly, one can reasonably infer from the quote you provide that it is best to eat fewer eggs.
EDIT: change quantifying adjective from "less" to "fewer"
An even simpler paraphrase is "eating less than 1 egg a day is associated with lower CVD".
To answer your question directly, one can reasonably infer from the quote you provide that it is best to eat fewer eggs.
EDIT: change quantifying adjective from "less" to "fewer"
No that's exactly wrong. Consumption of eggs was positively correlated with better CVD outcomes but they only had data to conclude that this holds up to an amount less than 1 egg per day. People with .76 fared better than those with .29 per day.
Thank you for clarifying. Even this native English speaker was confused.
In my partial defense, concluding something like "eating up to but less than one egg per day is inversely associated with CVD risk" is odd and somewhat defies common sense.
My incorrect translation is a good reminder for me that scientific language doesn't always easily translate into conversational language.
EDIT: remove repeated word
In my partial defense, concluding something like "eating up to but less than one egg per day is inversely associated with CVD risk" is odd and somewhat defies common sense.
My incorrect translation is a good reminder for me that scientific language doesn't always easily translate into conversational language.
EDIT: remove repeated word
I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as "an egg", and I'm skeptical that the health effects of consuming eggs can be generalized over all eggs.
Try comparing an egg from the cheapest dozen you can buy at the cheapest supermarket in your area against an egg from someone who raises chickens. In my experience the cheap egg will have watery whites and a pale yoke that breaks if you look at it funny. Fry it up and it will basically taste like nothing. The other egg will have a much thicker white, and a yolk that stands up in the bowl, takes considerable work with a fork to really break apart, and is somewhere between orange and bright vivid orange. This egg almost certainly tastes a lot better.
Is one healthier than the other? I don't know. But you can tell just by looking at them that they have substantially different compositions.
Try comparing an egg from the cheapest dozen you can buy at the cheapest supermarket in your area against an egg from someone who raises chickens. In my experience the cheap egg will have watery whites and a pale yoke that breaks if you look at it funny. Fry it up and it will basically taste like nothing. The other egg will have a much thicker white, and a yolk that stands up in the bowl, takes considerable work with a fork to really break apart, and is somewhere between orange and bright vivid orange. This egg almost certainly tastes a lot better.
Is one healthier than the other? I don't know. But you can tell just by looking at them that they have substantially different compositions.
It's amazing to me that these studies (and the people who look at them and comment) rarely ever consider the difference between eggs from sick factory farmed chickens on a nasty grain diet, vs. pasture raised chickens fed on grass and forage.
People are just that clueless.
People are just that clueless.
Do we have indications that it actually makes a significant difference, nutrition-wise?
This is one of those things you need to use common sense to realize these diseased animals are not going to have a positive effect on your body. This knee jerk reaction to ask for a full blown research paper on HN is getting out of control.
How much is egg, and how much is having carbs alongside that egg early in the morning? There are some health benefits to intermittent fasting by not eating in the morning.
Pointing fingers at just one food item is really dumb. Especially when you point that finger at the most nutrient dense and rich food on the planet. It is already shown that eating cholesterol will lower the cholesterol production so you end up with the same amount.
Aside from that. What is the rest of the diet, eating patterns, exercise, environment, stress levels, etc. Yeah sure egg or <insert random food item here> will make a world of a difference on its own /endsarcasm. It is like taking a car to the mechanic for a checkup and he just check if front lights are working and try to conclude the state of the whole car.
Aside from that. What is the rest of the diet, eating patterns, exercise, environment, stress levels, etc. Yeah sure egg or <insert random food item here> will make a world of a difference on its own /endsarcasm. It is like taking a car to the mechanic for a checkup and he just check if front lights are working and try to conclude the state of the whole car.
[deleted]
(Opinion zone) Eggs cannot be healthy for you. They’re mostly cholesterol and saturated fat. The B vitamins in them come from supplementing their mothers with synthetics.
For the high caloric price of admission you get very little vitamins, minerals, and protein. Just look at their nutrient profile for proof: 1 egg nets you 10+% of your daily saturated fat recommendation, 14% riboflavin, 11% vitamin b12, and all other vitamins less than 8%. For the minerals, 23% of your selenium (really not something you need in abundance - google selenium overdose), 10% phosphorus, and the rest 5% or below. All of that for only about 1/9th of your daily suggested protein.
So to get your daily protein from eggs you would need to overdose on cholesterol by almost 9 times the recommendation, consume 90+% of your saturated fat, and overdose on selenium, and so on.
And if that weren’t enough, you would be eating more fat (by weight) than protein.
Edit-fixed saturated fat content to 10%
Edit 2-The ratio of omega3 to omega6 is about 1:12. That should be more like 1:1 (preferably) or at least 1:4. So to correct that you would need to eat even more fats to correct that ratio intake.
For the high caloric price of admission you get very little vitamins, minerals, and protein. Just look at their nutrient profile for proof: 1 egg nets you 10+% of your daily saturated fat recommendation, 14% riboflavin, 11% vitamin b12, and all other vitamins less than 8%. For the minerals, 23% of your selenium (really not something you need in abundance - google selenium overdose), 10% phosphorus, and the rest 5% or below. All of that for only about 1/9th of your daily suggested protein.
So to get your daily protein from eggs you would need to overdose on cholesterol by almost 9 times the recommendation, consume 90+% of your saturated fat, and overdose on selenium, and so on.
And if that weren’t enough, you would be eating more fat (by weight) than protein.
Edit-fixed saturated fat content to 10%
Edit 2-The ratio of omega3 to omega6 is about 1:12. That should be more like 1:1 (preferably) or at least 1:4. So to correct that you would need to eat even more fats to correct that ratio intake.
> (Opinion zone) Eggs cannot be healthy for you. They’re mostly cholesterol and saturated fat.
Your body is likely manufacturing 70-80% of your actual cholesterol content. I think cholesterol concerns have been debunked, or at least severely downgraded, since they became a big deal in the 1980's.
> Just look at their nutrient profile for proof: 1 egg nets you 70+% of your daily saturated fat recommendation ...
The fat recommendations you're citing are presumably coming from places like the USA's FDA -- which famously pushed the 'fat makes you fat' lie for many decades, directing citizens to consume increasing amounts of sugar instead, resulting in one of the most spectacular, and depressing, natural experiments that has proven this thinking to be literally fatally flawed.
Your body is likely manufacturing 70-80% of your actual cholesterol content. I think cholesterol concerns have been debunked, or at least severely downgraded, since they became a big deal in the 1980's.
> Just look at their nutrient profile for proof: 1 egg nets you 70+% of your daily saturated fat recommendation ...
The fat recommendations you're citing are presumably coming from places like the USA's FDA -- which famously pushed the 'fat makes you fat' lie for many decades, directing citizens to consume increasing amounts of sugar instead, resulting in one of the most spectacular, and depressing, natural experiments that has proven this thinking to be literally fatally flawed.
>
The fat recommendations you're citing are presumably coming from places like the USA's FDA -- which famously pushed the 'fat makes you fat' lie for many decades, directing citizens to consume increasing amounts of sugar instead, resulting in one of the most spectacular, and depressing, natural experiments that has proven this thinking to be literally fatally flawed.
I would like to add something. I am from India and I am seeing the results of Fat makes you fat principle peddled by doctors on the population. Before the introduction of "Americanised" version of food and US FDA dietary regulations(Docs in India follow the US FDA regulations), we had animal fats like Ghee, Butter, Panner, cream made from milk. Now the docs told remove these and told everyone to eat more Carbs. Well people started more eating more Carbs. Guess what they choose more and more processed cereals rather than greens. Now we have Type 2 Diabetes epidemic in India. People are not as fat as Americans but are skinny fat and have belly fat and all metabolic diseases. And the bad advice continues.
I would like to add something. I am from India and I am seeing the results of Fat makes you fat principle peddled by doctors on the population. Before the introduction of "Americanised" version of food and US FDA dietary regulations(Docs in India follow the US FDA regulations), we had animal fats like Ghee, Butter, Panner, cream made from milk. Now the docs told remove these and told everyone to eat more Carbs. Well people started more eating more Carbs. Guess what they choose more and more processed cereals rather than greens. Now we have Type 2 Diabetes epidemic in India. People are not as fat as Americans but are skinny fat and have belly fat and all metabolic diseases. And the bad advice continues.
Your assertion is contradicted by the study here. Could it be that your assumptions are wrong?
The assertion is not in contradiction to the study. Study makes no claims on healthiness of eggs.
Scientifically, healthy-unhealthy food does not exist. There's no health scale. Everything depends on the context.
If your blood results and other health information is stable, whatever you're eating isn't doing you any harm, then that's a healthy lifestyle.
Trying to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy is impossible.
Scientifically, healthy-unhealthy food does not exist. There's no health scale. Everything depends on the context.
If your blood results and other health information is stable, whatever you're eating isn't doing you any harm, then that's a healthy lifestyle.
Trying to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy is impossible.
The study clearly claims that eating eggs is inversely correlated with CVD/IHD. How does that not bear on their healthiness?
It's not inversely correlated. The relationship is non-linear, how does that bear on their healthiness?
Unlike strawberries where relationship is linear, unlike many other vegetables. Put a healthy exercising population and the correlation disappears, I guess foods are no longer healthy in that case.
Unlike strawberries where relationship is linear, unlike many other vegetables. Put a healthy exercising population and the correlation disappears, I guess foods are no longer healthy in that case.
Swap inversely with negatively. How does that change anything?
It's not negatively correlated, they have not measured the effects of >1 egg/day. It doesn't change anything. Saying that the food is healthy is vacuous.
Eating 1 egg per day for the average member of the measured population seems to be healthy. It does not mean eggs by themselves are healthy or unhealthy.
Eating 1 egg per day for the average member of the measured population seems to be healthy. It does not mean eggs by themselves are healthy or unhealthy.
Other (new) studies and meta-studies do, however. And contradict what you wrote.
E.g.
http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1846638/association-d...
>Trying to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy is impossible.
They don't try to "divide foods into healthy and unhealthy". They try to divide diets of food, including amounts and limits, into healthy and unhealthy.
E.g.
http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1846638/association-d...
>Trying to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy is impossible.
They don't try to "divide foods into healthy and unhealthy". They try to divide diets of food, including amounts and limits, into healthy and unhealthy.
I do not understand how the study you've given supports what you're telling me.
You cannot say that strawberries are the healthiest food, just like you cannot say eggs are not healthy.
You cannot say that strawberries are the healthiest food, just like you cannot say eggs are not healthy.
>I do not understand how the study you've given supports what you're telling me.
The study contradicts what you wrote in your comment above -- I never claimed it supports what I tell you in my comment below it, which touches on another aspect.
The study contradicts what you wrote in your comment above -- I never claimed it supports what I tell you in my comment below it, which touches on another aspect.
I do not understand what the study contradicts? It mentions no particular food.
Too many egg (yolks) aren't healthy, just like everything else. But what is so bad about having a few egg whites? And even 1 yolk?
https://www.ahealthiermichigan.org/2011/10/11/the-nurtional-...
https://www.ahealthiermichigan.org/2011/10/11/the-nurtional-...
Or, if you happen to believe the cholesterol & fat in eggs is a big deal, just buy liquid eggs stripped of all of that.
A 920g container has 500 calories, 100g of protein, zero fat, zero saturated fat, zero trans fat, zero carbs, zero cholesterol.
A 920g container has 500 calories, 100g of protein, zero fat, zero saturated fat, zero trans fat, zero carbs, zero cholesterol.
1 large egg contains approximately 1.6g of saturated fat. Recommended saturated fat intakes vary by who is making the recommendation, but the NHS in the U.K. says it should be at most 30g/20g for men/women, whilst the American Heart Association says it should be around 13g for a 2000 calorie diet. No idea where you got your 70+% figure from.
Edit: You've now corrected this to 10%, but even that is based upon a very cautious RDA for saturated fat.
Also, consuming 9 eggs by themselves would not cause you overdose on selenium either - the RDA for selenium is between 55-135mg (again, depending on source), whilst the overdose threshold for it is believed to be around 400mg. However, an egg contains around 15mg of selenium - so whilst consuming 9 of them would put you over or at your RDA, it is not an overdose, since the RDA is a recommendation, not a limit.
Edit: You've now corrected this to 10%, but even that is based upon a very cautious RDA for saturated fat.
Also, consuming 9 eggs by themselves would not cause you overdose on selenium either - the RDA for selenium is between 55-135mg (again, depending on source), whilst the overdose threshold for it is believed to be around 400mg. However, an egg contains around 15mg of selenium - so whilst consuming 9 of them would put you over or at your RDA, it is not an overdose, since the RDA is a recommendation, not a limit.
> The B vitamins in them come from supplementing their mothers with synthetics.
Nitpick: eggs don't have mothers because eggs are not offspring.
Nitpick: eggs don't have mothers because eggs are not offspring.
>Eggs cannot be healthy for you. They’re mostly cholesterol and saturated fat.
"Back then, we knew that egg yolks had lots of cholesterol, and we knew that high levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol in the blood increased the risk of cardiovascular disease. So it seemed logical that avoiding cholesterol in the diet made sense.
Since then, however, research has shown that most of the cholesterol in our body is made by our liver-it doesn't come from cholesterol we eat. The liver is stimulated to make cholesterol primarily by saturated fat and trans fat in our diet, not dietary cholesterol. But a large egg contains little saturated fat-about 1.5 grams (g). And research has confirmed that eggs also contain many healthy nutrients: lutein and zeaxanthin, which are good for the eyes; choline, which is good for the brain and nerves; and various vitamins (A, B, and D). In fact, just one large egg contains 270 international units (IU) of vitamin A and 41 IU of vitamin D. One large egg also contains about 6 g of protein and 72 calories.
The evidence that eating an egg a day is safe for most people comes from huge studies-many conducted here at Harvard Medical School-that have followed hundreds of thousands of people over decades."
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/are-eggs-risky-f...
Not to mention:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/saturated-fat-completely-safe-acc...
"Back then, we knew that egg yolks had lots of cholesterol, and we knew that high levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol in the blood increased the risk of cardiovascular disease. So it seemed logical that avoiding cholesterol in the diet made sense.
Since then, however, research has shown that most of the cholesterol in our body is made by our liver-it doesn't come from cholesterol we eat. The liver is stimulated to make cholesterol primarily by saturated fat and trans fat in our diet, not dietary cholesterol. But a large egg contains little saturated fat-about 1.5 grams (g). And research has confirmed that eggs also contain many healthy nutrients: lutein and zeaxanthin, which are good for the eyes; choline, which is good for the brain and nerves; and various vitamins (A, B, and D). In fact, just one large egg contains 270 international units (IU) of vitamin A and 41 IU of vitamin D. One large egg also contains about 6 g of protein and 72 calories.
The evidence that eating an egg a day is safe for most people comes from huge studies-many conducted here at Harvard Medical School-that have followed hundreds of thousands of people over decades."
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/are-eggs-risky-f...
Not to mention:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/saturated-fat-completely-safe-acc...
The new, counter intuitive idea that saturated fat is harmless or even healthy is built on lies and bad science, promoted by people with a lot of money to gain if they can confuse people about this.
https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/the-b...
https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/the-b...
All diet recommendations are based on bad science because all nutrition science is bad science. That includes whatever your preferred diet is.
That guy has a serious axe to grind and isn’t a credible source.
But what you are responding to doesn't say "saturated fat is harmless or even healthy". It says there is little saturated fat in eggs.
Eggs are very high in cholesterol, which is mentioned explicitly 136 times in the link I provided.
Which is irrelevant, because the cholesterol we already have by other means is much much higher.
Considering eggs a problem for that (their cholesterol content) is like having a program that takes 20 minutes to run, and trying to optimize a routine that only accounts for 5 seconds of the overall time.
Considering eggs a problem for that (their cholesterol content) is like having a program that takes 20 minutes to run, and trying to optimize a routine that only accounts for 5 seconds of the overall time.
Baseline cholesterol levels are genetically determined, it's true, but diet is far from irrelevant. A cholesterol-rich diet can easily push your overall cholesterol level above that baseline into the danger zone. This has been verified in numerous gold standard direct intervention studies. Anecdotally I have several friends that have brought high cholesterol levels down through diet far enough that they didn't have to take statins.
Most of the studies that have claimed to show that diet doesn't raise cholesterol have involved populations of people that already have abnormally high cholesterol from a bad diet (i.e. the typical American).
Important points summarized here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtfzd43t8o
Most of the studies that have claimed to show that diet doesn't raise cholesterol have involved populations of people that already have abnormally high cholesterol from a bad diet (i.e. the typical American).
Important points summarized here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtfzd43t8o
So it’s your position that since you would not be healthy if you ate nothing but eggs, that eggs are not healthy?
Most people are not trying to minmax their nutrient intake. The numbers you give seem to make eggs a useful component of a healthy, varied diet.
Most people are not trying to minmax their nutrient intake. The numbers you give seem to make eggs a useful component of a healthy, varied diet.
This might suffer from the same issue the alcohol consumption study lacked.
People that aren't consuming eggs might do so because of health issues. Meaning that they are more prone to feel the side effects.
Similar effect happened in the alcohol study, where moderate consumption had a lower mortality than those consuming nothing. It turned out that those abstaining from alcohol were more prone to get side effects immediately. After adjusting for these errors in data reporting, the u-curve disappeared and the relationship was linear (more alcohol you consumed higher the mortality).
I was also, embarrassingly, citing the alcohol study, since then I've realized the first reaction to a paper should be doubt and I'll definitely abstain from acknowledging epidemiological diet studies in the future. Even meta-analyses taking them into account.
One of the best examples is that many meta-analyses conclude that dietary cholesterol does not increase serum cholesterol (proven risk in CVD). Disregarding the fact that many of the aggregated studies do not measure baseline cholesterol, and it is assumed that there's a linear response on serum cholesterol to dietary cholesterol when it's a 20 year old information that response is non-linear.
People that aren't consuming eggs might do so because of health issues. Meaning that they are more prone to feel the side effects.
Similar effect happened in the alcohol study, where moderate consumption had a lower mortality than those consuming nothing. It turned out that those abstaining from alcohol were more prone to get side effects immediately. After adjusting for these errors in data reporting, the u-curve disappeared and the relationship was linear (more alcohol you consumed higher the mortality).
I was also, embarrassingly, citing the alcohol study, since then I've realized the first reaction to a paper should be doubt and I'll definitely abstain from acknowledging epidemiological diet studies in the future. Even meta-analyses taking them into account.
One of the best examples is that many meta-analyses conclude that dietary cholesterol does not increase serum cholesterol (proven risk in CVD). Disregarding the fact that many of the aggregated studies do not measure baseline cholesterol, and it is assumed that there's a linear response on serum cholesterol to dietary cholesterol when it's a 20 year old information that response is non-linear.
>People that aren't consuming eggs might do so because of health issues.
The authors are aware of this, and excluded people suffering from several common health problems for this reason:
"In the present study, we excluded individuals reporting medical histories of cancer (n=2577), heart disease (n=15 472) or stroke (n=8884), or having prevalent diabetes (n=30 300) defined by self-reported diabetes or on-site plasma glucose testing (fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L or random blood glucose ≥11.1 mmol/L). We made these exclusions to avoid a prevalence–incidence bias and minimise the effect of reverse causality led by potential confounders such as lifestyle factors."
This isn't all possible sources of reverse causality, but it does at least make it less likely.
The authors are aware of this, and excluded people suffering from several common health problems for this reason:
"In the present study, we excluded individuals reporting medical histories of cancer (n=2577), heart disease (n=15 472) or stroke (n=8884), or having prevalent diabetes (n=30 300) defined by self-reported diabetes or on-site plasma glucose testing (fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L or random blood glucose ≥11.1 mmol/L). We made these exclusions to avoid a prevalence–incidence bias and minimise the effect of reverse causality led by potential confounders such as lifestyle factors."
This isn't all possible sources of reverse causality, but it does at least make it less likely.
> dietary cholesterol does not increase serum cholesterol
The link between diet and cholesterol seems to be indirect.
Take for example coffee. Non-filtered coffee increases serum cholesterol even when it does not contain cholesterol. Coffee oils (diterpenes like cafestol and kahweol) mess up body’s ability to metabolize and regulate cholesterol.
Coffee contains 1% of diterpenes. Fortunately normal paper filter removes most of the oils. French press and Turkish style are the worst.
The link between diet and cholesterol seems to be indirect.
Take for example coffee. Non-filtered coffee increases serum cholesterol even when it does not contain cholesterol. Coffee oils (diterpenes like cafestol and kahweol) mess up body’s ability to metabolize and regulate cholesterol.
Coffee contains 1% of diterpenes. Fortunately normal paper filter removes most of the oils. French press and Turkish style are the worst.
Do you have any additional links on this? I'm curious to read more.
> I've realized the first reaction to a paper should be doubt
appreciating the reminder
appreciating the reminder
In sociology, the opposite is almost always true, in psychology, it’s usually false, in medicine, maybe half true, but what about machine learning?
>what about machine learning?
The results are probably real, but maybe not for the reasons the author suggests.
The results are probably real, but maybe not for the reasons the author suggests.
And here we have the clearest demonstration of confirmation bias.
Do you have the source for the alcohol study and the corrections? Didn't hear about this.
Here's the study saying that alcohol has protective effects: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28818200
Not the first one of its kind but pretty large sample.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20636661
Here's a study showing that drinking a little alcohol lowers your chance of having liver cirrhosis compared to drinking no alcohol.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/add.13627
Here's the criticism.
> We would like to add to her discussion of the significance of former and occasional drinker biases in this literature and highlight how they can cause both overestimation of cardioprotection and underestimation of cancer risks across the whole drinking continuum. The underlying theory here is that, as a population ages, a selection bias operates whereby individuals with poorer health are more likely to cut down or stop drinking completely. Such individuals are often still classified as ‘abstainers’ and used as a reference against which all current drinkers are compared. In simple terms, they make drinkers at all levels of consumption ‘look good’ by comparison.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26997174
Guys above then adjust for the mistake. The benefits disappear. Mortality risk grows as alcohol consumption increases. Yeah, there are people with protective genes, but on a population scale, recommending to go from 0 to N glasses of alcoholic beverage a day is insane.
I have personally increased my alcohol consumption, which was obviously dumb, given that the data was flawed. After this study I don't think I'll have more than couple of drinks per year.
Not the first one of its kind but pretty large sample.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20636661
Here's a study showing that drinking a little alcohol lowers your chance of having liver cirrhosis compared to drinking no alcohol.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/add.13627
Here's the criticism.
> We would like to add to her discussion of the significance of former and occasional drinker biases in this literature and highlight how they can cause both overestimation of cardioprotection and underestimation of cancer risks across the whole drinking continuum. The underlying theory here is that, as a population ages, a selection bias operates whereby individuals with poorer health are more likely to cut down or stop drinking completely. Such individuals are often still classified as ‘abstainers’ and used as a reference against which all current drinkers are compared. In simple terms, they make drinkers at all levels of consumption ‘look good’ by comparison.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26997174
Guys above then adjust for the mistake. The benefits disappear. Mortality risk grows as alcohol consumption increases. Yeah, there are people with protective genes, but on a population scale, recommending to go from 0 to N glasses of alcoholic beverage a day is insane.
I have personally increased my alcohol consumption, which was obviously dumb, given that the data was flawed. After this study I don't think I'll have more than couple of drinks per year.
The body regulates cholesterol balance via the liver, and this is most influenced by genetics. Dietary cholesterol simply is inconsequential, and the old warning against too much dietary cholesterol was just bad medical advice based on incomplete knowledge of cholesterol metabolism.
I eat between 4 and 6 eggs per day. We'll see what happens in 50 years, but I bet CAD won't be a significant problem because of my good genetics.
I eat between 4 and 6 eggs per day. We'll see what happens in 50 years, but I bet CAD won't be a significant problem because of my good genetics.
Data point of one, but I fixed my cholesterol problem (7x the normal range) by controlling for saturated fats and exercising more. I eat plenty of eggs and other cholesterol heavy foods to no ill effect.
My doctor, who is otherwise good, still parrots the usual “don’t eat eggs” and I just nod my head. I think it’s a script the medical group makes her ramble off because I’ve given her all of the relevant info to how I changed my diet.
My understanding from a lot of reading is that for most people, save for genetic black swans and diabetics, dietary cholesterol doesn’t matter. My guess is that for my own case, my family just has a gene that makes us metabolize saturated fats into syrum cholesterol more than people who can eat whatever without affecting it.
My doctor, who is otherwise good, still parrots the usual “don’t eat eggs” and I just nod my head. I think it’s a script the medical group makes her ramble off because I’ve given her all of the relevant info to how I changed my diet.
My understanding from a lot of reading is that for most people, save for genetic black swans and diabetics, dietary cholesterol doesn’t matter. My guess is that for my own case, my family just has a gene that makes us metabolize saturated fats into syrum cholesterol more than people who can eat whatever without affecting it.
I did the exact opposite. I fixed my cholesterol problem by eating 3 eggs every morning, often with bacon, by replacing vegetable oil (except olive oil) with lard and butter, and by cutting out most carbs. My HDL/TG ratio is now in the lowest risk range (after having been in the high risk).
Now, it seems that cholesterol in isolation is not a very good indicator of CVD anyway (HDL/TG seems better). We are even considering that it's not the cause of atherosclerosis, but a correlation (just like cavities don't cause diabetes).
Now, it seems that cholesterol in isolation is not a very good indicator of CVD anyway (HDL/TG seems better). We are even considering that it's not the cause of atherosclerosis, but a correlation (just like cavities don't cause diabetes).
What's your diet like that you're eating 5 eggs a day on average?
What are your cholesterol levels eating 4-6 eggs a day?
Most of my calories come from meat, cheese, and organs, and my blood work looks just fine. I honestly just don't pay any attention to the ping-ponging research findings these days unless something is directly toxic.
I'm the same way. Follow a similar sounding diet. My total cholesterol is high, but the ratios are considered very healthy and my trigs are extremely low. From my research cholesterol is still an unknown and everyone has an opinion. It's hard to believe too much of the foods that we are supposed to eat (natural, meat, eggs, veggies, ...) can harm us to such an extent to actually become worried and obsessive about it.
Normal ranges for total cholesterol and HDL actually. Triglycerides also normal range.
The best part is my HDL to total cholesterol ratio which is well into the very healthy range.
The key is good genetics in addition to exercise and eating lots of fresh foods and fish, and avoiding excessive red meat.
The best part is my HDL to total cholesterol ratio which is well into the very healthy range.
The key is good genetics in addition to exercise and eating lots of fresh foods and fish, and avoiding excessive red meat.
I also have genetically low cholesterol. I eat whatever I want. It never makes any difference on my blood panels.
For anyone who has the space (and they don't need a lot of space), I recommend getting your own hens.
Great fun, and about as hard to look after as a rabbit. Plus the best eggs you will have ever tasted.
Great fun, and about as hard to look after as a rabbit. Plus the best eggs you will have ever tasted.
Totally agree, they're great fun. :-)
It's also why I don't agree with the moral argument for veganism - happy hens lay eggs too and eggs gotta be eaten!
It's also why I don't agree with the moral argument for veganism - happy hens lay eggs too and eggs gotta be eaten!
I also wondered this:
Us humans bred them over thousands of years so that they keep laying eggs throughout the year rather than just during the breeding season, to the point that they lay them every single day.
The original ancestor - Red Jungle fowl may have laid 6-12 eggs per year in the wild.
Hence the 'happy hens' may not be as happy as their ancestors due to an uncomfortable period on a daily basis when they lay. Of course they may well be happy outside of this, but it may not be as glamorous life as it seems from the outside! Worth adding that their lifespan is also greatly reduced due to the stresses of laying everyday.
Well, modern hybrid commercial laying hens lay an egg every day from when they come into lay for about a year, then it goes to one every other day, and so they get culled by farmers. Their laying is also extended by artificial light, otherwise they won't lay during the very shortest days in the winter.
Pedigree hens lay about once every other day, and can live up to eight years.
Pedigree hens lay about once every other day, and can live up to eight years.
Yeah, but they get to be alive. That would not be the case if they weren’t useful to humans.
In a vegan world, wouldn't there be more wild animals?
Think about how different this could look: https://xkcd.com/1338/
Think about how different this could look: https://xkcd.com/1338/
A couple of things:
1. Those particular animals would not be alive. I was replying to a comment about the quality of life of those particular animals.
2. Regarding the point that other animals would take their place: isn’t this an argument against veganism? Life in a state of nature is brutal and not at all what I would classify as clearly better than life under domestication.
1. Those particular animals would not be alive. I was replying to a comment about the quality of life of those particular animals.
2. Regarding the point that other animals would take their place: isn’t this an argument against veganism? Life in a state of nature is brutal and not at all what I would classify as clearly better than life under domestication.
2. I can't speak for other animals, but I can speak for myself: there's no way I would prefer to be locked up in a cage or a farm (where I will be killed and eaten, probably way before my natural lifespan) than to be free to live a natural life and be killed by predators.
Yes, you could say that providing those animals have a good life, there is an argument there.
However, whilst the eggs from your own hens might be ethical, in reality, probably 95%+ of chickens are factory farmed and have pretty awful lives, in which cases their life is not so much of a gift.
As a (probably controversial) counterpoint, I'm not so sure that life in a state of nature is much better than life on a factory farm. The math of making it in the natural world is brutal: a stable population size means that, on average, only two of the offspring that an animal produces will ever become reproductive adults. You know that cute string of ducklings following their mother around? Statisticaly speaking, almost every one of them will be mauled, starved, or frozen to death.
That being said, I still believe that we have some kind of a moral obligation to provide the animals in our care with a decent quality of life.
That being said, I still believe that we have some kind of a moral obligation to provide the animals in our care with a decent quality of life.
I also used to have back garden hens, but in my opinion the moral argument stands up to examination.
Consider:
* The modern chicken is quite different to its wild ancestors, and lays eggs about 20 times more frequently (the eggs are also larger). I'd call it genetic exploitation.
* The male chickens are (most likely) killed after hatching in preference of the females you'll keep.
* They may be safe from predators, but is the loss of freedom, a natural environment and normal biological functions a price worth paying?
Consider:
* The modern chicken is quite different to its wild ancestors, and lays eggs about 20 times more frequently (the eggs are also larger). I'd call it genetic exploitation.
* The male chickens are (most likely) killed after hatching in preference of the females you'll keep.
* They may be safe from predators, but is the loss of freedom, a natural environment and normal biological functions a price worth paying?
Your moral argument assumes we can undo thousands upon thousands of years of selective breeding. We can't.
I've raised chickens since I was a kid. We kept males and females. When the chickens stopped laying, we ate them too.
This idea that something "isn't natural" so it's wrong is ridiculous. Human technology has drastically altered the planet and we need to focus on how to work in it as opposed to fantasizing about how nice it would be if we could go back to the stone age.
So by all means, be vegan. Refuse to consume farm animals. 99.9% of the world will not. Your efforts are drowned out. Hopefully the moral superiority you gain will be an acceptable consolation prize.
I've raised chickens since I was a kid. We kept males and females. When the chickens stopped laying, we ate them too.
This idea that something "isn't natural" so it's wrong is ridiculous. Human technology has drastically altered the planet and we need to focus on how to work in it as opposed to fantasizing about how nice it would be if we could go back to the stone age.
So by all means, be vegan. Refuse to consume farm animals. 99.9% of the world will not. Your efforts are drowned out. Hopefully the moral superiority you gain will be an acceptable consolation prize.
I think if you are going to eat meat and dairy, then do it the right way, as you have.
But, I would not underestimate the move towards more conscious eating such as veganism. Personally if I can reduce any unnecessary suffering through what I eat and still live healthily then I will do so and I am seeing a lot of others move in a similar direction.
>unnecessary suffering through what I eat
I guess plant life, bacteria and fungi don't count?
I guess plant life, bacteria and fungi don't count?
> I'd call it genetic exploitation.
Not really relevant. It's already done, and the alternative is chicken extinction. We can live symbiotically with chickens, or we can let them go extinct for vegan ideals.
> They may be safe from predators, but is the loss of freedom, a natural environment and normal biological functions a price worth paying?
Humans did this in forming societies, so clearly we by and large think the answer is yes.
Not really relevant. It's already done, and the alternative is chicken extinction. We can live symbiotically with chickens, or we can let them go extinct for vegan ideals.
> They may be safe from predators, but is the loss of freedom, a natural environment and normal biological functions a price worth paying?
Humans did this in forming societies, so clearly we by and large think the answer is yes.
...but what happens to the roosters when everyone gets hens? :)
That is the saddest thing. You only really need one rooster per flock. If anyone invents a machine to sex hens whilst still in the egg they will have a lot of grateful chicken owners.
This is actively in the works.
https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/livestock/new-technology-d...
https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/livestock/new-technology-d...
Same thing as male baby goats in a goat cheese operation. :/
Not even remotely similar. Goats (and cows) need to be pregnant to produce milk, which is why you inevitably end up with offspring as a by-product of milk production. Hens lay eggs regardless of whether a rooster is present, so if you get some rescue hens you can enjoy your eggs guilt-free.
Sure, but that's not the point I was making. Male goats are useless to a goat cheese farmer. Roosters are similarly ~useless to egg farmers. When chicks destined to become egg-laying hens are born, what happens to their brothers?
We'll worry about that once ALL of the rescue hens are living in our backyards. Plenty to go around for now...
[deleted]
Not so easy when there are predators about, then it becomes somewhat of an arms race with depressing bouts of dead chickens to deal with.
Can someone summarize these findings? So is eating one egg a day “better” than not eating them at all?
The answer, as always it seems, is that no one really has a clue — probably because nutrition can’t be reduced to these cute little nuggets of wisdom.
Unless the nugget is, “less overall, and especially less refined sugar.”
I think the singular thing we can be certain of is nutritionists won’t wake up 20 years from now and say, “Oh man, we all should have been recommending a higher sugar intake!”
Unless the nugget is, “less overall, and especially less refined sugar.”
I think the singular thing we can be certain of is nutritionists won’t wake up 20 years from now and say, “Oh man, we all should have been recommending a higher sugar intake!”
You must eat 0.76 eggs a day to match the results of the study.
eggs are super healthy and are a better thing to eat than other foods higher in sugars/saturated fats/salts/etc
Replace a deli sandwich with two eggs or replace a bowl of sugar cereal with two eggs or a slice of pizza with a nice omelette
Replace a deli sandwich with two eggs or replace a bowl of sugar cereal with two eggs or a slice of pizza with a nice omelette
I'm assuming that first sentence is pointing out a negative association, rather than an intake greater than the slightly confusingly worded 'up to <1 egg a day' line.
Later they write:
> Lacking participants with consumption of more than one egg per day restricted us to assess the association between higher egg consumption (>1 egg/day) and the risk of CVD; but the usual amount of the highest frequency level in the present study was approximate to the recommended amount of the guidelines (0.76 egg vs 0.8–1.0 egg), indicating that adherence to the dietary guidelines with regard to egg consumption could result in a lower risk of CVD.
As someone who regularly has 2-3 eggs a day, I'm much more interested in risks - and indeed whether there are even greater benefits - associated with higher consumption rates.
Eggs are a fantastic food source. Even herbivores will often deign to eat them, albeit opportunistically.