19 replies to this topic

[lojzenov]

Which choline source for stacking with piracetam do you recommend? I have heard of centrophenoxine(expensive), alpha gpc(also expensive ) and choline birtrate(cheap)
Are the first two really better options, that they justify the price?

[meursault]

Which choline source for stacking with piracetam do you recommend? I have heard of centrophenoxine(expensive), alpha gpc(also expensive ) and choline birtrate(cheap)
Are the first two really better options, that they justify the price?

THE ALMIGHTY SEARCH FUNCTION

[Zoroaster]

Six egg yolks a day worked for me, killed the mild headache in one hour, never to return! Mnn, delicious!

And you'll get like 10 grams of saturated fat and a massive 1.2 grams of cholesterol. Do that everyday and you're practically guaranteed to get a heart attack.

And to the OP, the answer is yes, they're worth it. CDP-Choline is also good.

[luv2increase]

Six egg yolks a day worked for me, killed the mild headache in one hour, never to return! Mnn, delicious!

And you'll get like 10 grams of saturated fat and a massive 1.2 grams of cholesterol. Do that everyday and you're practically guaranteed to get a heart attack.

And to the OP, the answer is yes, they're worth it. CDP-Choline is also good.

Not true.... Cholesterol levels are not just about how much you intake. It has to do about genetics as well and of course, supplementation and exercise habits.

Edited by luv2increase, 30 June 2008 - 06:31 AM.

[Zoroaster]

Scandalous Lies About Cholesterol

"10 to 20% of the brain is composed of cholesterol. Thanks in part to cholesterol in animal food, humans are as intelligent as they are. Essential substances like the sex hormones and vitamin D are also constructed of cholesterol. Therefore it is absolutely not true that a low cholesterol level is healthier."

Eggs Improve Bad Cholesterol

"Eating two eggs a day helped maintain LDL/HDL cholesterol levels"

June Russell's Health Facts

"Cholesterol is so necessary to bodily functions that regardless of dietary intake, the body produces about 1,000 mg of cholesterol daily. Our body actually accelerates cholesterol production if we don't eat enough of it. Not only are cholesterol and fat essential to life, but if you don't eat these in your diet, you will be on the accelerated metabolic aging track toward disease and an earlier death, say Diana Schwarzbein, MD and Nancy Deville."

I don't know where you got this information but it is not in line with the medical and nutrition community's opinion on the issue. The body makes more than enough cholesterol for its needs and increased cholesterol intake has been shown in several long-term studies to increase risk of CVD.

[Zoroaster]

Not true.... Cholesterol levels are not just about how much you intake. It has to do about genetics as well and of course, supplementation and exercise habits.

That's true, genetics have a huge impact on your HDL/LDL levels but both dietary cholesterol intake and especially saturated fat intake have a significant impact on your cholesterol levels as well. If you're interested you can do some research on google scholar and you'll find its a pretty well settled subject.

[meursault]

Iso, please be more respectful of other posters here. Calling someone "brainwashed" really kills the good spirit of argument or debate.

Also, debate isn't furthered by simply highlighting the conclusion or specific points in an article without interpretation. I took a look at the articles you provided in your previous post and found that they hardly provide any substantial reasons for calling Zoroaster "brainwashed," but for how you are being misleading.


1. In the JAMA article the conclusion is that "consumption of up to 1 egg per day is unlikely to have substantial overall impact on the risk of CHD or stroke among healthy men and women."

1 egg per day is very low compared to your 6 per day.

2. In the article Egg consumption in relation to cardiovascular disease and mortality: the Physicians' Health Study, the conclusion is that "Infrequent egg consumption does not seem to influence the risk of CVD in male physicians."

To me, infrequent consumption doesn't even suggest it should be daily.


3. Title of article: Consumption of an Egg per day Could Prevent Heart Disease, Cancer. Nuff said.


4. In the article at http://jama.ama-assn...ull/281/15/1387, the conclusion is, "In a healthy Western population, there is insufficient evidence to excessively restrict egg intake as part of a healthy diet." The key word is excessively.

This probably means that they determined that there is no reason limit egg consumption to 1 or 2 per week, but the study in itself does not at all suggest that any more than a moderate consumption is healthy.

5. In the article Eggs don't hatch heart disease, "The study showed eating an average of one egg per day has little effect on total blood cholesterol levels and doesn't increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.

There is no suggestion here either that eating more than 1 a day is healthy.


6. The highest recommendation in Three eggs a day keep the doctor away!, is "two to three eggs per day." This is probably the weakest source, too, since it is a blog. Upon further examination of the link in the blog, it leads to a pubmed article that concludes:

SUMMARY: For these reasons, dietary recommendations aimed at restricting egg consumption should not be generalized to include all individuals. We need to acknowledge that diverse healthy populations experience no risk in developing coronary heart disease by increasing their intake of cholesterol but, in contrast, they may have multiple beneficial effects by the inclusion of eggs in their regular diet.

This study only shows that including eggs can be beneficial, but in no way does it imply that more than a moderate consumption of eggs is healthy.



Eating 1 egg per day seems to me to be pretty moderate, but even in the summary of the pubmed study, it says that "restricting egg consumption should not be generalized to include all individuals." It's simply too variable. Some people might be able to eat a couple eggs daily as part of a healthy diet, some might only be able to eat a couple a week.

On the other hand, most of the data you have provided show only evidence for a healthy diet at 1 egg a day.



You are correct in pointing out that many posters here need to research and provide evidence for their claims, but it is simply rude to call someone brainwashed when you yourself have not carefully examined your own sources.

Edited by czukles, 01 July 2008 - 02:25 AM.

[luv2increase]

[size=3][size=4]Iso, please be more respectful of other posters here. Calling someone "brainwashed" really kills the good spirit of argument or debate.

I think you have a solid post czukles, but calling someone 'brainwashed' is hardly disrespectful to that person. We aren't children here, well at least the majority of us are not. If you read a lot of the posts throughout the history here, you would see much worse things being accepted. Just because the majority of us are smart, doesn't mean that we are all sissy pansies. Nuff said.

[meursault]

[size=3][size=4]Iso, please be more respectful of other posters here. Calling someone "brainwashed" really kills the good spirit of argument or debate.

I think you have a solid post czukles, but calling someone 'brainwashed' is hardly disrespectful to that person. We aren't children here, well at least the majority of us are not. If you read a lot of the posts throughout the history here, you would see much worse things being accepted. Just because the majority of us are smart, doesn't mean that we are all sissy pansies. Nuff said.

I appreciate your praise of my post, but this has nothing to do with being "children" or "sissy pansies." Zoroaster is a good contributor to the forums and he hardly should be accused for having no mind or conscious of his own. It was disrespectful for Iso to call him brainwashed because he was being very hypocritical and misleading by doing so. These boards exist for the purpose of advancing our knowledge. Disrespect and misinformation are completely counterproductive.

Edited by czukles, 01 July 2008 - 05:56 AM.

[Irradiance]

Which choline source for stacking with piracetam do you recommend? I have heard of centrophenoxine(expensive), alpha gpc(also expensive ) and choline birtrate(cheap)
Are the first two really better options, that they justify the price?

On another note, I recommend choline bitartrate over choline citrate because the former seems to be less prone to decomposition into trimethylamine than the latter. It also seems more resistant to clumping.

Also, supplementing with choline citrate/bitartrate is much cheaper and seemingly as effective as Alpha-GPC (having tried both stacked with aniracetam and/or oxiracetam).

[Zoroaster]

[size=3][size=4]Iso, please be more respectful of other posters here. Calling someone "brainwashed" really kills the good spirit of argument or debate.

I think you have a solid post czukles, but calling someone 'brainwashed' is hardly disrespectful to that person. We aren't children here, well at least the majority of us are not. If you read a lot of the posts throughout the history here, you would see much worse things being accepted. Just because the majority of us are smart, doesn't mean that we are all sissy pansies. Nuff said.

I appreciate your praise of my post, but this has nothing to do with being "children" or "sissy pansies." Zoroaster is a good contributor to the forums and he hardly should be accused for having no mind or conscious of his own. It was disrespectful for Iso to call him brainwashed because he was being very hypocritical and misleading by doing so. These boards exist for the purpose of advancing our knowledge. Disrespect and misinformation are completely counterproductive.

Thanks for the defense. But for the record I wasn't offended. Lord knows it wasn't the first time I've been called brainwashed for expressing a reasonable and well-supported opinion. Irradiance I'm not prepared to offer you specific studies since I just got home and its past midnight. But none of your studies addressed the issue I was discussing. I was speaking about the effects of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat on your body's HDL/LDL ratio.

I just graduated with a degree in nutrition and in one particular class I read over 100 studies (literally) specifically on the subject of nutritional contributions to heart disease and the data is pretty clear. Minor amounts of egg consumption (which as czukles pointed out is generally defined as 1-2 eggs per day) does not significantly contribute to heart disease its true. But that's also when eating the whole egg. Frequent consumption of egg yolks cause a rise in "bad" cholesterol in the same way that any other dietary cholesterol does. There isn't yet a consensus as to why this may be the case but some theorize that there are substances in egg whites that prevent absorption of the cholesterol from egg yolks. So while its true that genetics play a very large role in cholesterol levels, and even 1 or 2 egg yolks here or there isn't going to make a big difference, your practice of eating 6 egg yolks per day is likely not helping your statistics.

If you need more support I'd be happy to provide some links for you but I suggest you start by looking up the results of the Nurses's Health study, the Physician's Health study, and the Honolulu Heart program. These are some of the foundational cohort studies that have given us much of what we know about nutrition and heart disease. I'm sure you'll find them quoted in the studies you posted. They all come to the same conclusion when it comes to dietary cholesterol, that it is not necessary to take in any amount of cholesterol from the diet and that there is a direct linear relationship between dietary cholesterol intake and heart disease risk. And all of them include the exception of 1-2 eggs per day which didn't seem to have an impact as you pointed out. So after you've checked those out, if you have more questions, we'll discuss this further. But we've already pretty well hijacked the poor OP's thread so if you feel strongly about this, maybe you should make a new topic.

[Zoroaster]

Sorry that last post was to Isochroma not Irradiance. It won't let me edit my post for some reason. Maybe its been too long.

[Zoroaster]

I know I'm going against my own recommendation by continuing this discussion but I just came across a few highly-applicable studies so I thought I'd post them up. The issue at hand is really whether or not eating something like 6 eggs per day is bad for your heart health. Isochroma has already demonstrated that one or two per day doesn't do much and that's a pretty well-accepted fact. So are there studies that have looked at the impact of more than one egg per day? Yup. And here they are:


Egg consumption in relation to cardiovascular disease and mortality: the Physicians' Health Study^1,2,3
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/87/4/964

This study comes from data from the Physicians' Health Study. That's an ongoing prospective study involving over 21,000 physicians. This particular study had a 20 year follow up period. They were looking only at myocardial infarction, stroke, and overall risk of death. They found a statistically significant increase in risk of death for egg consumption of any more than one per day. This risk increase is even more dramatic for diabetics. This study was published in 2008.


Egg Consumption and Risk of Heart Failure in the Physicians' Health Study
http://circ.ahajourn.../full/117/4/512

This was another study drawn from data from the Physicians' Health Study. They looked specifically at risk of Heart Failure with and without associated myocardial infarction and found that consumption of 7 or more eggs per week was associated with a significantly increased risk of heart failure. This is after adjusting for age, BMI, smoking, and all other known contributors to heart failure. This study was also published this year.


High Cholesterol Intake Modifies Chylomicron Metabolism in Normolipidemic Young Men[/url]¹
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/4/971

This study is from 2006 and used a methodology that somewhat mirrors the situation at hand. One test group consumed no eggs while the other consumed three egg yolks a day. The group consuming the egg yolks ended up with significantly higher levels of HDL and LDL and had a fractional clearance rate that was 52% lower than the control group. That's not good for one's risk of Coronary Artery Disease. Of course increases in cholesterol don't mean that much unless the ratio of HDL and LDL has changed right? Well luckily the next study clears up that question for us.


Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases the ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in humans: a meta-analysis¹[/url]^,2

http://www.ajcn.org/...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

This is a pretty well known study on the issue of eggs and blood cholesterol levels. They found that every additional 100mg of dietary cholesterol that one consumed from eggs increased the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol by 0.020 units, total cholesterol concentrations by 0.056 mmol/L , and HDL-cholesterol concentrations by 0.008 mmol/L. So its pretty clear that cholesterol from eggs increases LDL or "bad" cholesterol more than HDL or "good" cholesterol. Of course a difference of .020 ratio units isn't huge which is probably why 1 or maybe 2 eggs per day doesn't have a substantial impact on your risk of death while a higher intake does.


Anyway, sorry to the OP for furthering the derailment of the thread but hopefully this will settle some questions.

Edited by Zoroaster, 01 July 2008 - 07:50 PM.

[stephen_b]

This is a pretty well known study on the issue of eggs and blood cholesterol levels. They found that every additional 100mg of dietary cholesterol that one consumed from eggs increased the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol by 0.020 units, total cholesterol concentrations by 0.056 mmol/L , and HDL-cholesterol concentrations by 0.008 mmol/L. So its pretty clear that cholesterol from eggs increases LDL or "bad" cholesterol more than HDL or "good" cholesterol. Of course a difference of .020 ratio units isn't huge which is probably why 1 or maybe 2 eggs per day doesn't have a substantial impact on your risk of death while a higher intake does.
[/size]

If I'm reading it right, this March 2008 study, "High-density lipoprotein cholesterol changes after continuous egg consumption in healthy adults", seems to come to the opposite conclusion:

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between continuous egg consumption with Thai life-style dietary and serum lipids of healthy young people. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Fifty-six participants with an average age of 35 were enrolled. In an experimental method of cholesterol intake, all participants were fed an additional egg per day to their basic diet. This project ran for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The 12-week egg consumption significantly increased serum total cholesterol by 0.27 +/- 0.15 mmol/L (10.43 +/- 5.80 mg/dL) (p < 0.05). The HDL-cholesterol (HDL-c) increased significant by 0.55 +/- 0.06 mmol/L (21.80 +/- 2.25 mg/dL) (p < 0.001) while the total cholesterol (TC) decreased as the HDL-c ratio was 0.94 +/- 1.1 (p < 0.001). No significant changes were found in LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) and triglyceride levels. The present study showed that small serum LDL-c changed in response to change of egg consumption. Additionally, 12-week egg consumption also resulted in an increasing HDL-c level. CONCLUSION: In the majority of healthy adults, an addition of one egg per day to a normal fat diet could raise HDL-c levels and decreased the ratio of TC to HDL-c. Therefore, egg consumption might benefit blood cholesterol.

So increased HDL-c with an egg a day without significant LDL change. I like this study in that it directly added an egg and then measured the effects, rather than being a meta-study.

I wonder what the mechanism for eggs being harmful to diabetics is? I've read about increased glycation in a high glucose environment.

Stephen

[lojzenov]

you are kind of offtopic guys. I am also interested in this subject about egg yolks, since i eat 2+ daily but can you please open another thread, because it will be harder for anyone in the future to find information if there is much offtopic in the thread

thanks for the answers, i will probably go with choline bitartrate for now