• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Eggs good or bad for cholesterol?


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Aeropsia

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Florida

Posted 04 November 2010 - 08:19 PM


I've had 4 eggs today. I usually eat 2-4 eggs a day. I've been looking at my cholestrol intake in cronometer and it's bad, mostly because of the eggs. Mayo Clinic's info on eggs and cholesterol makes no distinction about kinds of cholesterol, only saying a healthy person shouldn't consume more than 300mg a day. Another link I came across discussed a study where 3 eggs a day raised good cholesterol. http://www.healthcen...35/eggs-improve

However, I don't know what to believe. But I'd really like to know because I've had 840.9mg of egg cholesterol today!

#2 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 05 November 2010 - 05:51 AM

As someone who eats 3 eggs/day, my suggestion is that you don't oxidize the cholesterol too often, by scrambing the eggs.

Other than that, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Your liver produces more cholesterol than you ingest in any case.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Thorsten3

  • Guest
  • 1,123 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Bristol UK
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2010 - 10:27 AM

Free range egg yolk eaten daily has helped me a lot. I eat a few raw foods. Might be a bit extreme for some people. I did used to enjoy boiled eggs though. Judged whereby the yolk was still runny. What damage cooking of any form does to the yolk is debatable. I'm not aware of any studies where they have actually done experiments here to show this either way.

If you can stomach raw egg yolks (they taste of vanilla) then you can use them. They are, in their raw form, composed of beneficial cholestrol and a host of useful vitamins/minerals. I have 5 per day and they do wonders for wellbeing and sleep. Your brain needs cholestrol in its good form. Your brain is mostly fat and feeding it brainfood like this is essential. There are other things out there too.

Boiling/poaching them are the healthiest cooking methods. If you're after a heart attack then frying is a good way to go. I think even olive oil when fried oxidizes into more dangerous compounds not beneficial to your health.

Why don't you get your cholestrol checked regularly? I have started doing mine and its fine

#4 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,367 posts
  • 259

Posted 06 November 2010 - 04:26 AM

I eat about a dozen (or more) of 'christophers all natural omega 3 eggs' daily. They have a perfect 1:1 ratio of omega fats. According to the label anyway. The old myth about eggs and cholesterol is garbage. I count on eggs as a cheap protein source often.

#5 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 06 November 2010 - 06:46 AM

Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2010 Nov;12(6):377-83.
Revisiting dietary cholesterol recommendations: does the evidence support a limit of 300 mg/d?
Fernandez ML, Calle M.
Department of Nutritional Sciences, the University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA. maria-luz.fernandez@uconn.edu
Abstract

The perceived association between dietary cholesterol (DC) and risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) has resulted in recommendations of no more than 300 mg/d for healthy persons in the United States. These dietary recommendations proposed in the 1960s had little scientific evidence other than the known association between saturated fat and cholesterol and animal studies where cholesterol was fed in amounts far exceeding normal intakes. In contrast, European countries, Asian countries, and Canada do not have an upper limit for DC. Further, current epidemiologic data have clearly demonstrated that increasing concentrations of DC are not correlated with increased risk for CHD. Clinical studies have shown that even if DC may increase plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in certain individuals (hyper-responders), this is always accompanied by increases in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, so the LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio is maintained. More importantly, DC reduces circulating levels of small, dense LDL particles, a well-defined risk factor for CHD. This article presents recent evidence from human studies documenting the lack of effect of DC on CHD risk, suggesting that guidelines for DC should be revisited.

PMID: 20683785


  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1

#6 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 06 November 2010 - 07:44 PM

Recently my view that eggs are a risk factor, albeit a comparably minor one, has been reinvigorated. A discussion and upload of relevant reviews can be found in the members section (and I should upload a recent one shortly).

One question, though. Small LDL particles are now a well-defined risk factor? What changed since that review?
"Higher LDL particle number was consistently associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, independent of other lipid measurements. Other LDL subfractions were generally not associated with cardiovascular disease after adjustment for cholesterol concentrations."
http://www.annals.or.../7/474.abstract

Edited by kismet, 06 November 2010 - 07:50 PM.


#7 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 06 November 2010 - 08:50 PM

Recently my view that eggs are a risk factor, albeit a comparably minor one, has been reinvigorated. A discussion and upload of relevant reviews can be found in the members section (and I should upload a recent one shortly).

One question, though. Small LDL particles are now a well-defined risk factor? What changed since that review?
"Higher LDL particle number was consistently associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, independent of other lipid measurements. Other LDL subfractions were generally not associated with cardiovascular disease after adjustment for cholesterol concentrations."
http://www.annals.or.../7/474.abstract


Could you post some of those studies here?

#8 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 06 November 2010 - 10:18 PM

To brainstorm the reasons why eggs might not be the best health food:
worsened TC/HDL - particularly in hyper-responders, cholesterol oxidation (exogenic due to preparation, but also increased in vitro susceptibility?), super-additive effects in combination with saturated fat?, increased postprandial lipemia due to the cholesterol?, diabetogenic?, high methionine content (or amino acid profile in general..), pro-inflammatory? CRP, serum amyloid A responses; relatively high both in PUFA & SAFA (PUFA - oxidation liability when cooked, SAFA not the greatest fatty acid anyway)

Now of course these aren't favorable attributes on top of mixed epidemiological studies (eggs or dietary chol. always neutral OR detrimental)

(read mi*ch*ael rae's posts)
http://www.crsociety...9896#msg-189896
http://www.crsociety...8328#msg-158328
http://www.crsociety...7322#msg-157322

Dietary cholesterol and coronary artery disease: a systematic review.
Djoussé L, Gaziano JM.
Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2009 Nov;11(6):418-22. Review.
http://www.springerl...864165p27515w5/

From the egg-critics, not a good review of the epidemiology, but mentions almost all negative impacts eggs (might) have on risk factors + the emerging evidence on diabetes.
http://www.pulsus.co...Ctype=Physician

The eggs are good/ok for your cholesterol claim is bollocks; no, not even in hypo (normal-)responders. (they're at best neutral for those people.)
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 May;73(5):885-91. Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases the ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in humans: a meta-analysis. Weggemans RM, Zock PL, Katan MB.
http://www.ajcn.org/...t/full/73/5/885

(great rev. from the pro-egg fraction:)
McNamara DJ: The impact of egg limitations on coronary heart disease risk: do the numbers add up? J Am Coll Nutr 2000, 19:540S–548S. http://www.jacn.org/...19/suppl_5/540S

Edited by kismet, 07 November 2010 - 01:15 PM.

  • like x 1

#9 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,367 posts
  • 259

Posted 07 November 2010 - 02:06 AM

Isn't post prandial lipemia the case with all food consumption? Unless you're referring to hyperlipemia (the retention of lipoprotein in the bloodstream after 24 hours of consumption). The latter is also caused by carbohydrate consumption. The question is which type of hyperlipemia has the most prolonged negative effect, that induced by carb consumption, or that induced by fat and dietary cholesterol? Bear in mind we live the majority of our time in post prandial lipemic flux, with or without high fat consumption.

Edited by TheFountain, 07 November 2010 - 02:07 AM.


#10 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 07 November 2010 - 09:02 PM

Thanks for the papers, got lots of reading to do.

#11 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 08 November 2010 - 03:17 AM

To brainstorm the reasons why eggs might not be the best health food:
worsened TC/HDL - particularly in hyper-responders, cholesterol oxidation (exogenic due to preparation, but also increased in vitro susceptibility?), super-additive effects in combination with saturated fat?, increased postprandial lipemia due to the cholesterol?, diabetogenic?, high methionine content (or amino acid profile in general..), pro-inflammatory? CRP, serum amyloid A responses; relatively high both in PUFA & SAFA (PUFA - oxidation liability when cooked, SAFA not the greatest fatty acid anyway)

Interesting point about the PUFA content of eggs. The percent long-chain omega-6 fats (including AA) in red blood cell membranes associates quite well with heart attack risk. You can see the relationship in this graph compiled by Dr. Bill Lands. However, egg consumption has never been convincingly linked to heart attack risk or any other disorder I'm aware of, despite "dire" warnings about eggs' cholesterol content.


Conventionally raised eggs are unnaturally rich in AA, and unnaturally low in omega-3, due to the hens' diet of grains and soybeans. The ideal egg is one that comes from a hen raised outdoors (often on pasture), in a place where she can eat a variety of green plants and insects. Hens raised this way typically still eat grain-based feed, but supplemented with a significant amount of foraged food. This dramatically increases the nutritional value of the eggs. Modern hens lay nearly one egg a day, which is a rate of production that can not be sustained without a large amount of calorie-dense food. They can't eat enough to lay at this rate by foraging. Hence the obvious benefiit of pastured eggs.

One study found that omega-3 eggs contain 39% less AA than conventional and organic eggs. Omega-3 eggs were also rich in short- and long-chain omega-3 fats. Omega-3 eggs are certainly not nutritionally equivalent to pastured eggs, but they're a step in the right direction.

"The objective of this study was to compare the fatty acid composition of commercially available conventional, certified organic, and omega-3 eggs. Egg components were assessed, and the fatty acid composition of yolk lipids was determined by gas chromatography. Organic egg yolk contained a higher percentage of palmitic and stearic acids than did conventional yolk (P < 0.05) with no differences observed in the monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fatty acid compositions. Compared with organic and conventional eggs, omega-3 egg yolk contained lower percentages of myristic and palmitic acids, and higher omega-3 fatty acids. In a sub-analysis of conventional egg types, the percent of stearic acid in "cage" egg yolk was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than those of "barn-laid" and "free-range" eggs. "Cage" eggs had a significantly lower percentage (P < 0.05) of arachidonic acid than had "barn-laid" eggs. Consumption of omega-3 eggs has the potential to confer health benefits through the increase in intake of omega-3 fatty acids. With regard to organic or conventional methods of production, the small differences in saturated fatty acids observed in the present study are unlikely to have any significant metabolic effect on the consumer." [source]

I don't really know if the AA content of eggs is a concern. Eicosanoid biology is complex and it doesn't like to fit into simple models. I'll look forward to seeing more research on the matter. In the meantime, I'll be eating pastured eggs, and when they're not available I'll eat omega-3 eggs.

Edited by Skötkonung, 08 November 2010 - 03:19 AM.


#12 Jay

  • Guest
  • 406 posts
  • 22
  • Location:New York

Posted 08 November 2010 - 05:51 PM

Skot, I agree it's not quite so cut and dry. First, I don't think the problem is too much dietary AA. Rather, the problem is too much dietary LA. I'm not sure I wouldn't welcome a bit more AA in my diet actually.

This study found that flax-fed eggs have less AA but more LA than supermarket eggs. Fish-meal fed eggs (which, in this case, were produced by Country Hen) had less AA as well but almost 3x the LA of supermarket eggs!! Country Hen, for those that aren't aware seems to fed their hens more soy than most other egg producers, in addition to the fish-meal. They brag about their DHA/EPA content but miss the mark (big time) when it comes to reducing excess LA.

I shoot for eggs with the least LA. To that end, eggs from chickens that are fed the least amount of soy should do the trick. I try to find pastured eggs (which are fed less soy, on account of their foraging) at the farmer's market and have also ordered Tropical Tradition's soy-free coconut-fed eggs.

Edited by Jay, 08 November 2010 - 05:54 PM.


#13 motif

  • Guest
  • 107 posts
  • -57
  • Location:US

Posted 09 November 2010 - 09:11 AM

I learned to eat healthy paleo diet and not to care about cholesterol which is marketing and big pharma hype.
Since then my blood tests come out perfect. Eggs are best in row form, straight from the nest...
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#14 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 09 November 2010 - 06:34 PM

Isn't post prandial lipemia the case with all food consumption? Unless you're referring to hyperlipemia (the retention of lipoprotein in the bloodstream after 24 hours of consumption). The latter is also caused by carbohydrate consumption. The question is which type of hyperlipemia has the most prolonged negative effect, that induced by carb consumption, or that induced by fat and dietary cholesterol? Bear in mind we live the majority of our time in post prandial lipemic flux, with or without high fat consumption.

I edited my post for clarity. Cholesterol modifies postprandial lipemia after a mixed meal independent of macronutrient content. As per the authors of above review the changes are detrimental, but the pathophysiological significance of this is less clear to me.

I was just being inclusive so in that sense you can add AA content as another reason not to eat eggs (and again the pathophysiological significance of this seems also dubious). But replacing AA w/ extremely unstable HUFAs (n3 FAs) or other PUFAs and then cooking that stuff is not going to make it much healthier...

#15 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,367 posts
  • 259

Posted 10 November 2010 - 03:08 AM

Isn't post prandial lipemia the case with all food consumption? Unless you're referring to hyperlipemia (the retention of lipoprotein in the bloodstream after 24 hours of consumption). The latter is also caused by carbohydrate consumption. The question is which type of hyperlipemia has the most prolonged negative effect, that induced by carb consumption, or that induced by fat and dietary cholesterol? Bear in mind we live the majority of our time in post prandial lipemic flux, with or without high fat consumption.

I edited my post for clarity. Cholesterol modifies postprandial lipemia after a mixed meal independent of macronutrient content. As per the authors of above review the changes are detrimental, but the pathophysiological significance of this is less clear to me.

I was just being inclusive so in that sense you can add AA content as another reason not to eat eggs (and again the pathophysiological significance of this seems also dubious). But replacing AA w/ extremely unstable HUFAs (n3 FAs) or other PUFAs and then cooking that stuff is not going to make it much healthier...


Yes, it is the context of the 'mixed meal' I am curious about. Did it include any processed carbohydrate for example?

There was one documented case of a 88 year old mental patient (i think?) who ate nothing but two dozen eggs every day for 6 months (the duration of his hospital visit) and his biosigns were better than most people his age. He did not subject himself to normal carbohydrate consumption during this time and this, it is speculated, is the reason he was fine. It could be that dietary cholesterol coupled with high carb intake is the culprit in the other data you point to. But I have not delved into it. Maybe insulin sensitivity and fat storage makes it harder for our metabolic processes to handle dietary cholesterol.

Edited by TheFountain, 10 November 2010 - 03:10 AM.


#16 2525

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 4

Posted 10 November 2010 - 11:45 AM

In my experience, eggs yellow part is one of the most full of BAD CHOLESTEROL parts of a food,
while the white part has practically no nutrition value.

So eggs are delicious but they are not healthy. Think about it
  • dislike x 1

#17 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 10 November 2010 - 11:56 AM

So the jury is still out on the healthiness of eggs? Some people only eat whites, some people only yolks, some eat five a day and some none... :unsure:

#18 motif

  • Guest
  • 107 posts
  • -57
  • Location:US

Posted 10 November 2010 - 04:14 PM

In my experience, eggs yellow part is one of the most full of BAD CHOLESTEROL parts of a food,
while the white part has practically no nutrition value.

So eggs are delicious but they are not healthy. Think about it


wrong,
raw whole egg is a good source of Riboflavin, Vitamin B12 and Phosphorus, and a very good source of Protein and Selenium.
There is no danger from the cholesterol build up since 2/3 of cholesterol in the body is produced by the liver. The amount of cholesterol consumed in the diet does not relate to the amount of cholesterol deposited. Many studies have shown that the cholesterol in eggs does not raise cholesterol level in the body. Furthermore, eggs contain Lecithin, a valuable nutrient that helps the body to process fats and cholesterol.

#19 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,889 posts
  • 727
  • Location:Austria

Posted 10 November 2010 - 05:35 PM

So eggs are delicious but they are not healthy. Think about it


In the course of coming down with a serious PAD I reconsidered my vegetarian diet - on which I lived for the last 30 years - and started to eat fish and eggs again. Eating about 1 egg each day for the last year my LDL and Triglyceride halved and HDL has doubled by now!

I also use Niacin to that end, but I doubt this alone could have changed my lipids that much in the right direction. Therefore I would recommend just to check cholesterol levels with diet changes. So one can see if they turn out beneficial or not.

By the way, my dietary cholesterol intake before making this change was about 70 mg/daily, while it is around 270 now.

Edited by pamojja, 10 November 2010 - 05:42 PM.


#20 motif

  • Guest
  • 107 posts
  • -57
  • Location:US

Posted 10 November 2010 - 07:13 PM

Pamojja, I didn't say what you quoted...

#21 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,889 posts
  • 727
  • Location:Austria

Posted 10 November 2010 - 07:53 PM

Sorry for the mistake. Wanted to quote '2525'.

#22 openeyes

  • Guest
  • 120 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Chapel Hill, NC

Posted 14 November 2010 - 07:46 AM

My vitals were best when I ate 12-18 raw free range eggs (often from a local farm) per day, spaced out in 2-3 shakes. My diet was mostly raw, with total cholesterol at 130, HDL ~65, triglycerides at 47.

Eight years later I follow a much more varied/cooked diet, and my cholesterol is generally closer to 150 with triglycerides around 60, still having 4 raw eggs most days.

I don't know how much that difference is due to a change in diet or simple passage of time, but it makes me not too concerned about having a few eggs most days.

If my vitals ever get significantly worse I may go back to more raw foods/eggs, but for now I'm enjoying being able to share food with other people, even if I tend to have fewer calories than most around me.

Edited by openeyes, 14 November 2010 - 08:03 AM.

  • like x 1

#23 Thorsten3

  • Guest
  • 1,123 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Bristol UK
  • NO

Posted 14 November 2010 - 08:45 AM

My vitals were best when I ate 12-18 raw free range eggs (often from a local farm) per day, spaced out in 2-3 shakes. My diet was mostly raw, with total cholesterol at 130, HDL ~65, triglycerides at 47.

Eight years later I follow a much more varied/cooked diet, and my cholesterol is generally closer to 150 with triglycerides around 60, still having 4 raw eggs most days.

I don't know how much that difference is due to a change in diet or simple passage of time, but it makes me not too concerned about having a few eggs most days.

If my vitals ever get significantly worse I may go back to more raw foods/eggs, but for now I'm enjoying being able to share food with other people, even if I tend to have fewer calories than most around me.


That's the thing isn't it, going raw is not the most socially acceptable of things. Ironic, how it is so beneficial for our bodies to eat this way but the scornful looks you get from people when you'd rather eat a carrot than their lovingly made home made spaghetti bolgnese. Seriously some of these people look like they want to kill me or I have just murdered their mother or something. There is something very insulting to their zombified minds that we would decline their way of eating in preference for an alternative way. It's not easy, and raw eggs are definitey socially unacceptable. Looks of disgust, concern, persistant questioning on the health risks - It's not even worth it. I have started putting them into smoothies which seems to be 'more acceptable' for some reason but I still get questioned by many on why I live this way. It's strange how people can become so small minded. Maybe I should print off a load of data (many copies) and then whenever someone asks me on why I do this I'll just hand them a few sheets and tell them to get reading. Leave me in peace and let me put into my mouth whatever the hell I like! lol Perhaps they are guilty and paranoid that there is indeed a better way.. People don;t like change and are therefore scared of it especially when it is unknown and involves breaking their addiction to processed foods and sugars. People have also been scandalously misinformed about the dangers of cholestrol. Cholestrol is freaking essential for our survival!! It always has been. Obviously the oxidized version can cause problems and that's the problem that has arisen from overcoking our food. Evidence in itself that our bodies are not designed to live on food that is cooked constantly. Not saying some cooked meals are not ok, because evrything in moderation is generally fine. Depending on what your definition of moderation is of course!
As an aside raw eggs are terrific for my mood and help my sleep immensely. My cholestrol levels are fine as I mentioned earlier. A very valuable addition to my regimen.

Edited by Thorsten, 14 November 2010 - 08:49 AM.


#24 kenny001

  • Guest
  • 63 posts
  • 48
  • Location:new york

Posted 03 December 2010 - 03:22 AM

there are the high level cholesterol in the eggs for the people, and eating eggs is good for us, but overeating is not good for the people, it can cause some similar diseases.

#25 AstralStorm

  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • -13
  • Location:Poland

Posted 04 December 2010 - 03:49 AM

Indeed reasonable number of eggs, regardless of source, should be fine. Treat them like red meat.

Large amounts, on the other hand... those comment about Linoleic Acid content are quite important, as those about TC/HDL ratio.
I'd like to see a nice study showing complete lipid panels instead of the ratio, because there might be an interesting side effect of turning VLDL into LDL.

Edited by AstralStorm, 04 December 2010 - 03:50 AM.


#26 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,367 posts
  • 259

Posted 04 December 2010 - 04:56 PM

Indeed reasonable number of eggs, regardless of source, should be fine. Treat them like red meat.

Large amounts, on the other hand... those comment about Linoleic Acid content are quite important, as those about TC/HDL ratio.
I'd like to see a nice study showing complete lipid panels instead of the ratio, because there might be an interesting side effect of turning VLDL into LDL.


I think the comments about linoleic acid only applied to normal, non-free range eggs that lackk omega balancce as per the study someone posted.

Edited by TheFountain, 04 December 2010 - 04:56 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users