54 replies to this topic

[suspire]

The debate on eggs keeps going back and forth. First eggs were awesome, then the cholesterol in them was horrible for you, then it was decided that the cholesterol in them wasn't really bad for you and now it seems they really are bad for you!

http://www.theatlant...arettes/261091/

Which is it? I eat two soft-boiled eggs a day--eggs always struck me as a great source of protein and other nutrients, but now I am thinking maybe it isn't such a good idea.

[Hebbeh]

Yeah I saw that study. I eat 2 eggs every day and my cholesterol is never above 140 (at 55). But I exercise and eat at maintenance calorie level and maintain less than 10% body fat and live a healthy lifestyle. I'm willing to bet the "bad eggs" in the study had issues because they ate too much and as such, were overweight and never exercised...in other words, fat couch potatoes....and it is no surprise if you're living an unhealthy lifestyle and stuffing your pie hole, then additional eggs are going to compound an existing problem. The study doesn't tell the whole story, I'm sure.

[tunt01]

very high in methionine. i used to eat them every AM, but since looking at them more closely have not eaten them in years.

[Mind]

One population study found a slight increase in cancer incidence with egg consumption.

If you are middle-aged or older and going for extreme longevity through diet and lifestyle alone, then cutting back on eggs might make sense. I still eat them because they are such an inexpensive source of full spectrum protein and other nutrients.

[suspire]

Yeah. I am super skeptical of these sorts of studies. Admittedly, my evidence is purely anecdotal, but my grandfather used to eat a fried every day and he lived to 96 without any heart problems or otherwise associated issues and my grandmother, at 92 does the same and is plugging along without a problem. If eggs were "almost as bad as cigarettes", I suspect their results would be much worse.

[niner]

One population study found a slight increase in cancer incidence with egg consumption.

If you are middle-aged or older and going for extreme longevity through diet and lifestyle alone, then cutting back on eggs might make sense. I still eat them because they are such an inexpensive source of full spectrum protein and other nutrients.

I was just about to post a link to that same thread, but you beat me to it. I wouldn't characterize it as a 'slight' increase. I'd call it huge. Check out those odds ratios! It was a well done case control study, too. I love eggs, but I don't make them a staple of my diet. They're more of an occasional treat.

[Mind]

Yeah. I am super skeptical of these sorts of studies. Admittedly, my evidence is purely anecdotal, but my grandfather used to eat a fried every day and he lived to 96 without any heart problems or otherwise associated issues and my grandmother, at 92 does the same and is plugging along without a problem. If eggs were "almost as bad as cigarettes", I suspect their results would be much worse.

Jack Lalanne reportedly got almost all of his protein from fish and egg whites - lived to 96. And of course, Jean Clement smoked cigarettes until 106. Good genes win out big over lifestyle factors in some special cases. HOWEVER, if you want to turn the life extension odds in your favor, it is good to pay attention to population studies, since most of us are probably in the fattest part of the bell curve (when it comes to genes).

Edited by Mind, 16 August 2012 - 05:04 PM.

[niner]

Yeah. I am super skeptical of these sorts of studies. Admittedly, my evidence is purely anecdotal, but my grandfather used to eat a fried every day and he lived to 96 without any heart problems or otherwise associated issues and my grandmother, at 92 does the same and is plugging along without a problem. If eggs were "almost as bad as cigarettes", I suspect their results would be much worse.

If you don't buy a study like that, which has the statistical power to average out anomalies due to exceptionally good or bad genetics, then all you have left to go by is theory, which is useless for this kind of question, and anecdote. I suppose "gut feeling" or emotion/whimsy are other options. When I see a multi-center study with a couple thousand people, and the study methodology looks solid, I tend to pay it some heed. Eggs are certainly not "almost as bad as cigarettes". Cigarettes are WAY worse. (At least for lung cancer, but probably most measures.)

[scottknl]

This is epidemiology, so take it with a grain of salt but -- This study
http://www.ncbi.nlm....70/?tool=pubmed

Gives competing mortality risks analysis and allows us to compare cigarettes with cholesterol intake.
http://nutritionfact...auses-of-death/
provides at 2:00 mark a comparison that one egg per day is as risky as 5 cigarettes per day for 15 years.

so 20 cigs per pack
one large egg = 186 mg of cholesterol in cronometer.
HR=2.08 for 46 pack-years of smoking cancer risk
HR=1.17 for 105 mg per 1000kcals of diet for cancer risk

numbers look pretty close to me.

Edited by scottknl, 15 August 2012 - 11:55 PM.

[Keshan]

Unless your thyroid gland is disfunctional your body will not have any problems processing the cholesterol in eggs, or any other food.

[scottknl]

Unless your thyroid gland is disfunctional your body will not have any problems processing the cholesterol in eggs, or any other food.

Um.. this seems to be untrue in the case of excess cholesterol in the diet when accompanied by a diet that is lower in phytosterols such as the standard american diet (SAD). In this case, the meager flow of waste from energy rich foods is not enough to remove the excess cholesterol from the waste stream fast enough to keep up with the ingestion of further high cholesterol foods.
http://nutritionfact...er-cholesterol/

[Mind]

The standard primal defense from Mark Sisson.

I call it "standard" because, it is similar to many a commentary about population studies that find negative outcomes from meat, egg, or saturated fat, consumption. Judging by real world results (thus far), the keto/atkins/paleo/hyperlipid life extension crowd has "seeing is believing" substantially on their side. The practitioners that religiously measure their aging bio-markers (Duke and Dave Asprey for example) also have hard data on their side.

I definitely pay attention to the population studies like this one, but I think the risks are substantially mitigated for people who practice life extension diets/lifestyle.

[suspire]

Yeah. I am super skeptical of these sorts of studies. Admittedly, my evidence is purely anecdotal, but my grandfather used to eat a fried every day and he lived to 96 without any heart problems or otherwise associated issues and my grandmother, at 92 does the same and is plugging along without a problem. If eggs were "almost as bad as cigarettes", I suspect their results would be much worse.

If you don't buy a study like that, which has the statistical power to average out anomalies due to exceptionally good or bad genetics, then all you have left to go by is theory, which is useless for this kind of question, and anecdote. I suppose "gut feeling" or emotion/whimsy are other options. When I see a multi-center study with a couple thousand people, and the study methodology looks solid, I tend to pay it some heed. Eggs are certainly not "almost as bad as cigarettes". Cigarettes are WAY worse. (At least for lung cancer, but probably most measures.)

I think it's less "gut feeling" or emotion/whimsy than simply questioning the reliability of the studies especially when taking into account the history of eggs within human/Western culture and the seeming incongruity of the study's conclusions versus the impact or lack thereof of eggs on society. Maybe certain things were missed, overlooked, what have you in the studies--surely, as this excellent Atlantic article shows, it wouldn't be the first time: http://www.theatlant...l-science/8269/

It brings up a good discussion my cousin and I had awhile back. He is a psychiatrist and participated in research at Stanford University for a few years. As he was explaining to me, he just wouldn't trust most studies that come out--he saw major flaws in how the studies were conducted, including in the choosing of test subjects, and he explained that there was enormous pressure on most researchers--even big name researchers (sometimes especially big name researchers) to come to certain conclusions or findings. Continued grant money depended on it. Negative findings were usually bad for business.

So are all studies flawed? No. But there have been enough back and forth on the study of eggs to make me doubt the findings, especially in the face of the history of consumption of eggs, to be doubtful of studies that eggs have a significant impact on cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc. If one eats a pretty healthy diet and lives a fit life otherwise, I think eggs are not only fine but probably a good addition to the diet.

[niner]

So are all studies flawed? No. But there have been enough back and forth on the study of eggs to make me doubt the findings, especially in the face of the history of consumption of eggs, to be doubtful of studies that eggs have a significant impact on cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc. If one eats a pretty healthy diet and lives a fit life otherwise, I think eggs are not only fine but probably a good addition to the diet.

There's a lot of bad work out there, and a lot of things are spun in a misleading way, particularly by the lay media; I agree with all that. The idea of the back and forth making you doubt these findings is interesting. Does that mean that if no one had ever looked at eggs before, these results would be more valid? I think we need to evaluate each study on its own merits. I guess what you mean is that there are studies out there that find eggs to be a fine addition to the human diet. If so, we need to evaluate those studies as well. Were they large? Well Run? Funded by the Egg Industry Council? Are their endpoints valid?

Another thought that I have about diet, lifestyle, and medicine issues in general is that my dad died when he was 18 years older than I am right now. If I do all the same stuff he did, that might be my future, but I'm hoping for a better outcome in terms of both health and longevity. Therefore, I have to question his lifestyle choices, and the lifestyle choices of everyone who ended up the way I don't want to end up. Ultimately, I'd like all my decisions to be based on the totality of evidence, weighted by its likelihood of accuracy. I have to admit, that's not always easy to do.

[scottknl]

The thread that mind linked to earlier referenced this study:
http://www.apocpcont...9 c Dagfinn.pdf

Risk of >3.5 eggs per week on Colon cancer 3.21, on breast cancer 2.86, on bladder cancer 2.23, on oral cancers 2.02 and on prostate 1.89 compared to eating 0 eggs per week.

It seems to be protective vs kidney (0.82) and rectum cancers (0.90)

Since you get > 3x the risk of colon cancers from eating eggs and almost 3x the risk of breast cancer and an increased risk for a host of other cancers + lots of speculation on the atherosclerosis effects of such high cholesterol consumption, why would you take the risk if you were serious about longevity?

I don't doubt that there are a few genetically gifted individuals out there who can eat any damn thing they please and get away with it, but why would any person take the risk unless they knew for sure?

[Keshan]

Do you guys seriously believe that eggs increase the risk of cancer? C'mon. This CAN'T be real.

[niner]

Do you guys seriously believe that eggs increase the risk of cancer? C'mon. This CAN'T be real.

The field of longevity research is full of things that are hard to believe. That doesn't make them wrong, necessarily.

[misterE]

The increase in animal-based foods (meat, dairy, eggs) and decrease in plant-based foods (rice, vegetables, soybeans) has caused a huge epidemic of disease in Asians cultures [1-5].

Now most people on this forum (and America in general) are biased towards egg-consumption. They don’t want to believe that eggs are bad, because they grew up eating eggs and like eating them. But when you look at the nutritional make-up of eggs, they are flat-out the wrong food for humans; they contain many substances that decrease longevity, like animal-protein, cholesterol, saturated-fat, and dioxins. And they don't contain the substances that promote longevity, like fiber or phytonutrients.

Not to mention eggs contain 8 times as much cholesterol as steak! There are many studies sponsored by the egg industry showing that egg consumption doesn’t increase cholesterol, thus eating eggs is safe. The way they do this is by saturating subjects with cholesterol from other sources, like chicken and beef, then adding eggs to the diet. Once a person has consumed 400 to 800 mg of cholesterol in a day, adding more dietary-cholesterol (like eggs) causes little rise, because the body cannot absorb any more cholesterol [6-7]. But when eggs are given to people who eat very little cholesterol (like vegetarians) eggs do in fact increase LDL-cholesterol [8].



[1] Gan No Rinsho. 1986 May;32(6):561-6. Changes in food/nutrient intake and cancer mortality in Japan. Kato I, Tominaga S.

[2] Med Hypotheses. 2003 Feb;60(2):268-75. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of breast and ovarian cancers: relationship between death from both malignancies and dietary practices. Li XM, Ganmaa D, Sato A.

[3] Med Hypotheses. 2003 May;60(5):724-30. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of testicular and prostatic cancers. Ganmaa D, Li XM, Qin LQ.

[4] Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2004 Jan-Mar;5(1):28-35. Association between type II diabetes and colon cancer among Japanese with reference to changes in food intake. Kuriki K, Tokudome S, Tajima K.

[5] Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1998 Feb;37(2):111-5. Increased incidence of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus among Japanese schoolchildren correlates with an increased intake of animal protein and fat. Kitagawa T, Owada M, Urakami T.

[6] Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Jun;55(6):1060-70. Effects of dietary cholesterol on serum cholesterol: a meta-analysis and review. Hopkins PN.

[7] Am J Clin Nutr. 1982;36:1261. Reply to letter by Oster. W. Connor.

[8] Lancet. 1984 Mar 24;1(8378):647-9. Ingestion of egg raises plasma low density lipoproteins in free-living subjects. Sacks FM, Salazar J, Miller L.

Edited by misterE, 17 August 2012 - 12:17 AM.

[Chupo]

Someone posted this link in the other thread. http://rawfoodsos.co...ggs-and-diseas/

Liver cirrhosis: -46***
Peptic ulcer: -43**
Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs: -35*
Death from all causes: -33*
Digestive disease other than peptic ulcer: -30*
Hypertensive heart disease: -28
Oesophageal cancer: -26*
Death from all non-cancer causes: -26

Colorectal cancer: +35*
Colon cancer: +34*
Rectal cancer: +30*

Eggs are negatively associated with death from all causes. That's the important thing. The cancer is probably caused by schistosomiasis but even if you attribute it to the eggs, they more than make up for it in the end.

[Chupo]

The increase in animal-based foods (meat, dairy, eggs) and decrease in plant-based foods (rice, vegetables, soybeans) has caused a huge epidemic of disease in Asians cultures [1-5].

Vegans want you to believe that so you don't eat animals. According to the China Study Data, plant protein is associated with most diseases and all cause mortality. Animal protein is negatively correlated.

http://youtu.be/tsf9Tpm2Dgc
http://youtu.be/ifDjChi8eqA
http://youtu.be/wY-4E3sDaOo

The rest can be found here: http://livinlavidalo...se-minger/14949

Edited by Chupoman, 17 August 2012 - 12:47 AM.

[niner]

Someone posted this link in the other thread. http://rawfoodsos.co...ggs-and-diseas/

Liver cirrhosis: -46***
Peptic ulcer: -43**
Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs: -35*
Death from all causes: -33*
Digestive disease other than peptic ulcer: -30*
Hypertensive heart disease: -28
Oesophageal cancer: -26*
Death from all non-cancer causes: -26

Colorectal cancer: +35*
Colon cancer: +34*
Rectal cancer: +30*

Eggs are negatively associated with death from all causes. That's the important thing. The cancer is probably caused by schistosomiasis but even if you attribute it to the eggs, they more than make up for it in the end.

This is data from The China Study, an epidemiological study that is riddled with confounders. As much as I'd like to believe it, that study was a mess.

[misterE]

According to the China Study Data, plant protein is associated with most diseases and all cause mortality. Animal protein is negatively correlated.

You have it backwards. The China Study (which was the largest epidemiological study ever conducted) found that animal-protein was strongly correlated with diseases, while plant-protein had inverse associations with disease.

[misterE]

very high in methionine. i used to eat them every AM, but since looking at them more closely have not eaten them in years.

This is a great point. Eggs are high in methionine. Excess methionine (a sulfur-containing amino-acid) is metabolized into homocystine and/or sulfuric-acid. The homocystine can damage the blood-vessels (leading to atherosclerosis) and the sulfuric-acid can leech calcium from the bones (leading to osteoporosis and kidney stones). Methionine also increases a powerful growth hormone called IGF-1, which is viewed negatively in terms of cancer and longevity.

Animal-proteins contain much more methionine than plant-foods... for example, calorie for calorie, beef provides 4 times more methionine than pinto beans, eggs have 4 times more methionine than corn, cheese has 5 times more methionine than potatoes, and chicken provides 7 times more methionine than rice.

Edited by misterE, 17 August 2012 - 03:23 AM.

[Chupo]

very high in methionine. i used to eat them every AM, but since looking at them more closely have not eaten them in years.

This is a great point. Eggs are high in methionine. Excess methionine (a sulfur-containing amino-acid) is metabolized into homocystine and/or sulfuric-acid. The homocystine can damage the blood-vessels (leading to atherosclerosis) and the sulfuric-acid can leech calcium from the bones (leading to osteoporosis and kidney stones). Methionine also increases a powerful growth hormone called IGF-1, which is viewed negatively in terms of cancer and longevity.

Animal-proteins contain much more methionine than plant-foods... for example, calorie for calorie, beef provides 4 times more methionine than pinto beans, eggs have 4 times more methionine than corn, cheese has 5 times more methionine than potatoes, and chicken provides 7 times more methionine than rice.

IGF-1 is low on a ketogenic diet and homocysteine isn't a problem if you're getting adequate B-12.



Everything in the China Study book is the exact opposite of what the actual data says. Even Campell's own peer reviewed studies contradict what he puts in the book. I don't trust vegans with studies. Richard Fleming, another member of PCRM, published the only study in history that said a low carb, high fat diet worsened CVD risk factors. They have incentives to be deceptive and outright lie. They care about animal rights first and foremost. Your health is somewhere further down on their list.

[misterE]

I don't trust vegans with studies.

What do you make of these studies [1-5], done by Japanese researchers, showing that a shift from plant-foods (rice and vegetables) towards animal-foods (meat, dairy, eggs) caused a huge increase in diseases in Japan?


[1] Gan No Rinsho. 1986 May;32(6):561-6. Changes in food/nutrient intake and cancer mortality in Japan. Kato I, Tominaga S.

[2] Med Hypotheses. 2003 Feb;60(2):268-75. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of breast and ovarian cancers: relationship between death from both malignancies and dietary practices. Li XM, Ganmaa D, Sato A.

[3] Med Hypotheses. 2003 May;60(5):724-30. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of testicular and prostatic cancers. Ganmaa D, Li XM, Qin LQ.

[4] Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2004 Jan-Mar;5(1):28-35. Association between type II diabetes and colon cancer among Japanese with reference to changes in food intake. Kuriki K, Tokudome S, Tajima K.

[5] Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1998 Feb;37(2):111-5. Increased incidence of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus among Japanese schoolchildren correlates with an increased intake of animal protein and fat. Kitagawa T, Owada M, Urakami T.

[Chupo]

What else has increased? Unnatural processed food has increased yet the natural whole foods are blamed.

[misterE]

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2009;10(5):869-76.

Egg consumption and the risk of cancer: a multisite case-control study in Uruguay.

Aune D, De Stefani E, Ronco AL.


Abstract



BACKGROUND:
Previous studies have suggested that egg consumption may increase the risk of colorectal cancer and some other cancers. However, the evidence is still limited. To further explore the association between egg intake and cancer risk we conducted a case-control study of 11 cancer sites in Uruguay between 1996 and 2004, including 3,539 cancer cases and 2,032 hospital controls.

RESULTS:
In the multivariable model with adjustment for age, sex (when applicable), residence, education, income, interviewer, smoking, alcohol intake, intake of fruits and vegetables, grains, dairy products, fatty foods, meat, energy intake and BMI, there was a significant increase in the odds of cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx (OR= 2.02, 95% CI: 1.19-3.44), upper aerodigestive tract (OR= 1.67, 95% CI: 1.17-2.37), colorectum (OR= 1.64, 95% CI: 1.02-2.63), lung (OR= 1.59, 95% CI: 1.10-2.29), breast (OR= 2.86, 95% CI: 1.66-4.92), prostate (OR= 1.89, 95% CI: 1.15-3.10), bladder (OR= 2.23, 95% CI: 1.30-3.83) and all cancer sites combined (OR= 1.71, 95% CI: 1.35-2.17) with a high vs low egg intake.

CONCLUSIONS:
We found an association between higher intake of eggs and increased risk of several cancers. Further prospective studies of these associations are warranted.

Edited by misterE, 18 August 2012 - 03:18 AM.

[scottknl]

I think there's room for both camps (vegans and paleo) to be correct. If the diet is sufficiently sparse, but still nutritious enough to rule out gross malnutrition, then it probably doesn't cause any problems regardless of what you eat and you will live out a normal lifespan. If you calorie restrict in addition to getting full nutrition, then the current evidence suggests that you will live a longer lifespan than normal. If your protein level is high during CR and you're getting lots of methionine, then some of the benefits of CR are lost in animal studies, but how much doesn't seem to have really been quantified yet, and certainly not in humans. However if you don't restrict your portion sizes (as in all of these studies), then eggs will likely turn out bad for you just as the HR's for cancer and perhaps even heart disease show.

Eat just like everyone else? Die just like them too!

[niner]

I don't trust vegans with studies.

What do you make of these studies [1-5], done by Japanese researchers, showing that a shift from plant-foods (rice and vegetables) towards animal-foods (meat, dairy, eggs) caused a huge increase in diseases in Japan?

[1] Gan No Rinsho. 1986 May;32(6):561-6. Changes in food/nutrient intake and cancer mortality in Japan. Kato I, Tominaga S.

[2] Med Hypotheses. 2003 Feb;60(2):268-75. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of breast and ovarian cancers: relationship between death from both malignancies and dietary practices. Li XM, Ganmaa D, Sato A.

[3] Med Hypotheses. 2003 May;60(5):724-30. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of testicular and prostatic cancers. Ganmaa D, Li XM, Qin LQ.

[4] Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2004 Jan-Mar;5(1):28-35. Association between type II diabetes and colon cancer among Japanese with reference to changes in food intake. Kuriki K, Tokudome S, Tajima K.

[5] Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1998 Feb;37(2):111-5. Increased incidence of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus among Japanese schoolchildren correlates with an increased intake of animal protein and fat. Kitagawa T, Owada M, Urakami T.

Med Hypotheses are just that. A hypothesis is essentially an educated guess, untested. That's not a study. Associations and correlations do not show causality. We've had a number of vegans pass through here over the years, misunderstanding and misusing the literature in order to advance their ideology. That's just trollery. We also have some scientifically informed vegans here that don't engage in this nonsense. I have the greatest respect for them. Veganism for moral reasons is perfectly defensible. Purely for health reasons, not so much.

[misterE]

Med Hypotheses are just that. A hypothesis is essentially an educated guess, untested. That's not a study.

But they are based off studies.