Eggs: Good Or Bad?
#31
Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:38 PM
You can read more here and here.
*The rise in plaque seems to be artifact of the egg-yolk-years construction.
*The standard deviation in the "plaque area" was huge, creating overlapping distribution curves.
*The authors do seem to be on the payroll of lipid drug manufacturers.
That last point is fair game for the pro-egg crowd since it is ALWAYS trotted out in the diet debates.
It would be nice if the mass media would do a follow-up on their drive-by egg hysteria, mentioning some of the critiques. Don't count on it.
The best reason I have seen to limit egg consumption, is not this study, but what Prophets mentioned - the high levels of methionine. While the exact mechanism as to why limiting methionine increases lifespan in animal models has not been delineated, to me, it still makes more sense - especially on the egg/cancer angle (not the CVD angle).
#32
Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:49 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm....58/?tool=pubmed
And take a look at this too:
http://www.ajcn.org/...7/1131.full.pdf
Edited by hivemind, 20 August 2012 - 06:50 PM.
#35
Posted 21 August 2012 - 04:01 AM
As technology progressed and nations became wealthier, more and more people had access to rich-foods. Fast forward to present-day and now everybody eats rich foods, we are now surrounded by the world’s richest-foods that are made dirt-cheap by government subsidies. These rich foods are causing most of the diseases in western-societies.
Pictures from the past depicting fat aristocrats with gout, remind us that: rich-foods make you sick.
Edited by misterE, 21 August 2012 - 04:09 AM.
#36
Posted 21 August 2012 - 10:06 AM
I try to eat 4-6 eggs per day because of all the nutrients and protein it has, I find it easier to consume than eating meat. Otherwise eating a paleo diet, consisting of fruits, vegetables and meat. Even when I feel full throughout the day I don't even gain weight.
I think the way you eat the eggs has a lot to do with health, eating scrambled eggs made in bad oil I think is more harmful to your health than eating hard boiled eggs. Or when eating cold raw eggs (mainly in shakes), your body might have a harder time processing it.
I still believe eating eggs is good for you, the only problem I see is the high amount of Iron, which could be countered by donating blood every once in a while.
#37
Posted 21 August 2012 - 07:11 PM
http://articles.merc...9/raw-eggs.aspx
http://articles.merc...s-part-one.aspx
#38
Posted 22 August 2012 - 02:20 AM
I try to eat 4-6 eggs per day because of all the nutrients and protein it has
Eggs are 65% fat. Eating eggs gives you much more fat than protein. And the fat in eggs is mostly saturated-fat which causes atherosclerosis and insulin-resistance. The protein that is in eggs is high in sulfur-containing amino-acids (like methionine and cysteine) that are metabolized into sulfuric-acid, causing osteoporosis and kidney-stones.
Edited by misterE, 22 August 2012 - 02:21 AM.
#39
Posted 22 August 2012 - 02:41 AM
Great study! The Tarahumara-indians are known for their excellent heath, athletic-prowess (running up to 100 miles a day) and crystal-clean arteries. Atherosclerosis is flat-out non-existent in these people [1]. Autopsies show that they maintain clean arteries through their entire life. Their diet is mostly corn and beans. The macronutrient ratios are about: 10% fat/ 80% starch/10% protein. Meat consumption is very rare in this culture [2].
[1] Am J Clin Nutr 1978;31:1131-42. The plasma lipids, lipoproteins, and diet of the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico. Connor WE, Cerqueira MT, Connor RW.
[2] Am J Clin Nutr. 1979 Apr;32(4):905-15. The food and nutrient intakes of the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico. Cerqueira MT, Fry MM, Connor WE.
Edited by misterE, 22 August 2012 - 02:45 AM.
#40
Posted 22 August 2012 - 03:56 AM
Great study! The Tarahumara-indians are known for their excellent heath, athletic-prowess (running up to 100 miles a day) and crystal-clean arteries. Atherosclerosis is flat-out non-existent in these people [1]. Autopsies show that they maintain clean arteries through their entire life. Their diet is mostly corn and beans. The macronutrient ratios are about: 10% fat/ 80% starch/10% protein. Meat consumption is very rare in this culture [2].
[1] Am J Clin Nutr 1978;31:1131-42. The plasma lipids, lipoproteins, and diet of the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico. Connor WE, Cerqueira MT, Connor RW.
[2] Am J Clin Nutr. 1979 Apr;32(4):905-15. The food and nutrient intakes of the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico. Cerqueira MT, Fry MM, Connor WE.
From: http://www.lehigh.edu/~dmd1/art.html
Adulthood is usually short for the Tarahumara with the average life expectancy being forty-five.
Not so good.
Edited by zorba990, 22 August 2012 - 03:57 AM.
#41
Posted 22 August 2012 - 09:11 AM
From: http://www.lehigh.edu/~dmd1/art.html
Adulthood is usually short for the Tarahumara with the average life expectancy being forty-five.
Not so good.
The study shows that if you do not have the unhealthy western diet, then you get a direct linear relationship with dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol level. High cholesterol western diet has already more or less the maximal cholesterol raising effect of dietary cholesterol, so eating more cholesterol does not affect the fasting blood cholesterol levels that much anymore.
But the fasting blood cholesterol levels are not the only mechanism by which dietary cholesterol can be harmul.
Edited by hivemind, 22 August 2012 - 09:21 AM.
#42
Posted 22 August 2012 - 10:44 AM
The common persons diet was mainly grain-based, lots of oats, barley, bread, potatoes and beans, along with plenty of vegetables that they grew themselves.
If primate evolutionary history was represented on a 24 hour clock, grain would have been a significant part of our diets for only the last few seconds. The vast majority of humans are not fully adapted to wheat, the primary grain in many Western nations. Most can tolerate it, with the consequence being various levels of sub-optimal health.
#43
Posted 22 August 2012 - 11:56 AM
I try to eat 4-6 eggs per day because of all the nutrients and protein it has
Eggs are 65% fat. Eating eggs gives you much more fat than protein. And the fat in eggs is mostly saturated-fat which causes atherosclerosis and insulin-resistance. The protein that is in eggs is high in sulfur-containing amino-acids (like methionine and cysteine) that are metabolized into sulfuric-acid, causing osteoporosis and kidney-stones.
Total fat in a 50 gram egg is 5g, that makes eggs only 10% fat. not 65%.
Maybe what you wanted to say that the 65% of the calories in eggs are from the fats. Which is correct.
Then you have 6.3 gram of protein in a 50 gram egg, that makes a 1:0.8 protein to fat ratio. Which in my opinion is pretty good. Eat some vegetables or fruits with it and you have a balanced paleo breakfast.
#44
Posted 22 August 2012 - 06:26 PM
From: http://www.lehigh.edu/~dmd1/art.html
Adulthood is usually short for the Tarahumara with the average life expectancy being forty-five.
Not so good.
The study shows that if you do not have the unhealthy western diet, then you get a direct linear relationship with dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol level. High cholesterol western diet has already more or less the maximal cholesterol raising effect of dietary cholesterol, so eating more cholesterol does not affect the fasting blood cholesterol levels that much anymore.
But the fasting blood cholesterol levels are not the only mechanism by which dietary cholesterol can be harmul.
Kind of moot if you die at 45...
#45
Posted 22 August 2012 - 11:02 PM
If primate evolutionary history was represented on a 24 hour clock, grain would have been a significant part of our diets for only the last few seconds.
This may be true, but nobody knows what humans ate prior to the agricultural-revolution. Researchers have to hypothesize; Loren Cordain believes it was meat-based, Nathaniel Dominy believes it was plant-based. Nobody knows for sure. I personally believe that early humanoids were fruit-eaters (like our closest relative: the chimpanzee), but over time, humans began to adapt from fruit to starch, which allowed us to no longer be confined to the tropical-regions (equator) where fruit is plentiful, and the starches gave us plenty of glucose to grow such large brains. But like I said, no one knows for sure. What is documented is that when cultures switch from their grain-based diet, to a diet high in meat, dairy, fats and sugar... disease becomes epidemic [1-7]. Starch-based diets are the only recorded diets on reversing atherosclerosis [8] and prostate-cancer [9-10]
[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. 2010 May;91(5):1530S-1536S. Trends in food availability, 1909-2007. Barnard ND.
[7] Am J Clin Nutr January 1959 vol. 7 no. 1 91-97. The American Diet—Past and Present. Trulson MF.
[8] J Fam Pract. 1995 Dec;41(6):560-8. A strategy to arrest and reverse coronary artery disease: a 5-year longitudinal study of a single physician's practice. Esselstyn CB Jr, Ellis SG, Medendorp SV.
[9] J Urol. 2005 Sep;174(3):1065-9; discussion 1069-70. Intensive lifestyle changes may affect the progression of prostate cancer. Ornish D, Weidner G, Fair WR.
[10] Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Sep;86(3):s889-93. Prostate cancer prevention by nutritional means to alleviate metabolic syndrome. Barnard RJ.
Edited by misterE, 22 August 2012 - 11:24 PM.
#46
Posted 22 August 2012 - 11:07 PM
The study shows that if you do not have the unhealthy western diet, then you get a direct linear relationship with dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol level. High cholesterol western diet has already more or less the maximal cholesterol raising effect of dietary cholesterol, so eating more cholesterol does not affect the fasting blood cholesterol levels that much anymore.
Exactly! That is how the egg-industry pays for studies showing egg consumption doesn't increase cholesterol. They take people who eat lots of meats, cheese and butter and then give them an egg or two. Feeding eggs to vegetarians does in fact increase their cholesterol.
#47
Posted 22 August 2012 - 11:17 PM
Kind of moot if you die at 45...
Taken from: http://www.lehigh.edu/~dmd1/art.html
"There is a very high infant mortality rate among the Tarahumara. The average Tarahumara woman gives birth to about ten babies hoping that three or four will survive into adulthood. Adulthood is usually short for the Tarahumara with the average life expectancy being forty-five"
The reason why life-expectancy is so short is because of the high rates of infant-mortality. If a Tarahumara-indian elder lives to 100 and a baby dies before age 1, then the average of those two variables is 50 years. If the Tarahumara-indians had access to hospitals and better sanitation, they would have less infant deaths are therefore longer life-expectancy.
#48
Posted 22 August 2012 - 11:24 PM
Total fat in a 50 gram egg is 5g, that makes eggs only 10% fat. not 65%.
Maybe what you wanted to say that the 65% of the calories in eggs are from the fats. Which is correct.
Eat some vegetables or fruits with it and you have a balanced paleo breakfast.
65% of the calories in eggs are fat, which makes eggs 65% fat.
Do you eat the eggs raw? I don't think our paleo-ancestors had access to skillets.
#49
Posted 23 August 2012 - 12:00 AM
Kind of moot if you die at 45...
Taken from: http://www.lehigh.edu/~dmd1/art.html
"There is a very high infant mortality rate among the Tarahumara. The average Tarahumara woman gives birth to about ten babies hoping that three or four will survive into adulthood. Adulthood is usually short for the Tarahumara with the average life expectancy being forty-five"
The reason why life-expectancy is so short is because of the high rates of infant-mortality. If a Tarahumara-indian elder lives to 100 and a baby dies before age 1, then the average of those two variables is 50 years. If the Tarahumara-indians had access to hospitals and better sanitation, they would have less infant deaths are therefore longer life-expectancy.
The quote says "adulthood is usually short". This doesn't make it sound like there are many elders around. Perhaps a high grain diet gives them poor immune systems.
http://wellnessmama....ing-you-slowly/
#50
Posted 23 August 2012 - 12:42 AM
The quote says "adulthood is usually short". This doesn't make it sound like there are many elders around. Perhaps a high grain diet gives them poor immune systems.
That is what the quote says, but I don't believe it to be true. The perception of adulthood is short because they have to average in all of the infant deaths.
In regards to the diet, the author of the essay (that you posted) says:" Tarahumara diet is practically meatless and consists mostly of complex carbohydrates. They eat approximately 10 percent proteins, 10 percent fat, and 80 percent complex carbohydrate. Balanced diet is believed to be one factor behind the Tarahumara's resiliency."
How could it be that a starch-based diet gives them incredible endurance (enabling them to run 100 miles a day) and protects them from atherosclerosis and obesity... yet gives them poor immunity? Something doesn't add up.
#51
Posted 23 August 2012 - 01:05 AM
Wow! What a dangerous article. Telling people that grains are responsible for the epidemic of obesity and metabolic-syndrome is flat-out wrong (in more ways than one). Most studies conducted and published in the peer-reviewed scientific-literature consistently show that whole-grains protect against metabolic-syndrome! The largest dietary change that has taken place in America (that spurred the disease epidemics) is more consumption of meat, cheese, fat and sugar, in favor of potatoes and grains [1-2]. Plus when Japan switched from their diet of rice (grain) to animal-foods (meat, milk, eggs, cheese), disease rates skyrocketed [3-7]!
I think the reason why grains get so much bashing is because they don't taste as good as meat or eggs. Plus if you get healthy with a whole-grain diet, then no one can sell you supplements, surgeries or medicine.
Zorba990, what do you think the majority of people ate before the advent of refrigerators?
[1] Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 May;91(5):1530S-1536S. Trends in food availability, 1909-2007. Barnard ND.
[2] Am J Clin Nutr January 1959 vol. 7 no. 1 91-97. The American Diet—Past and Present. Trulson MF.
[3] Gan No Rinsho. 1986 May;32(6):561-6. Changes in food/nutrient intake and cancer mortality in Japan. Kato I, Tominaga S.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
#52
Posted 23 August 2012 - 03:11 AM
Wow! What a dangerous article. Telling people that grains are responsible for the epidemic of obesity and metabolic-syndrome is flat-out wrong (in more ways than one). Most studies conducted and published in the peer-reviewed scientific-literature consistently show that whole-grains protect against metabolic-syndrome! The largest dietary change that has taken place in America (that spurred the disease epidemics) is more consumption of meat, cheese, fat and sugar, in favor of potatoes and grains [1-2]. Plus when Japan switched from their diet of rice (grain) to animal-foods (meat, milk, eggs, cheese), disease rates skyrocketed [3-7]!
I think the reason why grains get so much bashing is because they don't taste as good as meat or eggs. Plus if you get healthy with a whole-grain diet, then no one can sell you supplements, surgeries or medicine.
Zorba990, what do you think the majority of people ate before the advent of refrigerators?
[1] Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 May;91(5):1530S-1536S. Trends in food availability, 1909-2007. Barnard ND.
[2] Am J Clin Nutr January 1959 vol. 7 no. 1 91-97. The American Diet—Past and Present. Trulson MF.
[3] Gan No Rinsho. 1986 May;32(6):561-6. Changes in food/nutrient intake and cancer mortality in Japan. Kato I, Tominaga S.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
I try to eat as few grains as possible these days, and my digestion is much happier. Raw Oats seem to be ok for me but I don't eat them unless I'm feeling underweight. I view rice, bread, wheat, corn, etc as junk food.
I believe that paleo man ate a mostly wild game diet (meat from animals that have never eaten any grains) supplemented with wild berries, and any other fruits or vegetables that could be found. I believe we hunted down game, ate some of the meat raw and drank some of the blood raw, and carted the rest home. Some would be eaten raw, some cooked (burnt on the outside and rare on the inside probably) and some eaten rotting/fermented until the taste was too strong. Eggs were probably eaten raw when found but not likely too often.
I also think that the antioxidant and mineral content of the food was much higher than it is today.
Probably something like this: http://www.westonapr...guts-and-grease
However, to each their own. My current preferred diet is not necessarily anyone else's or even mine forever. But I've recently seen a close relative reverse his diabetes on such a diet (lean meat, low sugar fruits, vegetables, some nuts and seeds - I do like chia seeds). It's fairly easy to eat in the 1500-1800 calories a day range this way without any discomfort at all.
More info:
http://www.mercola.c..._low_grains.htm
http://rawfoodsos.co...-and-re-bashed/
http://inhumanexperi...g-but-meat.html
#53
Posted 23 August 2012 - 05:05 AM
Total fat in a 50 gram egg is 5g, that makes eggs only 10% fat. not 65%.
Maybe what you wanted to say that the 65% of the calories in eggs are from the fats. Which is correct.
Eat some vegetables or fruits with it and you have a balanced paleo breakfast.
65% of the calories in eggs are fat, which makes eggs 65% fat.
Do you eat the eggs raw? I don't think our paleo-ancestors had access to skillets.
I don't want to offend you but your math is very much off.
Saying that is like saying, 80% of crimes in Budapest is committed by Gypsies so 80% of people living in Budapest are Gypsies. (excuse the numbers)
Or saying 60% of the minerals in my mineral water is hydrogen carbonate, therefore the water is 60% hydrogen carbonate.
When a 50 grams eggs on average contains more 6.2g protein and 5g fat, how can you say 65% of the egg is fat?
By the way, yes sometimes I eat them raw, sometimes I eat them soft boiled or hard boiled, or make a japanese style omelette.
Edited by Keshan, 23 August 2012 - 05:35 AM.
#54
Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:14 AM
Eggs: good or bad? The question is asked in such a flippant manner as to beg for a sloppy answer. So there is not an easy answer, eggs good or eggs bad, this is not a black and white issue, this is an answer that's in shades of gray, it's shrouded in the awesome mystery of biology. Like most questions asked in honest, humble biological investigations, this is not a quick and easy -- yes:good/no:bad -- final judgement.
#55
Posted 19 April 2018 - 07:15 PM
This is from a HUFF post article but fuck it.
https://www.huffingt..._b_3499583.html
Interestingly, in controlled trials — the best kind of research — where people were instructed to eat up to three eggs per day while on a weight loss diet, good things happened.
These folks lost weight, decreased inflammation and either maintained or improved their blood cholesterol levels.
(They were consuming 555 mg of cholesterol every day from eggs alone!)
Bottom line: Unless you have diabetes or a rare genetic disorder, eating a few eggs every day is not bad for you.
I know what you're thinking, they were on a "weight loss diet" so their cholesterol was already probably high, right?
So fucking what?
Eating eggs didn't raise the cholesterol more and furthermore, during the trial, their cholesterol was improved!
Edited by TheFountain, 19 April 2018 - 07:15 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users