[HN Gopher] Association between egg consumption and risk of card...
___________________________________________________________________
Association between egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular
outcomes
Author : undefined1
Score : 66 points
Date : 2021-02-04 20:43 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
| marz0 wrote:
| Yet at the same time, a recent study [1] concludes:
|
| > The results suggested that higher egg consumption was
| positively associated with the risk of diabetes in Chinese
| adults.
|
| However, it also states:
|
| > The association between egg consumption and diabetes is
| inconclusive.
|
| These statements seem contradictory to me, but maybe someone can
| shed more light on this?
|
| [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33028452/
| timbit42 wrote:
| 'Suggests' isn't strong enough to make the association
| conclusive.
| hirundo wrote:
| These results conform to my bias, but seem to be based on the
| same flawed epidemiological data, based largely on seriously
| flawed NHANES Food Frequency Questionnaires, without the power to
| make causal associations. If I discount these studies when they
| tell me eggs will harden my arteries I should do the same when
| they tell me they don't, which I happen to agree with.
| agmm wrote:
| If you find this topic interesting, read "The Big Fat Surprise"
| dennis_jeeves wrote:
| There is one documented evidence of a man eating about 15 eggs
| (or some huge number) for about 25 years, and was in good health.
| Some search online should reveal the literature.
| sedatk wrote:
| This sounds too optimistic and almost 180 degrees opposite of
| what we've heard from health authorities until today. Can anyone
| who's an expert on the subject chime in, what's the catch?
| [deleted]
| ncmncm wrote:
| They told us for _five decades_ that saturated fat was bad for
| us.
|
| Lately it turns out that saturated fat is _absolutely fine_ ,
| always was. Eggs, too, apparently.
|
| It has been the sugar, nitrites, margarine and Crisco in
| everything killing us. The trouble with Crisco was known with
| certainty _in 1957_ , and it took Fred Kummerow until 2017 to get
| it _mostly_ out of the US diet. Some companies still get
| exceptional treatment allowing them to continue putting in
| poison, apparently because it would _cost them money to stop
| putting in poison_ just yet. They have poison in the pipeline
| they would need to throw away that they would prefer to sell.
|
| But, there is still something in American beef that causes
| trouble; just, not the fat. FDA spent the last five decades _not_
| investigating why beef is killing people, just out and out
| assuming it had to be the fat. for no reason at all. Now, we have
| to start from scratch and find out what is the real cause.
|
| Meanwhile, glucose is absolutely fine, too.
|
| Glucose is what is in corn before they use an enzyme to turn half
| of it into fructose, which is poison in the amounts Americans
| eat. They do it because fructose tastes sweeter when it's cold.
| It's hard to buy glucose; you won't find bags of it at the
| grocery store, even to put in your coffee where it would be hot
| and plenty sweet anyway. You pretty much only find it in Karo
| corn syrup, which is itself getting hard to find.
|
| Remember that name, _Fred Kummerow_. He is _personally_
| responsible for kids born in this millennium _not_ dying from
| heart disease caused by poison siphoned into stuff sold labeled
| as food. The corporations, their pet politicians, and the FDA
| fought him _every step_ of the way. FDA finally was forced to
| declare trans fats poison in 2009, and then he had to sue them to
| make them issue regulations forbidding its use, which they didn
| 't issue _until 2014_ ; and then they gave industry _3 more
| years_ to flush the poison out of their pipelines and onto
| Americans ' arteries.
|
| If you can keep the fructose out of kids, they might not die from
| type-2 diabetes and metabolic disorder so much.
|
| https://www.drmirkin.com/histories-and-mysteries/fred-kummer...
|
| https://spacedoc.com/articles/the-truth-about-trans-fats
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/science/fred-kummerow-dea...
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/0...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Kummerow
| lanius wrote:
| >Higher egg consumption (more than 1 egg/day) was associated with
| a significantly decreased risk of coronary artery disease
|
| Is there an upper ceiling where the benefit goes away? I go
| through dozens of eggs a week.
| truth_feels_bad wrote:
| > Two investigators independently reviewed data. Conflicts were
| resolved through consensus
|
| They're literally telling you that they cherry-picked existing
| research for whatever serves their narrative.
|
| Occam's razor applies here. They're trying to convince you that
| consuming cholesterol and saturated fat is not going to clog your
| arteries. If eggs won't, please tell me what will.
|
| Eggs taste good, and they're in literally everything. Be careful
| when people tell you what you want to hear.
| blakesterz wrote:
| Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that higher consumption of
| eggs (more than 1 egg/day) was not associated with increased risk
| of cardiovascular disease, but was associated with a significant
| reduction in risk of coronary artery disease.
|
| That's really interesting! I just had a heart attack a few months
| ago and eggs have been on my "very rarely" list, I'm glad to see
| I probably can move those up to "probably fine a few times a
| week" list.
| the-pigeon wrote:
| Is your dietary restriction list from a doctor or internet
| research?
|
| I would definitely consult with your doctor and not apply
| general study conclusions to your own diet considering you had
| a heart attack recently.
| monadic3 wrote:
| Better hope your doctor is reading the right stuff.
| ballenf wrote:
| I think your advice comes from a good place, but it really
| depends on the doctor.
|
| I've worked closely with bunch of primary care doctors and
| would only trust 1 in about 10 of them to give good nutrition
| advice. My work involved careful review of their clinical
| treatment of patients in a primary care settings.
|
| My anecdotal experience with cardiologists is no better.
|
| The overall issue is that they have grown tired of really
| challenging patients to change much of their diets. Even if
| the diet is what is really killing them. And I don't blame
| them, but I also think that many doctors don't see nutrition
| as part of their job.
| blakesterz wrote:
| Fair question, and I guess the answer is both. He didn't
| provide any advice that seemed bad, he didn't say avoid eggs,
| he didn't say have bacon with every meal. But I've also been
| reading everything I can to make sure I'm not missing
| anything.
| tootie wrote:
| One really important thing to understand when you see these
| sorts of studies is that they are done in aggregate while every
| human being is different. There are people who can eat eggs and
| pork and smoke cigars and never suffer consequences, and there
| are some who are far less tolerant. If you're in a high-risk
| group because you've already suffered damage, you need to be
| very risk averse.
| sradman wrote:
| This systematic review and meta-analysis concludes:
|
| > Our analysis suggests that higher consumption of eggs (more
| than 1 egg/day) was not associated with increased risk of
| cardiovascular disease, but was associated with a significant
| reduction in risk of coronary artery disease.
| cs702 wrote:
| That's right, no association was found.
|
| Perhaps the title should be changed to "No Association Between
| Egg Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease."
| giarc wrote:
| The association is that there is no association. So it's an
| accurate title.
| derekp7 wrote:
| That statement is technically correct. And while being
| technically correct is great for the fictional bureaucrats
| on Futurama (I really miss that show), it can also lead to
| click-bait headlines.
|
| Most people will read a headline that says "The association
| between..." to mean that there is an association (because
| that is how it is typically used).
| kubanczyk wrote:
| A number of studies show a direct association. As of now,
| the number is zero.
| endisneigh wrote:
| It's such a shame nutrition science is in such infancy because
| when I read these types of things I get excited and then a couple
| years later there's inevitably some contradicting study.
|
| The only thing I've read that seems to never be contradicted is
| the following quote:
|
| > Eat food, not too much, mostly plants
|
| EDIT: Is it just me, or do they never say how the eggs are
| prepared? I feel like that would have a huge effect as well as
| since the preparation method changes the composition of the eggs
| of course. Frying eggs with a bunch of butter might negate any
| health benefits eating say, an otherwise poached egg, might have.
|
| I loved fried eggs and wonder if I'd receive more benefit by
| boiling or poaching, hmm.
| drzaiusapelord wrote:
| Which is kinda a half measure too. My body has been responding
| amazingly to a vegetarian diet (w/vegan flex days) and anywhere
| between 16-20 hours of fasting a day. I combat the horrors of
| factory farming and what's done to these poor animals and gain
| all the incredible benefits of fasting, all the while still
| enjoying a normal lifestyle of 2 tasty meals a day. Meat seems
| like this weird socially acceptable yet dangerous extravagance,
| a bit like smoking, to me. I'm working my way to cutting out
| eggs and am glad to be doing so considering all the negative
| outcomes other studies have revealed about egg consumption.
|
| If you look at all the studies uncritically and average out
| their findings, then the safe amount of eggs, imho, per week is
| between zero and two.
|
| The study of the health outcomes of egg consumption, in
| general, is a bit out there. A 2009 study claimed the opposite,
| that 7+ eggs a week increased the odds of cardiovascular
| disease. There's a strong anti-vegetarian pop-culture under-
| current right now fueled by the alt-right, keto types, and
| 'masculinity' experts so small single studies like these will
| get a lot of attention, but I'd wait for someone to try to
| replicate it, or at least see it as one data point in hundreds
| of reputable egg studies that mostly seem to contradict
| themselves. The egg industry is a $10bn industry and
| politically very well connected. Some of these studies may be
| influenced by that. Evolution didn't seem to design us to
| regularly eat the eggs of other animals and we seem poorly
| adapted to do so.
|
| Fun/depressing fact: There's one caged egg laying hen for every
| American.
| airstrike wrote:
| As I mentioned elsewhere, that study doesn't control for
| preparation methods and associated ingredients (like butter)
| so it's virtually useless
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| "There's a strong anti-vegetarian pop-culture under-current
| right now fueled by the alt-right," the alt right gets a lot
| of weird generic boogeyman associations but this is the
| weirdest I've ever seen lol
| symlinkk wrote:
| It's sad how far behind health science is. Why don't we have
| devices constantly monitoring us for health problems? Why can't
| I easily browse through the data that doctors have on me, and
| transfer it between doctors? Why do I have to prep and cook and
| measure to get the optimum amount of nutrients for my body, why
| isn't there a product that offers that for me? These things
| should be a higher priority as a society than social media apps
| or video games.
| itronitron wrote:
| eggs have about ten times the cholesterol as butter or cheese
| so cooking the eggs in some butter is probably fine.
| the-pigeon wrote:
| Research has said eggs are good for the last 20 years.
|
| It was believed they were bad due to their high cholesterol and
| cholesterol was considered bad across the board. But modern
| research shows it's more complicated than that.
| atweiden wrote:
| > Research has said eggs are good for the last 20 years.
|
| McGill published a study in 2012 [1] which shows egg yolk
| consumption is connected in an exponential relationship with
| carotid plaque area (see: pg 3):
|
| > ... both tobacco smoking and egg yolk consumption
| accelerate atherosclerosis, in a similar fashion: the
| increase in plaque area is linear with age, but it is
| exponential with smoking history and egg consumption. Curve
| fitting with the cases that had non-zero values for egg yolks
| and smoking showed that an exponential fit was better than a
| linear fit.
|
| [1]: http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/hanley/tmp/Ap
| plic...
| MPSimmons wrote:
| The fact that dietary cholesterol has no impact on serum
| cholesterol should have shot this down immediately, but
| _shrug_
| endisneigh wrote:
| I personally think eggs are good for you and eat at least one
| a day, but there have been studies that have shown results
| that might lead you to believe otherwise like the following:
|
| https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/87/4/964/4633437
|
| ". In addition, consumption of >=7 eggs/wk was associated
| with a modestly but significantly greater risk of total
| mortality in this population. In contrast, egg consumption
| was associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality in
| a dose-response fashion among physicians with diabetes (2
| times the risk of death in people consuming >=7 eggs/wk than
| in those consuming <1 egg/wk). Furthermore, our data provided
| suggestive evidence for a greater risk of MI and stroke with
| egg consumption among male physicians with diabetes. In
| contrast, baseline hypercholesterolemia status did not
| influence the relation between egg consumption and CVD or
| mortality."
|
| The same study admits that the finding was not conclusive
| though and that there have been other studies that have
| contradicted their results.
| airstrike wrote:
| They never controlled for preparation method or associated
| ingredients (read: butter) so it's basically useless data
| endisneigh wrote:
| I completely agree - that's exactly my point. A lot of
| these studies are not done with the necessary level of
| rigor needed to draw a definitive conclusion. So we're
| left with a bunch of half baked "contradictory" studies
| in many cases.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| How exactly would you conduct a nutrition study to the
| "necessary level of rigor needed to draw a definitive
| conclusion?" The most interesting studies are the ones
| that follow people long term, and you can't exactly force
| people to eat according to a specific diet for a period
| of years.
| derekp7 wrote:
| The one thing that is hard to control for in the studies is
| if people who crave eggs (and therefore consume more of
| them) also crave other things that are bad for them. Or if
| the genetic makeup can cause an increased craving for
| specific food types (for example genetics influences
| whether cilantro enhances food or tastes like dish soap).
| snarf21 wrote:
| This is what you get when "nutrition" is run by the USDA, whose
| job it is to grow and sell food. This belongs in HHS so there
| is no conflict of interests. Most of these "studies" are funded
| by groups with ulterior motives. And then we have billions in
| lobbying and subsidies to reconcile. It is such a shame. We
| know what we should do but remain bullied.
| subungual wrote:
| This study is a meta-analysis, so it works off of published
| research and does no original experiments of its own. By its
| nature, it incorporates systemic bias of earlier published
| studies. Often times, this kind of analysis leads to opposing
| biases being diluted or canceling out, but given widespread
| industry funding of this topic in particular, I'm not super
| optimistic about impartiality here.
| post_below wrote:
| Not sure why your post is getting downvoted, the evidence for
| it's accuracy isn't in question that I know of.
|
| Real question: Does anyone think that food industry money
| doesn't influence policy and recommendations? If so can you
| provide some sort of supporting evidence for this view?
| derekp7 wrote:
| Not an answer, but another question. Back when eggs were
| demonized and grains were promoted, was there more lobbying
| flowing from grain farmers vs. egg farmers? Also including
| that chickens are fed grains, and therefore every egg sold
| represents profit to the grain seller?
| post_below wrote:
| When it comes to the precise details, I imagine there
| aren't many people who know for sure how the convoluted
| machinations of money and policy played out on a
| particular issue. It's the nature of the game to keep it
| as opaque as possible.
|
| If we find out, it's usually many years down the road and
| it's rarely as direct as "grain outbid eggs". There are
| behemoth consumer food manufacturers involved,
| pharmaceutical companies too (statin drugs are a cash
| cow). Lots of industries profit or lose based on public
| health decisions and perceptions.
|
| Every once in a while it's pretty direct though, maybe
| the most well publicized example in recent years:
| https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
| way/2016/09/13/493739074...
| mantenpanther wrote:
| Maybe the study mentioned here points to a contradiction to the
| last part of that quote? ;-)
| Bukhmanizer wrote:
| I don't think the problem is that nutrition science is in its
| infancy, it's more that modern science incentivizes pumping out
| flashy results cheaply, and as fast as possible.
| subungual wrote:
| Nutrition research is incredibly difficult to conduct, too.
| It often relies on participant reporting and is immensely
| complicated in terms of identifying and weeding out potential
| confounders. With how little we know about things that could
| play significant roles (e.g. gut microbiome), doing good
| science on this is super difficult.
| [deleted]
| steve76 wrote:
| Preventative medicine is really tough. People die, and it goes
| through a progression, like pneumonia first, then the heart, then
| some cancer, then the kidneys. If your homeless, odds are that
| happens in your 30s. If your a monk, it happens in your 90s. It
| would be better to stop trauma. Car wrecks, falls, violence. Much
| more preventable.
|
| Before changing venial and innocent human behavior, a lot easier
| to advance medicine:
|
| Genetic blood thinners and statins. Dissolves blockages or
| improve circulation to damaged organs.
|
| Therapeutic imaging, radiation therapy for cardio disease. Get it
| good enough where it's practically a tanning bed.
|
| Non-invasive surgery, like catheter bypasses or valve
| replacements.
|
| Better pacemakers. That professor at the University of Chicago
| did some great things with turbulence. Release one of those rings
| full of medicine to a diseased artery, controlled with a
| pacemaker or IV.
|
| All more easier than stopping people from snacking at night.
| foxyv wrote:
| Hey look, another dietary study. It also fits my own
| preconceptions about safety of animal protein and fats.
|
| This is a little better quality than the usual junk we see for
| these articles. But still, it's mostly just data juggling from a
| public database. They have done a little to try and avoid cherry
| picking and established a process with third party investigators
| which is nice.
|
| Personally I would rate this as "Worth further study."
| Interesting, but definitely not a firm conclusion.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| This conclusion was literally opposite of what I was expecting.
| Wow.
| Etheryte wrote:
| It is a common trope that eggs are bad for cardiovascular health
| because they're high in cholesterol, despite this being shown to
| be false a number of times over.
|
| A good question is thus how to turn around an urban myth once
| it's already become commonplace?
| tootie wrote:
| It's been known for a long time that consumption of cholesterol
| doesn't directly raise blood cholesterol. The dangers of high
| cholesterol were first raised to the public consciousness in
| the 90s which is around when the "eggs may be bad for you" hit
| it's peak. It wasn't until years later that the causes of high
| cholesterol were better understood and the advice was refined.
| That's around the time that trans fat became the real villain
| and that advice has mostly stood up to scrutiny for a while
| now.
| cgh wrote:
| Serve as an example? I eat four eggs a day.
| airstrike wrote:
| I eat at least two a day, virtually everyday...
|
| ...prepared with zero oil or butter on a ceramic non-stick
| pan.
|
| My cholesterol levels are great. My wife eats the same diet
| (except she doesn't order dinner at work like I do) and her
| cholesterol levels are _ridiculously_ good.
| ncmncm wrote:
| It turns out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with
| saturated fat, never was. Fat is necessary in human diet.
|
| Cholesterol levels don't tell you much unless you have
| heart disease.
| soledades wrote:
| Same, good egg to you my friend.
| undersuit wrote:
| Maybe explain to people what Cholesterol is, it delivers
| essential materials to cells. That's the hypothesis for why you
| find high cholesterol in the blood of those with heart or
| coronary disease, those cells are damaged and need resupply.
| JPKab wrote:
| "Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that higher consumption of
| eggs (more than 1 egg/day) was not associated with increased risk
| of cardiovascular disease, but was associated with a significant
| reduction in risk of coronary artery disease."
|
| When I was a kid, for a few years, I had a stepmom who was
| relatively high educated, and was very quick to pivot to the
| healthy diet of the 90s: grains for breakfast, pasta for dinner.
| When I would spend the night out, and come home and talk about
| how much I loved the breakfast at my friend's house (eggs and
| bacon) she would call them "ignorant rednecks" and talk about how
| "some people are just too dumb to listen to science or doctors."
|
| My "redneck" friends has a much healthier diet than I did. We
| know this now. Yet people still blindly trust the US public
| health authorities. I'm not a moron, so I don't inherently
| mistrust their statements either. I just think a healthy
| skepticism is warranted with US public health messaging and the
| science that they fund. Entire careers in academia were flushed
| down the toilet because a brave few tried to point out how
| incredibly flawed the "dietary cholesterol causes heart disease"
| narrative.
|
| Think about this: the leading scientists and the scientific
| community in the 1990s strongly believed that both eggs and
| avocados strongly increased the risk of heart disease. Avocados.
| Bad for your health.......... Looking at our collective love of
| avocados today, it should be a highly publicized rebuke of how
| awful the FDA's food pyramid campaign was.
| vidanay wrote:
| When I was in Scouting in the mid 80's, we had an adult leader
| who would only let us bring one egg per person on weekend
| camping trips. He was maniacal about how bad eggs are for you.
| Imaging two dozen 13 year old boys running though the woods and
| all they had to eat was one scrambled egg and half pound of
| burnt bacon each.
| giarc wrote:
| It's ironic that now that a study comes out that supports your
| view, you accept it, but when the big studies said something
| opposite people were just "blindly trust the US public health
| authorities".
| something98 wrote:
| I've got news for you. There never were any (well done) big
| studies that said the opposite. However, there were health
| authorities that repeated really bad "science" because it
| supported their preconceived notions.
| undefined1 wrote:
| this is a meta-analysis, not a singular study.
| JPKab wrote:
| You are making assumptions that I wasn't skeptical of this
| study. I am. This study has pretty strong data behind it, and
| a much more rigorous methodology than studies which were
| literally foundational to Ansel Keys' lipid hypothesis that
| are borderline fraudulent in how the data was manipulated.
|
| The study which had the strongest impact on my opinions with
| dietary fat consumption was the longitudinal Framingham Heart
| Study. It's far, far more rigorous (and expensive) than
| virtually any of the studies being crapped out by the publish
| or perish grant-chasers. The absolute vitriol and emotional,
| irrational responses to the contradictions raised by
| Framingham really taught me lessons about the fashion-driven,
| corrupt nature of certain communities in academia.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Yes, I think that the problem is, we as a society believe that
| all science is created equal. Obviously dietary science is
| lagging way behind, say, particle physics. But we blindly
| accept everything every field of study has reached a 51%
| consensus on.
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I'm going to
| nitpick and say a breakfast of bacon and eggs is not healthier
| than a breakfast of grains depending on what those grains are.
| White bread vs bacon, debatable. But oatmeal/quinoa is
| obviously healthier than bacon. I don't think there are any
| government agencies pushing the idea that bacon is part of a
| healthy diet
| zionic wrote:
| I really don't think you can say definitely that oatmeal is a
| better breakfast for a growing child than bacon. Oatmeal is
| tons of empty carbs that will be burned fast, cause an acute
| insulin response, and ultimately provide less critical
| protein to a growing child.
| orev wrote:
| > Oatmeal is tons of empty carbs that will be burned fast
|
| This is completely false. Oatmeal is one of the few grains
| where this is not true (unless you're eating it in a highly
| processed form like flour). It is very slow to digest, does
| not cause an insulin spike, and actually removes
| cholesterol from the body. As far as grains go, it's pretty
| much the best one out there. There's a reason oatmeal is
| the primary carb used by gym rats.
|
| The only time it's a problem is if you're eating it out of
| an instant packet, but that's really about all the added
| sugar, not the oatmeal grain.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| > It is very slow to digest, does not cause an insulin
| spike
|
| Where do these statements come from? What counts as
| "slow" or "fast" digestion? Oats, being rich in
| carbohydrates, definitely affect insulin. As one example,
| this 2019 paper clearly shows that overnight oats elicit
| glycemic and insulin responses, so it's patently false to
| claim that oatmeal "does not cause an insulin spike":
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-018-0329-1#Fig2
|
| > There's a reason oatmeal is the primary carb used by
| gym rats.
|
| Gym rats say and do a lot of things without scientific
| merit. That's why the term "broscience" exists.
|
| > The only time it's a problem is if you're eating it out
| of an instant packet, but that's really about all the
| added sugar, not the oatmeal grain.
|
| It's not just the added sugar. Instant oats _are_ more
| processed than steel-cut or rolled oats, and they do have
| a higher glycemic index.
|
| From https://www.diabetes.ca/managing-my-diabetes/tools
| ---resourc...:
|
| > In general, the more highly processed a food is, or the
| quicker a food is digested, the higher the GI. For
| example, instant oats have a higher GI than steel cut
| oats.
|
| From https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-
| conditions/glyce...:
|
| Glycemic load (glucose = 100):
|
| Porridge, rolled oats = 55 +- 2
|
| Instant oat porridge 79 +- 3
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| I don't think the above poster can say that bacon is better
| than grains considering they're full of saturated fat,
| sodium, and nitrates. Oatmeal is also not "empty carbs" it
| has a lot of fiber, protein, and nutrients
| aaomidi wrote:
| Sodium is fine. Nitrates no idea. Saturated fats we can't
| decide on if they're good or evil.
|
| Non saturated fats are newer to our diet as a species
| too. Just to keep that in mind.
| anusername wrote:
| Sadly, the truth is that saturated fat causally increase
| LDL cholesterol[1] which causally increases the risk for
| heart disease[2].
|
| [1] Meta analysis of tens of RCTs https://www.who.int/nut
| rition/publications/nutrientrequireme...
|
| [2] There are plenty of Mendelian Randomization (MR)
| studies, studies on the effects of statins, etc.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Nitrates and Nitrites are the leading culprit for red
| meat causing cancer. There is bacon that is cured without
| them. It's just that they are added to most bacon and
| almost all processed red meats.
| djrogers wrote:
| > There is bacon that is cured without them.
|
| No, there really isn't. What we have is bacon producers
| using a loophole to use 'natural' nitrates from things
| like celery for curing. They're the exact same molecule
| and perform the same function, but because they used
| processed celery juice instead of pure sodium nitrite,
| they get to claim they're nitrate free.
|
| They aren't.
| 3np wrote:
| Quaker instants, sure, but whole grain with no added sugar?
| I beg to differ.
|
| Oats are among the lowest/slowest carb grains we have.
|
| Egg on the and no one on this side of keto absolutism
| should argue that it's nutritionally unbalanced.
| suifbwish wrote:
| Keep in mind this study might not be about egg consumption but
| rather the overall risk of disease in those who happen to eat
| more eggs than other people. A lot of people who eat several
| eggs a day are also going to the gym to try to build muscle
| mass.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Sidenote: I wish I could find good, or even _any_ , low-fat
| options these days. They all seemed to have been left in the
| 90's. I had to even quit the seed-filled breads I loved because
| of my troubled pancreas (non-diabetic). I miss whole eggs so
| much...
|
| Also sidenote: this is the picture regarding cardiovascular
| health, but with extremely high-fat foods and diets being the
| mode right now I'll bet we see a bit of an uptick on chronic
| pancreatitis cases in time. Moderation, as always, is the best
| course for most... "everything in moderation, especially
| moderation"
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| Does you pancreas actually hurt when you eat an egg, or did
| your doctor just tell you to stop eating them?
| 1-6 wrote:
| I'm also on the fence about how salt is 'unhealthy'. Read the
| book The Salt Fix by Dr. James DiNicolantonio
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Yeah the human body is exquisitely designed to maintain a
| salt balance. Sweat, urine, even tears control excretion of
| excess. Unless your body is compromised, eat all the salt you
| want.
| rriepe wrote:
| The food pyramid is an enduring icon of institutional
| incompetence.
|
| What they should have done instead is mandate the use of the
| term "lipids" instead of "fat" on nutrition labels. Vocabulary
| could do so much to solve our problems. We are a nation of fat
| people who think that eating fat makes you fat. Then we also
| think that eating cholesterol gives us high cholesterol.
|
| We use a different word for a cow when it's on our dinner plate
| but we can't do the same for fat? I guess this idea doesn't
| give the graphic designer anything to do.
| rmason wrote:
| Saw a movie back in I think the seventies that involved a time
| traveler coming back to present day America. He's happily
| eating what was regarded at the time as a very unhealthy diet
| and is horrified at all the people eating what we all thought
| was the healthy choice. It was a comedic punchline throughout
| the movie.
|
| I dropped eating eggs for thirty years because we were all lied
| to by the experts. But as a result it brings me sheer joy to
| eat eggs for breakfast every single day - at my doctors
| recommendation ;<).
|
| What the experts should have warned us about was our sugar
| intake. I have reduced mine, it's not that difficult, and only
| wish I had known to do so decades ago.
| eternalny1 wrote:
| > Saw a movie back in I think the seventies that involved a
| time traveler coming back to present day America. He's
| happily eating what was regarded at the time as a very
| unhealthy diet and is horrified at all the people eating what
| we all thought was the healthy choice. It was a comedic
| punchline throughout the movie.
|
| You are probably talking about Woody Allen's "Sleeper".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_(1973_film)
| zionic wrote:
| Slightly tangential, but your mom might have reduced your
| height. I recall reading a study a few years ago that found a
| strong correlation between high protein for breakfast and the
| length of the femur.
| shireboy wrote:
| Not to get too political, but now do masks/HCQ/covid. It's just
| tricky. In the end, many "scientists"- and _especially_ science
| reporters are too confident, and many "armchair scientists" are
| as well. We should all try to do the best we can to follow the
| science, keep a healthy dose of skepticism, and be kind and
| understanding of people who may land on different opinions than
| us. Imagine if your stepmom had said "I've seen differing
| studies on this topic, and just come down on the side that
| bacon and eggs are bad" as opposed to "everybody who disagrees
| with me is an ignorant redneck". Will leave it to the reader to
| apply that to today's topic du jur.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| No, the "food pyramid" is different. It's an absolute lie
| based on no research whatsoever. See
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rebuilding-the-
| fo...
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Anecdotal, but I have to root for eggs whenever I get the
| chance. I've eaten at least 3 eggs a day every single day for
| almost a decade, before which I didn't stick to a number and
| would often eat 6-8 eggs a day. My doctor recently told my
| cholesterol was perfect. Maybe I'm an exception or maybe I have
| the right genes for eggs, no idea. But they're definitely not
| an automatic health disaster like many people think they are.
| onnnon wrote:
| When you eat foods with cholesterol, it has little effect on
| your cholesterol levels because your cells make it by
| themselves, and the body will only absorb cholesterol if your
| levels are low. If you have good cholesterol levels, you can
| eat many eggs and your cholesterol wont go up. High
| cholesterol is caused from eating too many sugars and
| starches which causes an insulin spike that tells the cells
| to make more cholesterol even when they don't need it.
| saghm wrote:
| I expected to see this linked here already, but I don't see it,
| so here it is https://youtu.be/5Ua-WVg1SsA
| eej71 wrote:
| This College Humor skit captures the evolving advice.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA
| hdhsjjjxj wrote:
| When I was in middle school they had the food guide pyramid
| which recommended 13 servings of grain, such as cereal, a day.
| It was just obviously absurd. I would lol thinking of someone
| trying to eat 13 bowls of cereal
| Jtsummers wrote:
| That would be 13 cups (unit of measure) of cereal a day,
| probably 4-6 bowls depending on how generous you are when
| pouring it into a bowl. Or 13 slices of bread (which is most
| of a loaf). That doesn't seem at all like a reasonably
| recommended number. Trying to find real charts, it looks like
| by 1992 they were recommending a range of 6-11 servings of
| grains (rice, cereals, pasta, breads). Which is at least a
| more reasonable number if you swing towards the low end.
| thelean12 wrote:
| This view is really bad.
|
| The only logical thing to do is to follow current scientific
| consensus the best we can. Adjust ourselves as those views
| adjust.
|
| Anything else is just pure ego saying that you know better than
| experts. Random examples where you were "right" or the
| scientific consensus was "wrong" are irrelevant.
|
| Edit: I'm just saying that the scientific method is the best
| tool we have for this kind of stuff, even with the bias and
| flaws of the studies. It's miles and miles better than
| Facebook-esque anecdotes about rednecks eating bacon.
| ve55 wrote:
| The mistake is when one assumes that the things they read on
| media outlets and on TV are anywhere close to a 'scientific
| consensus' in an area such as nutrition.
| thelean12 wrote:
| Since I'm getting downvoted to oblivion I feel compelled to
| respond: I never said to assume that.
| ve55 wrote:
| Correct, I didn't intend it as a critique of you
| specifically, but rather something that I see a lot of
| others do, so I apologize for the overly-direct wording
| (edited it to make this more clear).
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Scientific studies aren't gospel. They can be affected by the
| sensibilities of grant agencies, funding from industry,
| flawed experiment design, and p-hacking, among others.
|
| Peter Norvig's essay on experiment design comes to mind:
|
| http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
| rriepe wrote:
| > Scientific studies aren't gospel.
|
| I've found this depends on the person.
| dennis_jeeves wrote:
| >> Scientific studies aren't gospel.
|
| >I've found this depends on the person.
|
| Good point. It is indeed gospel for some people :)
|
| Infact in the new era of Covid, we now have common people
| parrot the opinion of medical 'experts' verbatim as
| though it were gospel
| thelean12 wrote:
| Of course. So what?
|
| The current alternative to scientific studies (with their
| varying degrees of bias and flaws) are Facebook-esque
| anecdotes about rednecks eating bacon that apparently are
| so compelling that they get upvoted to the top of HN.
| corn_dog wrote:
| First figure out if there is any kind of scientific
| consensus, and how solid it is.
| [deleted]
| MrPatan wrote:
| Ah, there's the problem. The scientific method is great, but
| it doesn't apply itself. It's scientists that are the
| problem. Scientists are only human.
|
| Let's do an experiment. Or better, let's do a
| Gedankenexperiment so we sound more like experts:
|
| Look around your (virtual) workplace. See that well-spoken
| idiot who you know is wrong about everything, but who somehow
| gets the attention and the money to run whatever projects
| they want? That's the expert.
|
| You are not the expert, even though you know more stuff,
| because nobody asks you. And when you insisted they were
| wrong, they got rid of you.
|
| The same thing happens everywhere, in academia, science,
| government, medicine... everywhere. We are only human.
|
| But not to worry! It's all right. Thanks to the scientific
| method science actually advances, even if it's one funeral at
| a time. Just be careful who you trust.
| thelean12 wrote:
| Your anti-science vibe is terrifying.
|
| Be very careful about how you word stuff like this, even if
| at the end of the day it's just healthy skepticism. It's
| the same vibe that gives power to conspiracy theories.
| rhesa wrote:
| Their comment didn't sound anti-science to me at all.
| They're critical of academia and how that functions. SMBC
| had a comic on this recently that illustrates the
| difference, the issues, and possible improvements:
| https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/science-fictions
| dennis_jeeves wrote:
| >The only logical thing to do is to follow current scientific
| consensus the best we can.
|
| Until you figure out that most 'scientists' are morons, and
| are biased/ignorant/academic. An anecdote from an observant,
| meticulous, objective layman is far more dependable than the
| gobbledygook that characterizes most published research.
| cpursley wrote:
| Follow the money. The FDA is a political organization.
| djrogers wrote:
| The 'food pyramid' doesn't come from the FDA, it's a USDA
| (department of agriculture) construct, and was designed from
| all appearances, to prop up or increase our intake of grains
| grown by US farmers.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Woody Alan said in a movie "Think about it! All the things our
| grandparents said were good for us, are bad for us. Sunshine, red
| meat, college - all the things they said are good for us, are bad
| for us!"
| mike503 wrote:
| What if we took a step back and realized that our bodies are all
| different and all of these studies likely never have 100% proper
| control over external variables. Perhaps eating 7 eggs a week is
| good for you if you also eat A, do B, etc, but otherwise it's
| bad... too many variables and still (what feels like) a near
| infinite amount of knowledge lacking of our own bodies.
| niels_bom wrote:
| This.
|
| The wildy differing research results indicates to me that the
| science of diet and health is just really hard. You can't
| easily create control groups for longer running studies. You
| can't easily control for (epi)genetic factors. There's a tonne
| of other variables you also need to rule out.
|
| And for individuals it's still unclear whether the results
| apply to them or not.
|
| Personally I've decided to go middle of the road, listen to my
| body and factor in more obvious things into my decisions about
| food, like animal cruelty, antibiotic resistance because of
| mass livestock keeping and consequences to the environment.
| [deleted]
| bananabiscuit wrote:
| Why was this study titled in a way that would lead a person to
| presuming the opposite of what the conclusion actually is?
|
| I get that technically the title does not actually imply there is
| an "association", but why not name it something that doesn't lead
| the mind as much in the wrong direction? For example: "Effects of
| Egg Consumption on the Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases"
| UnFleshedOne wrote:
| Selection pressure for traits that affect not stopping reading
| after headlines?
|
| The current climate of public opinion driven exclusively by
| twitter-sized soundbites won't resolve by itself...
| butterisgood wrote:
| Nutritionists HATE This trick!
| ggm wrote:
| Wait... are you telling me the clickbait ads in my feed might
| be .. public health alerts?
| mypalmike wrote:
| Yes. I recently found out that Tommy Chong wants me to
| throw out my CBD oil. Seems important!
| ortusdux wrote:
| I remember Beyond Egg brand mayonnaise pushing their product as a
| healthier cholesterol free alternative. In trying to track down
| those claims just now, I learned that the FDA cracked down on
| them because mayonnaise is required to contain egg, and that the
| egg council went after them and ran afoul of the USDA. It really
| makes me think about who funds these studies and why.
|
| https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-egg-board-investigati...
| killion wrote:
| I would like to see more than the summary. Is there a way to get
| access?
|
| I'm interested because I was on a low-carb high-fat diet where I
| ate 3 eggs a day - that was until I got a blood test that showed
| very high cholesterol. Now I've cut dietary cholesterol and I'm
| on statins. It's much harder to maintain weight loss this way.
| onnnon wrote:
| Do you eat sugar?
| ncmncm wrote:
| Sci-hub is your friend.
|
| https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.05....
|
| The journal publishers are always getting Sci-hub's internet
| access cut off, so you have to search for where they are served
| from at any moment. Every time they are cut off, they find
| another way back on, and you have to find them again.
|
| The journal publishers are about as evil as any corporation not
| actively killing people can be. They take huge "page fees" from
| scientists to publish papers, huge subscriptions from academic
| libraries, and don't pay their editors or their reviewers.
| Their profit margin is 40% and rising.
|
| Probably nothing can be done about them without legislation.
| * * *
|
| On your other remarks: Dietary cholesterol has absolutely
| nothing to do with heart disease. Your liver makes the
| cholesterol your body needs. No one has ever been able to
| demonstrate any benefit to statins for people who have not had
| a heart attack, despite trying _really hard_ for 30+ years.
|
| But statins interfere with your liver producing the cholesterol
| your body needs. Statins have bad side effects that they don't
| like to talk about, particularly muscle damage.
|
| The best things you could do is eliminate sugar, and increase
| exercise. Saturated fat is good for you, and helps reduce
| appetite. Sugar and gluten are appetite stimulants.
| onnteohuonteuh wrote:
| I'm going to try to articulate the arguments of the "veggie"
| doctors.
|
| 1) Industry funding colors scientific results. I believe people
| on HN understand this.
|
| 2) There are marketing agencies in the US which exist to market
| the products of animal agriculture. These agencies fund a
| significant amount of research into their products.
|
| 3) The human body has an upper limit on the amount of dietary
| cholesterol it can absorb daily. Two eggs will accomplish this
| for most people.
|
| 4) Given (3), it is relatively simple to design a scientific
| study which demonstrates that consuming n+1 eggs daily is no more
| harmful than consuming n eggs daily.
|
| Please see the video series by Dr Greger[1] and the old
| newsletter by Dr McDougall[2].
|
| On a personal note, I followed the veggie doctors advice for a
| number of years, by eating a strict vegetarian diet nearly free
| of sugar. My body weight dropped by more than 100 pounds, to a
| healthy (not overweight) range. My cholesterol dropped to around
| 92. After a few years, I was persistently, ravenously, insatiably
| hungry. The only thing that helped was returning to consuming
| animal products. Without intending to devolve into the middle-of-
| the-road fallacy, you may wish to heed the advice of Harvard
| Medical[3].
|
| [1] https://nutritionfacts.org/?s=eggs
|
| [2] https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2016nl/jan/eggindustry.htm
|
| [3] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/digesting-the-latest-
| res...
| Jtsummers wrote:
| And my cholesterol dropped by 90+ points by losing 40 lbs and
| adopting a chicken, egg, rice, green vegetable, nuts, cheese,
| whole milk, and fruit centric diet. Most of those foods were
| better with regard to satiating me and led to me consuming
| fewer calories overall.
|
| Weight loss is a significant contributor to improving
| cholesterol levels in cases of non-hereditary high cholesterol.
| When moving from obese to normal weight (in your case) or
| borderline obese/very overweight to normal weight (in my case)
| it's hard to separate that from the impact of the diet on
| cholesterol levels.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| We have 6 chickens cranking out 5-6 eggs a day so this is a huge
| relief. Eggs are a significant portion of my daily protein. Since
| our chickens free range and eat plenty of greens they are pretty
| high in Omega 3 fatty acids.
|
| I've known that the old school idea that cholesterol in eggs made
| them unhealthy was mostly bunk, but good to hear it confirmed.
|
| Now I just need to figure out a way to find a good source of
| nitrate free bacon.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-04 23:01 UTC)