Nutrition Science Is Broken. This New Egg Study Shows Why.

At turns lauded and vilified, the humble egg is an example of everything wrong with nutrition studies.

Republish
  • Are eggs good or bad? That depends on what study you’re reading.

    Visual: kajakiki via Getty Images


VIEWPOINTS: Partner content, op-eds, and Undark editorials.


It’s been a tortuous path for the humble egg. For much of our history, it was a staple of the American breakfast — as in, bacon and eggs. Then, starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it began to be disparaged as a dangerous source of artery-clogging cholesterol, a probable culprit behind Americans’ exceptionally high rates of heart attack and stroke. Then, in the past few years, the chicken egg was redeemed and once again touted as an excellent source of protein, unique antioxidants like lutein and zeaxanthin, and many vitamins and minerals, including riboflavin and selenium, all in a fairly low-calorie package.

This March, a study published in JAMA put the egg back on the hot seat. It found that the amount of cholesterol in a bit less than two large eggs a day was associated with an increase in a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease and death by 17 percent and 18 percent, respectively. The risks grow with every additional half egg. It was a really large study, too — with nearly 30,000 participants — which suggests it should be fairly reliable.

So which is it? Is the egg good or bad? And, while we are on the subject, when so much of what we are told about diet, health, and weight loss is inconsistent and contradictory, can we believe any of it?

Quite frankly, probably not. Nutrition research tends to be unreliable because nearly all of it is based on observational studies, which are imprecise, have no controls, and don’t follow an experimental method. As nutrition-research critics Edward Archer and Carl Lavie have put it, “’Nutrition’ is now a degenerating research paradigm in which scientifically illiterate methods, meaningless data, and consensus-driven censorship dominate the empirical landscape.”

Other nutrition research critics, such as John Ioannidis of Stanford University, have been similarly scathing in their commentary. They point out that observational nutrition studies are essentially just surveys: Researchers ask a group of study participants — a cohort — what they eat and how often, then they track the cohort over time to see what, if any, health conditions the study participants develop.

The trouble with the approach is that no one really remembers what they ate. You might remember today’s breakfast in some detail. But, breakfast three days ago, in precise amounts? Even the unadventurous creature of habit would probably get it wrong. That tends to make these surveys inaccurate, especially when researchers try to drill down to specific foods.

Then, that initial inaccuracy is compounded when scientists use those guesses about eating habits to calculate the precise amounts of specific proteins and nutrients that a person consumed. The errors add up, and they can lead to seriously dubious conclusions.

A good example is the 2005 study that suggested that eating a cup of endive once a week might cut a woman’s risk of ovarian cancer by 76 percent. There was even a possible mechanism to explain the effect: Endive is high in kaempferol, a flavonoid that has shown anticarcinogenic properties in laboratory experiments. It was a big study, based on a cohort of more than 62,000 women. This study was published in the prestigious journal Cancer, and many in the media were convinced. Dr. Mehmet Oz even touted it on his television show.

But, as Maki Inoue-Choi, of the University of Minnesota, and her colleagues pointed out, the survey had asked about many other kaempferol-rich foods — including some that had higher levels of kaempferol than endive does — and not one of those other foods had the same apparent effect on ovarian cancer.

The new study linking eggs and cardiovascular disease deserves similar scrutiny. Statistically speaking, 30,000 participants makes for a very powerful study. And in fairness, the study’s defenders say that it did a good job accounting for factors that might have influenced the findings, such as overall fat consumption, smoking, and lifestyle.

But on the other hand, the study tracked participants’ health outcomes over periods ranging from 13 to more than 30 years, and participants were queried about their diet only once, at the beginning of the study. Can we assume that the participants gave a reliable depiction of their diet at the outset, and then that they maintained that same diet for the years — in many cases, decades — that followed? Probably not. Who eats the same way for 10 years?

In light of these flaws, Dr. Anthony Pearson, a cardiologist at St. Luke’s Hospital in suburban St. Louis, had this advice: “Rather than drastically cutting egg consumption,” he wrote in a blog for MedPage Today, “I propose that there be a drastic cut in the production of weak observational nutrition studies and a moratorium on inflammatory media coverage of meaningless nutritional studies.”

Instead of observational studies, most nutrition scientists would rather see experimental studies like those performed by the late Dr. Jules Hirsch. A pioneer in the study of obesity, Hirsch got his start in the 1950s, long before weight control became the problem that it is today. He took a relatively unglamorous, ignored area of medical health and made it extremely interesting. To this day, his controlled experiments on human nutrition are considered a gold-standard in nutrition science. He discovered that when a person diets, their heart rate slows, they feel cold, and their immune system is undermined.

But here’s the rub: Hirsch worked at Rockefeller University — a serene little campus tucked away on the Upper East Side of Manhattan — where researchers are free to follow their muse, free of teaching duties. Rockefeller University also has a hospital. Between that and the endowment support, Hirsch was able to do research that would have been impractical to do virtually anywhere else.

Hirsch started with basic science, looking at fat cells and how they functioned. Then he moved on to patients. He would admit them to the university hospital and keep them there, assigning them to a metabolic ward where he could control nearly everything they ate. That was critical, because it is really hard to be on a restricted diet, and there are temptations.

In perhaps his most famous study, Hirsch admitted 18 obese men and women to the hospital together with 23 people who had never been obese. He fed them all mostly a liquid diet to control their calories precisely. First, he had them maintain their initial weight and took measurements. Then he had them gain 10 percent of their initial weight and took measurements. Finally, he limited their portions, causing them to go at least 10 percent below their initial weight, and repeated the measurements a third time.

The experiment revealed the now-well-known fact that when an individual loses weight, their metabolism slows. That’s what makes it so hard to lose weight — and to keep the weight off afterward.

Unfortunately, it is impractical — and probably impossible — for most researchers to carry out those types of studies on a large scale. Crunching the data from a big observational study is a much easier way to get a publication and some media attention. So we get what we get.

In the meantime, what do the rest of us do with our diets?

Most experts recommend avoiding processed foods as much as possible and sticking with a Mediterranean-like diet because it makes intuitive sense. It is not too restrictive. It is heavy in fruits and vegetables. It has the right kinds of fats and some grains. It includes fish and generally lean proteins.

These experts contend that you should also be wary about foods that are said to have newly revealed healthy, or unhealthy, properties. In other words, don’t buy the notion of superfoods. The evidence is just not there.

In an email, Michael Blaha, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University who has written about methodological issues with nutritional science, told me he finds “particularly distasteful studies of one particular food (e.g., broccoli) or one particular macronutrient,” because “it is impossible to disentangle the effect of one particular food or one macronutrient from the accompanying foods and macronutrients that characterize a typical dietary pattern.”

To put it another way: Eat what you like but keep it balanced. And, perhaps, long live the omelet!


Timothy F. Kirn is a freelance writer based in Sacramento, California. He was formerly an assistant editor at the Journal of the American Medical Association, a reporter for the Rochester Times-Union in New York, and an MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow.

See What Others Are Saying

322 comments / Join the Discussion

    I am co-principal investigator in a human study approved by the University of California San Francisco Medical School, and am continually amazed at how the pseudo-data from memory based observational studies can con1tinue to be accepted as anything but delusional.

    This Mayo Clinic paper — https://www.americanscientist.org/article/reasonable-versus-unreasonable-doubt — totally demolishes observational nutrition studies in such a devastating manner that one wonders why anyone is still stupid enough to do one.

    In 1910,John D.Rockefeller had monopolized the US oil industry.Not content,he sought to do same w/chemical industry (see Flexner report) and the AMA wed the pharmaceutical industry.Give a rabbit sugar 2 raise it’s cholesterol.Cholesterol(endogenous) allows nerve transmission, Statin drugs make $.Etymo0logy of nurse= nourish…

    Did the study ask what the subjects of the study ate WITH their eggs? A good number of people who eat eggs do so with a side of bacon!

    I am skeptical of studies that include such a small percentage of the population, 30,000 out of millions.. How can a natural diet be unhealthy.? Experts keep reversing what they have told us in the past.. My husbands family has a history of heart disease.. In 1978 he had tests done that said he was not in need of surgical intervention.. His cholesterol was high but his arteries were clear.. I followed their guidelines scrupulously.. He gave up his favorite foods hoping to live long enough to see our children grown.. When he died, less than two years later, the coroner said his arteries were closed down to pin-head size.. He gave up his favorite foods and still died.. Since then I feed myself and my family the foods that our ancestors ate.. That includes meat, fat, dairy and eggs.. Our children are now middle-aged, older than many of their family who died young.. They are in good health with good cholesterol levels..

    Scientist can find anything they want and prove that it is bad for people, but when it comes to finding what is best to use for any given illness, guess what, getting ten scientist to agree on that subject is a million to one shot. People live until their expiration date, which becomes part of their lives when they are born. The fact that scientist cannot grantee how long any one will live proves that fact. The best statement they can come up with is; “people will live until they die!” However, some people are cut off from life through abortions, but they should know that was not in God’s plan where length of life is concerned. Life begins at conception whether people like it or not. It appears to me that most people believe that life is on some kind of auto-pilot, or something similar, but the Bible makes it clear that is not the truth. What does that book say?

    Psalm 104:27-30; “These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.

    The entire dependence of this immense family on God is set forth from creatures in the sea. With Him, to kill or make alive is equally easy. To hide His face is to withdraw favor (Psalms 13:1). By His spirit, or breath, or mere word, He gives life. It is His constant providence which repairs the wastes of time and disease. However, while God can equally glorify His power in destruction, in His severity He can give death as easily as He gives life in preservation of His goodness and mercy, so that we may well spend our lives in grateful praise, honoring to Him, and delightful to pious hearts (Psalms 147:1). Paul tells us these things through his epistle to the Romans 11:22; “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”

    I am a Christian and so agree with the things that you have written, although I am confused about your applying this broad of a brush to the specific context of healthy eating. So with that as a baseline . . .

    There is one point on which I will disagree, namely

    “People live until their expiration date, which becomes part of their lives when they are born.” Really? Based on what other than you saying it?

    Any time I hear an extreme statement like this, I immediately question its validity. If there were truly an “expiration date”, then it would have very few component causes, such as death by disease or old age. Your statement includes every other causal effect as something set at birth that ultimately results in our expiration on a specific and lethal date. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    For example, take the case of someone who smoked from an early age, acquired lung cancer and died decades before when they would have died had they never smoked. Is that behavior programmed at birth? Were they unwilling accomplices in bringing about their demise on their expiration date, or did they make a poor choice and pay the price. Or is rampant obesity – the backdrop of this article – an overwhelming tool of fate that seals the doom of millions because they must die on their expiration date?

    What about the 70,000-odd people who have died each of the last several years because of opioid addiction – either purposeful or accidental? Or what of the person killed by the drunk driver? On the subject of car accidents, what about the young person who died after being struck by someone running the red light, a death mainly caused by just not looking before entering the intersection? Or what about someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, like tourists killed in the tsunami events in the Far East in 2004? Or, for that matter, what of the countless number of people killed world-wide every year by Mother Earth with typhoons, tornadoes, rain/floods, lightning strikes, exposure, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc? Many people who die are, metaphorically speaking, just drive-by shooting victims. Yet you have lumped all together in your better-felt-than-known pronouncement of this “Expiration Date” theory.

    The industrial revolution has certainly added huge number of causal deaths in its wake along with immeasurable benefits, one of them being extending lifespans. How does that fit into your thesis? There would be no death by electrocution, airplane / car / train crashes, building and bridge collapses, rocket launches and on and on if we still lived in the stone age. But if we did live in the stone age, neither would there be induced immunity from infectious diseases, or life-saving surgeries, or vastly decreased infant mortality, although there would be people dying en masse from polluted water and poor sanitary conditions, food poisoning due to no refrigeration, heat exhaustion due to lack of air conditioning, being kicked by a mule while plowing, ad infinitum.

    To use your terminology, there certainly is something that hastens one’s expiration date and that something is stupidity. The death-and-injury occurrence of young male drivers along with their high insurance rates is ample proof of that.

    Here’s another extreme statement that is broadcast as if it came from God Himself – “Everything happens for a reason”. That usually is quoted when something bad happens and we the search has begun for a silver lining. Stupidity is a big reason for bad things happening. The problem is that most people don’t want to own their own mistakes. It is far easier to say that “the universe is doing this to me” than to just say I messed up and now am bearing the pain for it. I have done some stupid things in my life, and have the scars to prove it. I own them all.

    In the metaphorical sense, we all certainly do have an expiration date as far as being mortal. To say that each of us has a date on which we will die and no one has any power over that date is foolish indeed.

    I would have to assume that he is a believer in the notion that God has a plan for each and every one of us the moment we are conceived. My only issue with that is if we are including outside extremities as “God’s Plan”, wouldn’t we have to include a terminated pregnancy in that grouping as well? I was born and raised Catholic. I am non-practicing, yet do not believe in abortion neither. I do not on the other-hand feel that our destiny is written at conception, and from what I can recall from 12 years of catholic schooling, neither does the church. I believe the teaching is that, while god does have “plans” per say, for each of us, it is up to us to live out this “plan”. But, it is by no means a pre-recorded outcome. But yea, why this discussion was started in an article about my favorite breakfast item is beyond me.

    You misunderstood the sentence. It just meant each of us will eventually die. It isn’t actually saying our date of death is predetermined.

    Life Begins At Breath. Abortion is a made up issue designed to coalesce a right-wing political movement. It isn’t even mentioned in the Bible unless you consider the obvious implications of the ordeal of the bitter water in Numbers 5. Everyone has a right to make their own decisions about abortion and we believe if someone is against it they shouldn’t have one. No one has the right to impose their beliefs on this topic on others, especially when right-wing Biblical interpretations are fabricated for political purposes. Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.” You need to get a grip brother, you losing it, right wing alternativechristians are spending billions of dollars a year on an anti abortion message. Just imagine if they spent that on the already living, for clean water, safe housing, better birthing practices, etc. Now please do me a favor. Since what we eat has nothing to do with how long we live, please come four cups of these night shade berries from out back of the barn and cook yourself up a divine little pie, sweeten it with honey and make a nice sugar crust!! Trust in God that all his fruit is good, and it is only an expiration date that will take you out. Peace and Love. You rationale is inspired by an indoctrination of hate and division, and it is very odd you feel such a need to THROW UP the abortion issue every single time you blog. Glory

    I have know knowledge about bacon and what it can or cannot do to you, not a fan.
    I am a seventy year old man and I can tell you I have eaten 2 egg every day most of my life. Lets say the first 10 years of my life I did not eat eggs and take 1 more year off for not having eggs for breakfast here and there over the 70 years. Now that leave 59 years of eating 2 eggs a day which work out to 43,070. So you would think I should be dead after eating all those eggs and that much cholesterol over the years.
    I have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, Diverticulitis, C.O.P.D, Asthma, Aortic Aneurysm, Arthritis, Sacroiliac joint pain, Fibromyalgia, Angina and Diabetes.
    I also had carpal tunnel in both arms. Appendicitis twice, first time it burst, Bladder Cancer, A foot and a half of my bowel removed.
    I know your saying this guy is full of shit or he should be dead and I would agree but I’m not, dead that is.
    I also had a angioplasty procedure to check my heart. The heart specialist were absolutely positive I had a heart attack. I was told my heart was as clean as a new born baby.
    I wonder about the high cholesterol the doctor said I have.
    The many doctors I have seen over the years said 2 egg a week is all you should eat it is bad for cholesterol.
    So do I believe egg are keeping my heart clean you bet your ass.
    I believe all the doctors were wrong about eggs
    I am not like the people they have study that can’t remember whether or not they ate eggs three days earlier. As I said earlier I am diabetic and I write everything down I eat and drink. So lady and gentlemen I would not take much stock in these scientific studies. There was a study done on cholesterol a few years back. They found there are two kind, good and bad cholesterol. The study said eggs have good cholesterol that kills the bad cholesterol which is fatty meats. I tend to believe there is good and bad cholesterol. I was not only an egg eater I was a lover of fat, so the good cholesterol in eggs must kill the bad cholesterol in fatty meats or I believe I would be dead years ago.

    Average person produces about 2000 mg of cholesterol a day. Average chicken egg has about 170 mg of cholesterol. If you eat 2 eggs in a given day your body should produce 340 mg fewer mg of cholesterol because it tries to keep cholesterol levels constant, not too high nor too low. This is normal, but there are people that are exceptions that fall towards extremes of normal curve due to genetics or their own particular differences. So there isn’t a one-size-fits-all in that a large study will provide an answer to all. Also, you might not know how scientifically thorough the study was performed. Best thing is do perform a sensitivity study of your own and see how consuming foods with cholesterol affect you personally and that will show up with blood lab results. Some people might not have to change anything and others might need to change foods, activity, other lifestyle changes. and/or take medications to control cholesterol.

    My great grandfather, a Mvskoke Creek Indian ate 6 eggs a day all his life and died at the age of 100. He was never sick a day in his life.

    My great grandfather, a Mvskoke Creek Indian ate 6 eggs a day all his adult life and lived to be 100 and was never sick a day of his life.

    My parents 89 and 90, and doing as well as expected. Dad has a number of issues due to Agent Orange exposure, but their outlook on eating their entire life has been “Everything in Moderation”. And so, I view eating the same way. I dont avoid anything, but never over-indulge either.

    Max has it right! My grandmother passed on to me the same exact words: “Everything in Moderation.” She said the words and lived them AND she taught me how to cook and bake fabulous food, not to lie or be wasteful and how to sew beautiful clothes!

    One major problem with this study is that dietary cholesterol has been shown to have no effect on cholesterol found in our systems.

    Dietary intake of cholesterol may have little or no effect on blood cholesterol levels. In my case this was true. With an extremely high blood cholesterol level my doctor recommended I go on a diet where all fats and products containing cholesterol were eliminated. After three months the effect was close to zero, even despite me taking the highest dose of Lipitor, Statin based cholesterol reducing drugs. Ironically, after reading a book titled the ‘Atkins Diabetes Revolution’ I changed my diet to the Atkins (anti diabetes) diet. My physician said ‘you have nothing to lose if you want to try a different approach’, which required me to eat more fats, proteins including plenty of eggs and other high cholesterol containing foods, while reducing to a minimum carbohydrates, especially the common ‘white’ carbs found in rice, flour and white breads, sugar and potatoes. After three months my doctor was amazed. Not only was my blood cholesterol normal (he took me off Lipitor), but my blood pressure had also come down and I no longer required medication for elevated blood pressure, all my other blood analysis results were perfect. I had lost about 5 Kg of body weight and felyt fitter than ever. I have now for over 15 years maintained a low carbs diet with no restriction on protein, fats or good carbs like green and red vegetables and reducing intake of sugar and ‘bad white’ carbs. My health remains excellent (I’m now 78 years of age and still doing the same things I used to do 25 years ago). So diets can work differently for different individuals. I ama good test case. But of course some individuals would likely have a very different outcome to mine.

    Arguments persist regarding human ingestion of eggs but researchers using rabbits have long standing, indisputable ways of inducing atherosclerosis in rabbits by what they feed them. How this translates to humans remains debatable. Plus, not all humans are alike. The same diet can produce significantly different levels of atherosclerosis in different individuals. Nutrition is an infant science for sure IMO.

    The problem with using rabbits in nutritional research is that they are obligate herbivores and therefore have no mechanism to deal with saturated fats found in animal products. It’s like putting diesel in a standard car engine and concluding that diesel makes a terrible fuel and should be outlawed.

    This has been the biggest shit show I’ve ever read.

    Has anyone done a study on fertilized chicken eggs?

    Also 150 year ago when bacon and eggs was a way to keep your heart lubricated, but only if you could afford it. If you could afford bacon and eggs you probably didn’t get infection from cuts while shoveling horse shit.

    So yes eggs are definitely good for you if you can afford them.

    I agree with you that 150 years ago only the wealthy could afford to eat bacon and eggs on a regular basis. However, you say that eating bacon and eggs was a way to keep your heart lubricated. Why do you think that eating bacon and eggs keeps your heart lubricated? You also say that eating bacon and eggs reduced the likelihood that cuts would become infected. Why do you think that regularly eating bacon and eggs reduced the likelihood of infection?

    Thank You ! Excellent work.
    Shut up nay sayer’s. What work have YOU put in to this study ? NONE.

    You claim that if someone did not put any work into the study, then they have no right to criticize that study. That makes absolutely no sense. Suppose that someone writes an essay on how planet earth is as flat as a pancake, or an essay on how bacteria do not exist. Also, assume that you did not help them write that essay. You did not put any work yourself into the essay on how bacteria don’t exist. That does not mean that your criticism of their essay in somehow invalid. The study on eggs tracked participants’ health outcomes for at least 13 years. Participants were asked about their diet only once, at the beginning of the study. Lots of people change their diet. A lot of people probably did not eat the same thing 10 years later as when the study was started. That a legitimate criticism, even if the critic never helped work on the study.

    My maternal grandfather, born in Italy, had a raw egg in a shot of whiskey most mornings for breakfast and said it was an old world remedy for a long life. He was extremely healthy till the last year of his life (died at 94). He seldom drank more than a glass of wine with dinner, otherwise.

    My maternal step-grandfather, Fortunato, also from Italy, had the same egg and whiskey routine as your grandfather did every morning. I recall in his later years, Nona cracking a raw egg in a brandy glass for him every morning before he went out to work in the family garden. (It was an immense garden.) He claimed that his ‘breakfast’ was the secret behind his good health and longevity. He could still climb trees in his seventies and lived to be 98.
    I tried this routine in my early twenties for three days. On the third day, while in a daze at my drafting table, it dawned on me that I was showing up to work drunk. The experiment ended there. Now in my later years, I am thinking about giving it another shot.
    Ken, thanks for rekindling the good memories!

    George Bedell

    What I find funny is when people discuss weight loss or gain it’a always food fault. How about sitting on the couch and binge watching mind numbing things. Imagine if one of those hours these do-no-exercise humans got up and burned these calories and increased their metabolism? How much discussion would we need about diet?

    Speaking of the requirement to exercise for healthy and successful weight loss, a theory that is ‘believed’ by nearly everyone, I have found that exercise makes no difference whatsoever to weight loss while dieting. I lose weight well when I diet properly. I aim for 2 lbs a week and nearly always reach that. If I were to try to exercise (or move strenuously) enough to actually burn off enough calories to have an affect I would have to do SO much of that that I’d have to quit many or some of the things I do daily that are part important parts of my life. I have never ever seen any difference in weight loss when I am more active vs less.
    I read a study a few years ago that stated clearly that activity level, described as ‘exercise’, made no difference in weight loss. Since I already believed that, I believed the study findings.
    My point is that perhaps for some people exercise can affect weight loss (and metabolism) but it certainly does NOT affect ALL people, and I am one example of that. I am healthy and slim. I diet successfully. I do it all as I move normally doing normal things that are NOT considered strenuous or athletic. I don’t like to sweat and refuse to deliberately impose that upon myself.
    So, I wish that the athletic people would recognize that bodies are ALL different and that their method is not necessarily the right thing for others.

    Perhaps exercise is less important for weight loss, though I would argue that a certain amount would contribute to a certain degree, exercise is very important for overall health. Keeping your weight under control is important, but keeping fit is equally if not more important. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Eggs as a source of protein are cheaply available and best of all they are portion controlled. Arguably in the western world’s over-large portions and lack of fiber are our #1 and #2 problems (unless you want to count lack of exercise). At only 70 calories for a large egg, eggs are great. I’m 53 and my cholesterol always comes in low. Any food study should account for how eggs are cooked (fried anything is less healthy). It should also account for what is eaten with it–as much as I like bacon or sausage, bacon and sausage are processed foods (usually fried). Instead of telling people not to eat eggs, we would be better off to tell people to cut (or cut back on) processed foods–such as bacon. Also, we should reconsider how we eat our 1 or 2 eggs. If we have one egg on toast–get the 3 grams of fiber, 60 calorie bread. If we eat two eggs–because we are really hungry–then we should be putting our eggs in a salad or scrambling our eggs in a cooked cabbage/carrots/kale salad bowl so that we get the daily recommended amount of fiber. Then afterwards, go for a walk.

    I’ve been in shape + a super healthy, clean eater for a while now, (Many people say I look 10-15 yrs younger AND I have virtually no trips to Doctors.

    Less $ on that – more & better foods.

    1. Eat Heathfully+ Join a GYM! If you already have a gym membership – GO. If you don’t – Just
    get into one, or look online for ways to use what you have access to and can afford.

    2. L.A. Fitness & other National gyms can be as low as $12.00- $15./ mo. < That's in a big city
    area . Smaller cities differ, so you might find a YMCA or =.

    3. Do Weights & Cardio. take classes if they're free. Everyone- go to the free weights & machines Nobody is looking. IF you think they are- ignore them. Do what youre there for. Don't weigh yourself initially. Scales are somewhat misleading – but uits not about the poundage, It's about the shape and health. Run intemettently between weights & cardio when you can. Look that up on line also. Let it go at that.

    4. If on a budget, go to the most wealthy area closest to you & where there's a Goodwill or =. Buy gym clothes there for Pennies on the $.

    5. Research portion size! Eat S L O W L Y. Never hog food down. Bad 4 U & gross for others to see

    6. Limit Carbs, Only eat good carbs when you eat them – Look these up online. Write it down.
    Thoroughly. Look up words you don't know.

    7. Research on line what your portion size should be for the size & weight you want to be. It's
    online too.

    8. Count and limit carbs, look up what you need for your lifestyle- i.e. sedentary or if never been
    in to a gym, etc. You've got to do some research. But this is FREE! : )

    9. Ive had inexpensive work with 4-5 trainers over the years. For a good life, be aware of what to eat / not eat/ how much and when to eat.

    10. Educate yourself. Find what works for you onine. They're out there. Go to a library if you dont have internet.

    11. Eat only GOOD fats: conut oil, Extra Virgin Olive oil, no canola (or others). Stay out f chain resaurants unless they have nutritional info on menu items.

    12.Read labels on everything!

    13. Get in a gym, or run and get to a gym. Or RUN the gym if it's less than 1.5 miles 1-way.

    14. Take classes you like from Instructors you love. If you can't find one in person, go online & stream from your phone. If you're on a limited plan, wrie it on paper, make a copy & keep it in a safe place, store a copy in your cell.

    You wrote, “go to a library if you don’t have internet.” However, people cannot read your posting on this website unless they already have internet access. They may be using the computer at a public library, but in that case, they don’t need the suggestion to go to the library either.

    Good points all but where and when people eat is also important. I few years ago I put myself on what I call the Television Diet. The idea is that if the television is on I am not eating. If I am eating the television is off. It’s my experience that you can eat a whole pizza and not even know it if you are engrossed in a television program, and the ads on the program generally are designed to make you want to eat even more. A corollary to this “no television while eating” rule is that meals eaten in the car should be limited. If you must have junk food from a drive in, take the sake home and put the food on a plate –pay attention to what you are putting in your mouth and your health might get better.

    In response to IMissLiberty, the biological sciences suffer from trying to emulate the physical sciences, which include a precept of “universality” in their way of doing science. That is, if pure water freezes at 0 degrees Centigrade at sea level in Canada, then it will also freeze under the same conditions in China. And a water molecule will always consist of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. And we have Newton’s “Laws” of motion and the “Laws” of thermodynamics. Unfortunately, biological systems are much more complex than simple physical systems, and with each passing year we discover new layers of complexity in biological systems (epigenetics, anyone?). So, although your point makes perfect sense, biological scientists are likely to continue to search for “universals”, often running roughshod over genetic diversity as well as over all the factors that play into genetic expression (the aforementioned epigenetics). Even with your minority immune system, an identical twin separated from you at birth but raised in radically different conditions (tropical or arctic climate, nasty pollution from nearby industries, different diet with perhaps certain deficiencies, etc.) could end up with sufficiently different metabolic processes that good advice for you might be bad advice for the other, and vice versa. But of course that would run counter to the ideal of discovering biological “universals” equivalent to the universals of the physical sciences.

    As just another example (in addition to my previous post), much of Africa is tropical, and most of its soils are geologically ancient, meaning that a number of compounds, such as salts, have been washed out. As a result, most Africans have metabolic mechanisms that conserve sodium (from common salt) which would otherwise be lost through perspiration. (Sodium is necessary for a number of processes, including the ion exchange involved in messages traversing our nerves.) However, excess sodium can contribute to hypertension (high blood pressure), so people of African heritage come under a health threat when salt, which was scarce in their ancestral environment, is not only freely available in massive amounts, but is likewise massively added to most processed foods in modern America. The Danes, on the other hand, in their past did a lot of fishing and ate copious amounts of cod and herring harvested from the sea. To this day, they like their food much saltier than I care for, including a popular brand of licorice, which was a bit of a shock to me the first time I tried a piece of it. So advice on a “normal” amount of salt intake for a Dane might actually be dangerously unhealthy for a person of African descent. Researchers looking to discover a biological “universal” in that regard are going to be way off base if their study pool contains too much of one genotype or another, and their “universal” will essentially be meaningless.

    And referring to my earlier post, the Mediterranean diet would probably be unhealthy for Inuit, leading to various metabolic disorders, while a healthy Inuit diet would probably give the majority of Mediterranean people heart attacks in short order. A true science of nutrition is going to have to be highly personalized, and we are so very far away from that now — and will remain so as long as researchers continue to be fixated on discovering “universals” instead of focusing on the wide variety of metabolic paths written in our genes.

    First and foremost. ALL health sciences, and biologic sciences are based on the two physical sciences. If you don’t understand the fundamental principles of chemistry and physics you understand nothing about biology. Health sciences are based on the information and fundamental research that is attributed to chemistry and physics. The failure of individuals in these professions to truly understand chemical reactions, quantum mechanics and numerous other topics makes them inadequate and sometimes incompetent doctors, nurses, dieticians etc. Most of what medical doctors do is prescribe medication. Their lack of understanding of the pharmacodynamics , pharmacokinetics and detoxification chemistry of these drugs put patients at risk. Studies are simply anecdotal. Research takes years to understand the chemistry of how the molecules of living systems works. Unfortunately the public is mostly unaware of this huge difference. They will latch on to any study that the media puts forward. I am not saying that you should not see a doctor when you are ill or have a disease. I am saying that medical doctors are not scientists and before prescribing any medication the absolutely should dig into the science of those molecules.

    You wrote, that the failure of those in the health sciences to truly understand quantum mechanics, amoung other topics, makes for inadequate and sometimes incompetent doctors, nurses, dieticians etc. The field of quantum mechanics is useful for describing the behavior of stuff at the heart of a star, inside of a nuclear reactor, where atoms are being smashed together under extreme heat and pressure. However, human beings cannot live under those conditions. Quantum mechanics is not necessary for understanding the kind of chemistry where atoms almost never gain or lose protons. knowledge of quantum mechanics is not at all useful for understanding pharmaceutical drugs. This is because the atoms inside of a drug molecule and the atoms inside of a person’s body aren’t splitting or fusing, gain or losing protons. Additionally, if medical doctors were required to be experts in physics and chemistry, there would be a shortage of people to give you a plaster cast when you broke your leg, or prescribe an antibiotic when you had a sinus infection. Consider the following: You do not have to understand the physics behind and internal combustion engine in order to be an excellent car driver. Doctors only need to know how to use the pedals; how and when to turn the steering wheel etc… They do not actually have to have intimate knowledge of every single little detail of a car’s inner workings in order to be excellent drivers.

    So many comments, so much ignorance and misguided opinion? The irony! It’s a science site not a biblical rant site, and not an anecdotal heresay site – so stick to those if you feel you need to make silly comments?

    Most people have zero understanding of scientific method or statistical analysis, preferring to follow a superstition like religion or some internet guru touting ridiculous rubbish, then claim it makes them super healthy or saved their life, whatever.

    They are the most surprised when diagnosed with a disease or cancer – as if anything can give any of us perfect health and immortality! Enjoy the eggs, quit the smokes and forget the prayers :)

    I agree. The biological sciences – mainly medical doctors love to pigeon hole everyone into one type. The only problem with that is that we are physically different and so one drug or treatment may work on one person but not on another. My body is nearly immune to pain killers, and I always get a smug smile from doctors when I tell them this because their closed minds that learned medicine from the 1960’s in textbooks with data based on you guessed it statistics, told them that’s’ not possible. The best source of information any doctor has of how their patients’ body works, is the patient themselves. But hey, if a study done in 1980 on 100 people most likely from the same genotype and socio-cultural background proved that something was “that way” then well it MUST be that way for the other 7 billion+ people of 2019 right? I mean really, only an idiot thinks nature is continually adapting and changing to its’ environment right? Medical science needs to stop acting like it’s a static science. Biology mutates, learns, adapts, changes to suit its’ environment, thus the human body does the same on an individual human scale. We need to develop technology and mindsets that work on an individual human scale and stop just trying to do what’s easy for big pharma to make money.

    Try explaining to a doctor that, because you are a redhead, you require much more subcutaneous lidocaine than non-redheads. Luckily, most anesthesiologists now understand that we require different doses of anesthesia than other patients.

    Umm… Inferential Statistics won’t tell you something isn’t possible.
    Lets not be unfair to statistics.
    At best it can say something has or does not have a measurable effect with with some estimate of likelihood or probability.

    The real problem you’re talking about is sweeping generalizations – and a lack of imagination and curiosity.

    Kim, those are among the most insightful and useful comments regarding human nutrition I have ever encountered. I have always had an interest in nutrition but have been frustrated by the lack of useful information available. Your brief discussion has brought forward some thoughts long left behind in the recesses of my mind, and I have hope there are others who can see the big picture and we can move forward on some useful nutritional studies. Perhaps, one day, there will be useful guidelines available to help us know how to eat well to improve the quality and longevity of life. We desperately need an end to the “fake science” that has dominated the information available to the general public.

    dudes….eggs are simply chickens periods…let that sink for a minute…how can you eat that? nasty!

    An egg is the unhatched embryo of a chicken. As sold in our food stores, eggs are safe to eat and a great source of many important nutrients. One does not have to be a pure vegan vegetarian to eat a healthy diet. Meat and animal protein are good for humans when used in moderation.

    1 Eggs give your body best nutrition . Only vitamins E, K, folate (vitamin B9) and C are absent.
    Cereal large grain companies did a fake study in 50’s in black jails, gave them an egg a day- black southern jails where black people had natural high levels of cholesterol, they screamed EGG is bad . But it was BS so they could dominate the breakfast markets – people believed and thats why the dumbing down of the USA persons brain – cheap grains instead of best vitamins your body could need – and thats why you have donald as president .

    No, the pure vegans and vegetarians, I am certain, did not give us Trump. I’ll bet you’ll find precious few vegans at a Trump rally. Lord knows, you’ll never find Trump in a vegan restaurant.

    No doubt eggs have some nutrients. But those are outweighed in matters of health by the poisonous saturated fats (animal proteins, also, are suspect, but don’t want to overload your brain). Dr. Kellogg and associates were on the right track with their cereal breakfasts, more motivated by public-spirited zeal than the profit motive. And they certainly had an effect on the American diet. But I don’t think they’d take much pride in today’s cereal aisles.

    Kellogg and his associates were 7th Day Adventists and pushing a meatless diets was anything but health related. They believe(d) that meat makes you lustful.

    Eggs are chickens? The eggs you buy in a store are unfertilized so no they are not chickens at all. I would assume you believe then that a human embryo is a human? The only argument some have against eating eggs is that they are an animal product. I am not a vegan and am not convinced by any “study” that it is even entirely healthy.

    Ignore the busybodies…aka activists. Moderation in the execution of vegans is the key

    Probably because that’s not what they are. If you’re going to be a vegan, it would behoove you not to follow PETA’s example.

    Chicken do not have a uterus, therefore they do not have periods. I suspect your knowledge of human female anatomy is equally lacking

    One man’s meat is another man’s poison. As a minority blood type with a minority immune system, why would I trust even a well-designed study unless they sorted it according to my personal genetic factors? If O’s are known to produce more acid for digesting meat than A’s, and A’s show up with cardiac problems from eating a typical American diet more often than O’s, why would I trust the advice when I’m a B? Is the advice for people predisposed to get sick with certain problems? Or is the advice for the majority of people on the assumption that the minority who did not benefit from it don’t matter?

    My immune system has needs and aptitudes that don’t match the majority of people. My general advice: if a diet makes you feel worse, don’t follow it. And pay attention to individual foods and how they affect you.

    One of my main goals is to keep politics out of food, because they already gave us bad advice, and subsidize corn consumption, a grain that is used to fatten mammals and is addictive.

    MissLiberty said of corn: “a grain that is used to fatten mammals and is addictive.” You’ll forgive me if I discount any further nutritional advice you may offer. Happily, it is still legal for us corn addicts to grow our own.

    If one ate only eggs, you gotta figure it would contribute to one’s untimely demise. Same thing with water or Jack Daniel’s (separately or together) (with or w/o the eggs).
    As Mom always said, “If you’re gonna have Whiskey Before Breakfast, do it in moderation.”

    Yes Baby Chick embryos are always going to be nasty. YES an EGG is a Living Embryo. Leave it and it will hatch and We are eating it and WONDERING if it’s Healthy. ONLY Humans are this Stupid. STOP Eating FLESH People! Wake up MEAT, DAIRY IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE DEATH.

    Nice try, Anton, but the eggs you eat are unfertilized. Sit on them for a year if you want, they’ll never hatch. Welcome to Farming 101.

    When I was in junior high and high school, one of my girlfriends lived only a few houses from me, and we spent time together daily as teenage girls often do. Her father, whom I knew fairly well when my friend and I were in our teens, lived a healthy life, but died about two years ago at age 104 years.

    From spending the night with my friend and accompanying her family on trips to the Lake of the Ozarks, I was able to see much of his usual diet, which was very balanced. Many of his breakfasts comprised bacon and eggs, and he usually ate vegetables, potatoes, bread, and meat daily. He drank coffee daily, was never overweight, and stayed physically active–at least, until he was beyond 100 years old. (He may not have been as active during that final year of 104. I am unsure. I didn’t see the family almost daily then.)

    In short, although what we eat definitely affects our health, it is not the sole factor. Our activities, including not only work, but how we choose to spend our leisure time dramatically affect our health (and often life expectancy–depending upon other genetic factors), too. Thus, although such nutritional studies are fascinating–and may often offer some valuable information to at least consider, they need not be taken too seriously.

    On the other hand there is a ‘delicacy’ called a balut which actually IS a cooked chicken embryo. Look it up. It’s about as unappetizing as you think it would be.

    Anyone, who paid attention in biology class, knows that you need a male chicken to fertilize the egg before it is laid. The eggs that we buy at he grocery store are NOT fertilized. They are laid by hens that have not been mated. Since the hens never mated and the eggs have never been fertilized, thus they are not “Embryos”

    If you paid attention in biology class, you should know that there is no such thing as male chicken…the name is rooster !

    You are correct that a male chicken is a rooster, just like a female chicken is a hen. BUT they are both still chickens.

    When I was on my grandfathers farm in the summer we called them Cock’s, not male chicken’s.

    An egg is only an embryo if it has been fertilized. I’m seventy-one and I love bacon. I will continue to eat and drink what I like and enjoy myself. So eating meat, sugar and all those nasty things ups your chance of dying. But I thought we all died anyway. I would rather spend the rest of my life eating New York style cheesecake then tofu.

    Got you beat. I’m 72 and hike (just did a nice one on Mt Hood), garden extensively, camp (not glamp) and to continue doing so will definitely limit my intake (way more then “in moderation”) of animal body parts or products – especially dairy. I eat for my health and that of the planet and can cook many into a corner when it comes to down right tasty… These choices come from my years in the classroom and wanting to leave something for those coming after me…something morn than a mess to clean up.

    Good for you Isabel! I changed my diet after doing my own research and firmly believe in the whole food plant based diet. That said, I’ll fire up the smoker and do some ribs without thinking about it – you have to enjoy… As for this article, there are plenty of double blind placebo controlled studies that will give numbers about risk for various maladies… all good information, but at what expense?

    U r an idiot if u say that eating an egg is Eating Flesh! !!! Eggs r not flesh. Not every1 healthwise is able to eat a vegetarian diet. I for one. Diabetic plus I had Rouen Y gastric bypass. I HAVE TO EAT MOSTLY ALL PROTEIN Very little carbs. So u d k what u r talking abt LOGICALLY/
    SCIENTIFICALLY – bc eggs r not FLESH. DUHHHH

    Actually Anton an egg is NOT alive until its fertilized… and that of course begets the entire abortion discussion so let’s NOT go there. More precisely an egg is a very large cell…and that is all. If you leave an egg from your grocer alone it will NOT hatch. But you are welcome to try that experiment in your own kitchen. I would advise opening a window after the first month however.

    Dear Anton,

    You wrote:

    “Yes Baby Chick embryos are always going to be nasty. YES an EGG is a Living Embryo. Leave it and it will hatch and We are eating it and WONDERING if it’s Healthy. ONLY Humans are this Stupid. STOP Eating FLESH People! Wake up MEAT, DAIRY IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE DEATH.”——

    I am a bit embarrassed for you, but I realize you are just ignorant (meaning to be without knowledge or understanding of something). Don’t be offended because we are ALL ignorant about many things. Here, I will briefly explain about the mistakes in your statement -not to try to change your mind about whether you should consume animal proteins, but just so you have a greater understanding.

    In order for a laid egg to become an embryo, a hen must be inseminated by a rooster; the semen must find and penetrate the egg, thus fertilizing it; and the laid egg must be incubated for a duration of time, and remain undamaged.

    The contents of freshly laid, fertilized egg, if cracked open, still look just like what one sees in an egg purchased from a market: a liquid white and yolk. It is only after a number of days being incubated does that substance transform and begin to resemble an embryo. To incubate basically means to keep something in a controlled environment, for a specific amount of time, at a specific, usually warm, temperature. Hens achieve incubation by sitting on their eggs.

    Here’s the thing about the vast majority of eggs produced for consumption: they are not fertilized. Some people may be unknowingly eating fertilized egg because freshly laid eggs (fertilized or not) are typically either consumed immediately or put into refrigeration. The refrigeration prevents the contents transformation into an embryo, thus in either case, the person only sees a yolk and white. The likely scenario, though, is that those who consume fertilized eggs are fully aware because they seek them out, and the ones sold in grocery markets are clearly labeled as being fertilized. Hens (the female chickens) don’t need to be inseminated in order to produce eggs, however. When they reach a certain point of physiological maturity, they begin their egg-laying cycles -much like human females when they begin their ovulation/menstruation cycle. Insemination and fertilization is not what initiates it; the cycle happens regardless, in the cases of both creatures. That’s why a person can have a couple backyard chickens, without a rooster, and still get eggs.

    I hope this helps you, Anton.

    Best regards.

    I love this answer. It is very clear and precise, easy to understand, while not being in the least condescending. Thank you very much for your informative and respectful reply.

    A chicken egg will always be just that…an egg, unless the Rooster had made a visit to the hen yard. In which case, it is possible that the egg was fertilized. I spent time on my aunt and uncles farm summers when I was a girl and I was allowed to polish ( with sand paper) and candle eggs “”( hold it up to the light to see if you could find the sperm left by the Rooster). This was needed to be done so the eggs could be sold. We got to eat the ones that were fertilized…guess my aunt just scooped out the sperm when she cracked the egg into the bowl…will have to ask my cousin. Something about living on a farm makes one less queasy about ones food. So much just seems very natural and I NEVER thought I was eating a chick, nor the hen’s monthly flow. ONLY a city slicker could even think that way.

    Not humans on the whole, just you. I remain baffled as to why vegans revel in such ignorance on purpose. I noticed you guys brigaded this post. You’d probably convince more people you were right if you didn’t lie about it.

    And now for a total monkey wrench to toss into the discussion. My degrees are in archaeology, and one of the graduate courses I took was a physical anthropology course on endocrinological differences between “races”. Now, cholesterol in and of itself is a chemical building block that the body uses in a number of biochemical processes. The body produces a certain amount on its own (after all, we are mammals), and gets the rest of what it needs from its diet. There are penalties to the body both for the presence of too much cholesterol as well as levels that are too low. But what is fascinating is that various groups have apparently (I have to say apparently here because of course there is no fossil evidence to document the process) developed different metabolic responses with regard to cholesterol. This is expressed in fasting serum cholesterol levels. The group that showed the lowest serum cholesterol levels on average were Inuit peoples. This makes perfect sense as a response to their dietary environment, which included eating whale and seal blubber as well as using rendered blubber oils in their cooking. You would figure any lineage whose metabolism would overload from disease-consequences of receiving so much external cholesterol would be eliminated from the gene pool. The American Indians were the next in the ranking (also makes sense, as many of them were hunter-gatherers or hunter-small scale farmers before the arrival of the Europeans with their farming technology) and the list went on with distinct differences between groups, appearing (again, a cautionary word here) to correlate with the depth of their history of large-scale farming with cereal grains. There were also differences on how “well” the body retained sodium (from salt), correlating with how close to or far from the equator a population had historically lived, as well as other sorts of things like vitamin D requirements (likewise correlatable with distance from the equator). So a study that examined the metabolic effects of a certain level of cholesterol consumption could show significantly different results if the study group was all Eskimos as compared to a group of all Caucasians.

    So, what does this mean? Groups of Homo sapiens each lived in much the same areas which had much the same seasonal variation providing much the same food sources for tens of thousands of years once the last Ice Age ended, and the evidence suggests (another cautionary word) that groups living in given environments adapted to a certain extent to the local conditions, including the abundance or lack of certain nutrients. Only in the last ten thousand years have we developed domestication of food plants and food animals for farming and totally changed the human dietary environment with blazing speed (in geological and evolutionary terms) for those groups which turned to farming in place of hunting and gathering. In other words, humanity has been conducting a massive dietary and nutritional experiment upon itself since the development of farming, as the technology changes so much faster than the human metabolism evolves. On top of that, over the last millennium or so groups of humans have become more mobile and more engaged in trade of all sorts, including foodstuffs. That means more exposure to more foodstuffs and environments for which one’s ancestral group was not adapted (or accustomed, if you prefer that), which only increases the complexity of the experiment we are running on ourselves. Movements of and therewith intermarriages between groups only muddies the genetic factors governing metabolism further. In the end, this fairly destroys the ability to run a study and then to say definitively “This thing is 100% good for all humans and that other thing is 100% bad for all humans” (leaving out such universally needed things as oxygen or such universally toxic things as certain plant poisons, of course). We may some day approach a true science of nutrition when we can tease out from a person’s genetic heritage what combination of things is best for each individual metabolism; I would guess until science takes that into account we will continue to get seesawing evaluations of various foods or diets because of the (sometimes wildly) varying reactions of the various genetic makeups of the subjects participating in them.

    And now for an anecdotal case in point. My ancestry is mostly western European, but I also have a reasonably recent Native American ancestor through the maternal line — I have brown eyes, brown hair, tan easily, although my paternal grandmother was blonde, blue-eyed and fair and so are both of my paternal aunts. I didn’t realize there were inherited metabolic factors as well until my first complete blood workup as part of a health check before going off to do field work in the jungles of Central America. The printout showed all the values of the components of my blood to be in the normal range, except for an asterisk next to cholesterol number. Well, with all the bad news about the effects of too much cholesterol, that was a shocker. (This was back in the day — the printout only showed the numbers without including the normal range for each value.) I rushed back to the university health center to ask the doctor how bad I had it and what should I do. However, he told me that yes, the asterisk indicated that my cholesterol was outside the normal range, but that it was almost vanishingly low — which is why the computer had flagged it with an asterisk. And this was at a time when I ate eggs daily, drank whole milk with every meal, and had some form of meat (even if it was only ground beef in a spaghetti sauce or chili) for lunch and dinner. And so it has been my whole life. When a different doctor reviewed a later blood workup while I was serving in the Foreign Service (and our family had a much better budget for food than when I was a graduate student), he looked at my somewhat pudgy form and asked in a somewhat disbelieving tone, “Are you a vegetarian?” Once again, the point being that until we can account for all of the test subjects’ genetic inheritances with regard to all nutrients, let alone lifestyle and environmental factors, drawing broad generalizations of what’s good or bad from almost any nutritional study is going to be suspect, if not highly suspect.

    Very thought provoking response. You raised some really good points to chew on. (pun intended)

    Nutrition is more complex as it has to take into account the individual. You brought up very good points — our metabolism differs from person to person and how our bodies react to certain combinations of nutrients, body chemistry and activity. The generalities of diets — be a vegan, be a vegetarian, be on Keto, be on Atkins, be on this or that, should not be taken lightly. I fully understand people’s aversion to food produced from animals — just like I fully understand people who like food produced from animals. I prefer a balance — the body wants a balance.

    When we become fat, or have high levels of “bad” substances in our system, based on blood work and current measuring techniques, or have a bad reaction to certain foods and chemicals/substances, it is one way our body is reacting to an imbalance. I love veggies — certain veggies — but if I eat too much, I don’t feel good. During different times in our lives we have certain needs or cravings. When I was a kid, I did not like cheese. Drinking milk for a few days resulted getting sick to my stomach or ending up in the bathroom. Now I like cheese and I can tolerate half-and-half (not regular milk). Even a few years ago I could not stand cilantro — it tasted like soap — but now I find it quite tasty. As a kid I liked raw peas but could not stand it in my soup. Now I can’t get enough of the peas in the soup. All this just shows how are bodies and nutrient-needs change over time.

    I know saying, “eat in moderation,” is like using a match to light a fire, but the fact remains, our bodies are complex systems striving for homeostasis — that necessary equilibrium to maintain health. Upset that cart, and upset that fine balance. That is why it is hard to only look at one element and say your body needs this or that without knowing with what other elements it will react. Even within the same family one has variations in body chemistry, activity, and external substance exposure. Knowing what works for us, individually, is the better way to approach nutrition. If I develop a rash after eating strawberries, should I keep eating them or take an allergy pill so I can eat it? Going down that rabbit hole, medications can also start to tilt that fine balance.

    We cannot account for everything in our bodies and how it all reacts together. However, we need to know the underlying cause of symptoms rather than throwing medication at it or finding that one super food to end all super foods. Marketing material should never serve as a guide to nutrition. Common sense, balanced meals, and paying attention to what your body is telling you is the better approach to nutrition. My dad lived to be 97 not by eating junk food or being a vegetarian, or being vegan, or being gluten free, or being egg free. He liked balanced meals — meat, potatoes, vegetables, fruit. Meat could be anything — pork, chicken, beef, fish, etc. In his late eighties he would complain about the quality of the meat found in grocery stores — they were tasteless so those times when I bought expensive organic meats, he noticed difference in taste. He was mentally sharp to the day he died.

    We will all die, so stress less over extreme positions — eat what you like in a balanced way. Your body needs all types of nutrients — but what works for you may not necessarily work for me so look at your own plate, not mine.

    @Kim Hargan – I read your reply to IMissLiberty and thought, “Wow! Yes. Why don’t more people understand these things like this Kim person does. I never see replies like this online.” Then, I scrolled down some more and saw that you have archaeology degrees -bingo! Me, too. So, that (culture) presumably explains why you wrote what I was thinking. Thanks for taking the anthro-knowledge to the mean streets of the internet.

    Excellent, thought-provoking article.

    Dr Atkins DID NOT die of a stroke. He slid on ice and cracked his head open. Stop perpetuating lies to justify your opinions. Why aren’t there mods here to correct these lies?

    J. The Atkins group has a great marketing team! He had a stroke, fell to the ground and cracked his head. Him “slipping on ice” allows the money machine to keep churning. They have been able to get people to buy into eating some of the most unhealthiest food. A little twist on his demise was a simple task.

    Instead of arguing if they are healthy or unhealthy since there “seems” to be support for both sides, lets look at it from a compassion perspective. 99.995% of the birds are egg laying slaves, confined and living in horrendous conditions. Take time and research what these animals go through, how their lives are shortened while being forced to generate “units”.

    So much funny stuff here. Carbohydrate’s not a nutrient? Comparing Chicken embryos with seeds? Eggs are very nutritious? Weight loss can not be achieve via consuming fewer calories then expended? It is just sad that the end result of all of this is more confusion and more people just living via “moderation”. Eating anything that contains cholesterol (animal products), even in moderation, will put you in a grave earlier than if yo do not.

    Actually Robo that is incorrect. No cholesterol = no bile production in your body. No bile = poor digestion. Poor digestion = malnutrition. Malnutrition = death MUCH earlier in life than from a coronary blockage. So don’t COMPLETELY avoid cholesterol.

    Sorry Rik, Bile helps to emulsify fats. Bile contains cholesterol that is made in the liver. We do not need to consume cholesterol at any point in our lives, as our body will make what we need.

    I’m a healthy 91-year old who9 enjoys at least one egg every morning.That plus an orange, a bacon slice and home-made biscuits with jam.
    Seems to works right well for me.

    Growing old is not for sissies. One egg a day and I maintain my weight, two a day and I gain. As an active lad in Nav, a six or twelve egg omelet was just fine. Being now 65, a three-egg breakfast is a real treat once a month. Fresh eggs from just up the road is a mighty fine thing to have!

    I agree with the person who said funding is part of the problem. I remember when scientists said sugary cereals were actually good for you, and then it turned out General Mills had funded the study. Likewise, the person who mentioned that eggs contain lecithin which helps to process cholesterol. Nutrients work together, and if you just get some but not others, the deficiencies produced can inhibit the absorption of the ones you took in. You can’t just say, take this or eat this or don’t eat that one thing and you’ll be fine, especially in cases of already established ill health. Not to mention that these studies don’t take into account food allergies, genetic factors, and the consumption of commercially grown foods with pesticide and herbicide toxin residues and/or missing critical nutrients grown in soil worn out from planting the same crops over and over and using chemical fertilizers that trap minerals in the soil. There are sound nutrition principles, but you have to apply them as an art as well as a science.

    Interesting information Dr. Fleming. Is the test “free of charge” to any interested party or are you putting together an actual study? I’m interested in being a participant.

    if I took an egg and hatched it, will it increase its cholesterol content?

    Cholesterol is essential but not needed. Why? Its natural function is to modulate the dynamic viscosity of membranes. Cell membranes are lipid bilayers consisting of lipid bilayers of fatty acids arranged with hydrocarbon tails end to end comprising the membrane center and the fatty acid heads forming the outsides. Soap bubbles follow the same physical arrangement. The hydrocarbon tail of cholesterol dissolves into this area because in chemistry “like dissolves like”. Cholesterol modulates the dynamic viscosity of the membrane like an anchor wherein it moves in and out according to the principles of solvency. Many other natural products conform to membrane properties. Books are written on the subject. Of interest are the essential (polyunsaturaated) fatty acids, omega three (Ω-3, linolenic acid) and omega six (Ω-6, linoleic acid) and their metabolites. Many disease-like conditions result from their lack. For example, brain functioning, scaly skin, migraine and vascular functioning… Books have also been written on all of these, too. I chug flax oil (mixing with saliva, to liberate the free fatty acids) before swallowing. This is how I get my Essential Fatty Acids. I highly recommend it (organically grown Flax oil from Saskatchewan, CAN.) For ~200# 1 fl. oz. per month
    Others publish these Ω-3 beneficial positive effects: Depression & Anxiety, Eye Health, Brain Health During Pregnancy & Early Life, Risk Factors for Heart Disease, Symptoms of ADHD in Children, Metabolic Syndrome, Inflammation, Autoimmune Diseases, Mental Disorders, Age-Related Mental Decline & Alzheimer’s Disease, May Help Prevent Cancer, Asthma in Children, Fat in Your Liver, Bone & Joint Health, Menstrual Pain, Improve Sleep, Good for Your Skin. Take a look at “Essential fatty acids and their role in conditions characterised by impulsivity” at http://www.eurekaselect.com/166782/article or https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540260600581837?journalCode=iirp20

    What I did not see here was anything about
    **Common Sense**
    Its all about Keep IT Simple Stupid!- No processing , No GMO, and no profit
    involved.
    Science ? what for?

    In reply to “common sense”, if it were common, there would be more of it.

    After my Doctor told me a year ago that I needed to loose weight, and be on medicine for my high bad cholesterol and blood pressure I tried various diets which did not work. My son was having problems and to support him I went on a Keto diet with him. (That would mean Eggs and Bacon almost every day.) I over did it at first and lost 40 lbs in about 40 days after realizing it was a little much I stopped counting carbs on vegetables and added nuts when I needed a boost (maintaining weight). Still eat eggs and bacon almost ever day and 2 months ago when I saw my doctor he said: “Wow! What did you do? You bad cholesterol is low, the good is really high and your blood pressure is on the low side of normal.” I do not know about other people but apparently for now, this life stile diet works well for my particular physiology. One word of advise: If you can donate blood. With your donor account you get the results of a free blood test every time for better metrics to see if things are working for you.

    Well, if you eat two eggs a day and splurge on sweet things like sweet coffee, jam, and other fast carbs, of course you’ll get heart disease ! The reason is that fast carbs spike insulin levels which shuts down lipid metabolism, which in turn become stored dead weight in all places such as arteries and liver. The minimum will be a cardiovascular disease. Elementary Mr. Watson ! And I bet that those smart college persons did not take that into account. I find it very instructive that people go to such expense to ge a higher education and become so dumb. May be they’re agents of the vegetalian lobby, uuh ?

    And you know all this how? It doesn’t seem like you are stating opinion – not fact. I believe that is well-known that excess carb and sugars are handled (mostly) by the liver, which sends these unusable “kilocalories” in FAT CELLS!

    insulin indeed ,is the problem. And eating meat (or protein) also raises insulin. It may not raise glucose (although in some ketogenic people) it does. But as your rightfully point out the culprit is insulin. The problem with insulin is you can’t live without it and you can’t live with it. Its the high level of insulin. The only answer is a diet that results in low levels of insulin. This will happen with a high fat diet. So go 1/3 protein, 1/3 veggies, and 1/3 fat from nuts not grains or animals.

    People need to stop looking at trends and fads and start understanding their own bodies. Just turned 45. I’m 5’9, 200 pound female but nobody has ever guess that I weigh more than 160 because of my build, body fat, stature and athletic physique.

    Since around 1994 when I was 20, I have been an intermittent faster. I didn’t even know that was a “thing” and it certainly wasn’t a popular term at the time. My reasoning for doing it back then was simply that I got full really quickly and hated going to bed on a full stomach. So I generally stopped eating after 6pm-ish. At the time, and even as recently as 5 years ago, friends would look at me like I was crazy? They couldn’t believe I could go that long without eating and not get hungry. What they didn’t understand as I tried to explain to them, is that this worked for MY BODY because that was how my body responded to food.

    I’m still intermittent fasting today and I’m not a small girl but I never gained a lot of weight (average + or – 5 pounds during my cycle; max 10 pounds generally.). In my 20s and 30s I ate pretty much anything I wanted (in moderation) and although not a junk food junkie, I definitely ate my fair share of pizza and burgers. I worked out moderately over the years but never a gym rat. I’ve always had high cholesterol but my good cholesterol (HDL?) is always perfect. How does that even make sense, I thought? Well, it’s possible, I learned. But docs were concerned so I cut eggs from my diet per their advice. They also wanted to put me on meds but I declined because I wanted to see if eggs were the culprit. Come to learn, cutting eggs alone did not lower my numbers. In fact, nothing did.

    Around 2000 I was diagnosed as Hyperthyroid. Removed it and now I’m hypothyroid. My bad cholesterol is still bad and good cholesterol still good. Doctors have now told me my metabolism and cholesterol levels will always be affected by this condition. So I’m also back to eating eggs. Why? Because it also turns out that high cholesterol is hereditary and no matter what I do, and unless I’m on meds, I can’t avoid it. So it turns out that for me, eggs isn’t necessarily the bad guy here. And the idea that it’s touted as a terrible food is unfortunate.

    Today I still fast intermittently, although I’m more prone to snacking at 8pm. My metabolism is definitely affected by my thyroid condition as I now find I can’t lose weight even when I work out 5 times a week. But the bottom line is that I have never felt overweight even though probably 50 – 60% of my family members would be considered obese. So it’s all relative. People have to stop blindly relying on studies. If you can, find and stick with a doctor who understands your medical history and story. Also, Live Your Life Your Way and not by the way of others. Studies aren’t 100% applicable to everyone so use discernment when absorbing the info.

    It would be good for all of us to fast 12 hours each day. It is very healthy for the brain and part of the Bredesen protocol for dementia.

    i like looking at the self proclaimed experts in the comments.. like the “scientist” who never once uses the words “proof” “thesis” or other deduction nouns which a scientist would use. have you EVER known a scientist of 25 to refer to himself as a scientist, not a _________ scientist? my God they are like doctors they will at least use their general tile . how fun

    Actually, real scientists do not use the word “proof”, because you cannot every truly prove conclusively and definitively in science. Only a non-scientist and a fake scientist would use the word “proof”.

    If someone claiming to be a doctor talks about calories and losing weight, run to the nearest exit, and lock it behind you as you leave. Calories are measured by burning the food items. Your body does not burn food. It digests it. You need not learn from clowns with an axe to grind. Go to Amazon, and buy a used Guyton and Hall physiology text book. You can get an older edition for less than $10 including shipping. It is not easy reading, but most literate folks with patience and access to Internet dictionaries can handle it.

    G & H describes the different digestion processes for carbs; fats (called lipids in G & H); and protein. And, it specifically says if you increase fats (lipids) and decrease carbs, the body starts burning its own fat. (i.e. – Atkins.)

    The cells of the body can get their energy from glucose OR fat. There is no MDR for carbs. Once your body adjusts to no carbs the liver converts enough fat to glucose for the brain and other critical organs. MDR for carbs is 0.000g/day. Yet, all of medicine, including diet research, is based on a ‘glucose diet’. Both the Canadian government and the Atkins Institute have found that Diabetes Type II can be CURED with low-carb diets.

    I certainly agree with the person who said most doctors are technicians, not scientists. My best friend in Mexico is a doctor who says the same thing. So is he. I saved his life when he developed Intermittent Claudication and he admits it; he has yet to save my life.

    You do realize that Dr. Aktins did of a stroke, which subsequently is one form of cardiovascular disease – go figure! Also, you are correct we do not “burn” calories in the sense that the word burn is usually associated with. We do break down ingested particles at a molecular level that helps provide us with energy.

    You do know that they’ve known that sugar and not fat was the key to weight loss since the 50s right?

    You’ll probably die from one of a dozen other reasons than your diet, provided…

    You are moderate in everything.

    Embrace your inner Epicurean.

    Who wants to live forever? The Universe certainly doesn’t want you to. Nor your DNA (built in obsolesce, you know) .

    Unless this study made sure these 30k people ONLY ate eggs with their breakfast, it’s ridiculous to assume eggs are the main contributor of the increase in cholesterol. Most people who eat eggs tend to eat them with things like bacon or sausages, etc… I’m tired of these statistic based studies. statistics are a fallacy that the new generations are latching onto like a drowning man in an ocean. All studies are biased in some way, and in most cases they are morosely biased towards an intended result. Usually the study is only created for the purpose of selling some product, or influencing an industry/market. In most other cases it’s about some individual trying to get noticed for a paper he/she wrote, so the more controversial they can “arrange” the results to become the more notoriety they get. It’s disgusting really how many youtubers, pseudo-scientists, and just basic wack jobs, can get so many people to listen to them when common sense and logic are completely thrown out the window these days. If ten sites on the internet say something is the “new answer to everything” everyone jumps on the proverbial “truth wagon” and acts like it must be true, when in fact in most scenarios, the “fact” was based on an opinion that was re-posted/rehashed and then “confirmed” through a biased study so many times that it becomes a fake fact. This is similar to how “za” came to be allowed in the American dictionary as an actual word for “pizza” What a joke when laziness of basic reasoning becomes the standard for establishing the facts of tomorrow or today. It’s so sad that the words fact and truth have utterly lost their defining meaning in the last twenty years. When you throw out logic/common sense/reason, and everything becomes subjective, we are left with a tenuous world built on lies and self deception. No wonder the new generations are lacking in confidence when the world around them keeps redefining reality on a daily and sometimes hourly basis of popularity votes.

    Tim’s article suggests we substitute the “Argument from Ignorance” when it comes to health “risk factors”.
    As an alternative, I suggest you read “Choline, TMAO and Heart Health” http://www.clevelandheartlab.com/blog/choline-tmao-heart-health/
    Consider that the leading cause of death in the U.S. is Heart disease.
    See “Leading Causes of Death” from the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
    1) Heart disease: 647,457
    2) Cancer: 599,108
    3) Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936
    4) Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201
    5) Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383

    In a retirement community in Florida called The Villages, the joke is, “Where the women can’t get pregnant and the men look like they are.” If you are a man and look like that, you’ve got big health problems on the way. Why do you think doctors call type II diabetes a “life style” problem? Dying from diabetes is a slow and painful way to go, gradually debilitating your eyes followed by blindness, legs, maybe amputation below the knee, debilitated kidneys, requiring dialysis and various pains associated with diabetes. Hoping for a heart attack is your best bet if you can’t fix the diabetes problem.

    There are many “risk factors.” Poor nutrition including the risk factors of certain foods can contribute to poor health and chronic disease generally speaking, your INDIVIDUAL results may very, as the saying goes.

    “Approximately 71% of the 34 million 17-to-24-year-olds in the U.S. would not qualify for military service… The ineligible typically includes those who are OBESE, those who lack a high school diploma or a GED, convicted felons, those taking prescription drugs for ADHD and those with certain tattoos and ear gauges … some requirements can be waived.” Source: Headline: Pentagon: 7 in 10 Youths Would Fail to Qualify for Military Service, by Nolan Feeney / June 29, 2014 / Time.com

    Notice, Number 3 cause of death is accidents. An old army joke says, “In a war zone, anything you do can get you killed including doing nothing at all”. I can tell you from personal experience that sleeping meets the definition of one of those “doing nothing at all” situations. My cousin was killed one night due to in-coming enemy rocket or mortar fire while sleeping next to his Armored Personnel Carrier with the Amercal Division in Vietnam.

    In the same war, 2 years earlier, I survived a friendly fire incident in the central highlands of South Vietnam while sleeping when a U.S. Army, 105 howitzer artillery shell landed close by. After the explosion,I thought it was someone setting off a Claymore mine on our defense perimeter. Next it sounded like rain started landing on our olive drab in color, general purpose, medium tent, then the rain got chunckier. Do you know about the Eureka effect? That’s refers to the common human experience of SUDDENLY understanding a previously incomprehensible problem. “That’s not rain landing on our tent, that’s dirt!! I thought. Eureka! Translated into military speak, O, Sh*t!! Kicked up from an incoming artillery strike!! No one was killed or injured. The reason that strike happened, Guerrilla Tactics. The enemy was able to simulate a call for “fire support” using our LOCATION on our OWN military, voice, radio defense network!! Gotta hate that when it happens. The military joke “risk factor” proved to be correct in those two situations.

    I think I can simplify nutrition:

    *Meat
    *Cruciferous vegetables
    *Raw dairy
    *Free range eggs

    Everything else; not processed and in small portions on occasion.
    And before anyone says anything, I drink 2 gallons of raw milk per week and never got food poisoning. But I have gotten it from eating salads. So take that how you will. Everyone is different and it’s up to the individual to experiment with food to figure out what their unique situation requires. Life is full of risks and many that we take every day are worse than experimenting with a different diet for a month.

    How we deal with fats and cholesterol is purely based on genetics, for the most part. The fact that a person in their early 20’s can have terrible atherosclerosis but can be the healthiest eater proves this. Eat in moderation…

    “so much of what we are told about diet, health, and weight loss is inconsistent and contradictory, can we believe any of it”

    Misleading hyperbole.

    Soda pop is always bad. Trans fat is always bad. Pure sugar is always bad.

    Some of this article adds to the confusion while raising important issues.
    Of course, people say one thing and do other things. That’s why systematic observation is so important and why survey data are often so hard to learn from. But well-done, long term field studies are expensive, so that kind of work is rare.
    It is not true that the bigger the sample the more robust the result. The opposite may be said to be true the bigger the sample, the greater the potential for errors. That’s why people use statistical sampling. That, too, has limitations, if you are stuck with means-based statistical measures. Life does not revolve around the mean (see, for example, Maltz, M.D., 1994. Deviating from the mean: The declining significance of significance. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 31(4), pp.434-463).
    Seems quite correct that a single-food study is misleading and unhelpful. Quite right that surveys are very much limited and over-used in much of public health research. Solid ethnographic work combines systematic observational, survey, and text and discourse analysis to understand a fuller range of the contexts, in and through which food choices are made, when, and why. Once you identify well-understood clusters of variables, there is great benefit in experimental techniques, but choosing a method depends on the context of the study–experimental work is not automatically better. Are folks in public health or nutrition studies trained for multi-method work? That would be a great question for a science writer, IMHO.

    Arnold Schwarzenegger, probably one of the workd’s most well known MEAT & ANIMAL eaters, tells all in the upcoming movie The Game Changers: Watch the trailer at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSpglxHTJVM

    When athletes at the top of their game, tennis Novak’s Djokovic, NFL Defensivemen, World and USA Record holders in power lifting, not some third rate player shows you the preponderance of evidence and why they switched to a PLANT based diet THEN BROKE WORLD (not personal best only) records & GOT STRONGER you start to realize the level of ignorance around nutrition.

    Proteins, which are amino acids re-organized by the body, come from plants; they do not come from eggs, or from any animal. Eggs, Meat, Butter, etc… are generally not good for you, and the only reason we ate them for hundreds and thousands of years, it is simply because we didn’t have food sources during seasons when plant based foods were unavailable. We never needed to. NEVER…! And we still don’t; in fact, it hurts us, slowly but surely.

    The egg is both good and bad for cardiovascular health. This most recent study, noted in this article, actually clarifies the situation immensely. Unfortunately, the researchers and publishers of this most recent research didn’t discuss their findings with cellular biologists or gastroenterologists.

    The egg is good because it contains a suite of healthy amino proteins and two of these contain substantial amount of sulfur: methionine and cysteine. Sulfur in small yet daily amounts is crucial for mitochondria to efficiently function. The result is that when they’re busy converting ADP to ATP, they give off fewer free radicals that can result in cellular disruption and inflammation. The studies showing that egg consumption, up to two a day, was strongly correlated with lower cardiovascular risk was done in a population that rarely gets these amino acids in sufficient quantity from other sources as they don’t eat much meat. So if you’re mostly a vegetarian or on a diet that doesn’t include beef and pork, eating an egg or two a day is very healthy. The egg is also good because the cholesterol that it contains, also known as dietary cholesterol, has been found in many studies to not make it’s way from digestion into the blood stream in detectable quantities. The rise in cholesterol that was seen in this most recent study, noted in this article, was produced within the body. It didn’t come from the eggs. In this case, correlation doesn’t equal causation. The egg was falsely blamed at the scene of the crime for circumstantial evidence. Eggs also contain creatine that’s used by the body to produce phosphocreatine, an element highly vital to mitochondria in the production of ATP, the preferred energy supply for the cell.

    The egg is bad because it contains contains a substantial amount of the highly reactive form of iron called heme, 1 mg/two eggs and lecithin. Heme is the same type of iron that’s contained in beef and pork, both linked with increasing cardiovascular risk. Two eggs contain approximately the same amount of iron as 2 ounces of beef.

    Secondly, a gut bacteria is preferentially fed and thrives on a diet of lecithin and carnitine (along with more common choline and other nutrients), producing TMAO that leads to a dramatic increase in inflammatory factors in the blood stream just 10 minutes after consuming them, assuming that you eat this diet at least weekly (Vegetarians didn’t harbor this particular variety of bacteria in sufficient numbers, so they were able to eat bacon, eggs, and beef with impunity, but just once a month… of course if they ate meat more often they certainly wouldn’t be Vegetarians.). A serving of 4 ounce steak contains 100 milligrams of carnitine. (reference: Research, led by Stanley Hazen, M.D., Ph.D.Cleveland Clinic: “Cleveland Clinic Studies Reveal Role of Red Meat in Gut Bacteria, Heart Disease Development”). A single egg contains up to 1.3 grams of lecithin. If you’re eating meat and eggs in your weekly diet, the lecithin from the eggs will increase the production of TMAO and result in higher cardiovascular risk.

    I’d like to note that the book Forks over Knives featured a study where they removed both meat and eggs from the diet of fire fighters, resulting in a substantial improvement in cardiac health. If the study was repeated, where they just removed the beef and pork while keeping 1-2 eggs per day in the diet and then compared it to a diet that lacked both meat and eggs, the group eating only eggs along with the primarily vegetarian diet would’ve had the lowest cardiac risk. Perhaps this will be sensationally published in a study in the next decade.

    There is only one diet that has gotten people off diabetes medication, reversed heart disease, or stopped the progress of cancer. Starch based diets that reduce or eliminated the use of processed oils, sugar and salt. The proteins in meat,milk and eggs are not even of any particular quality. The Amino acids in meat and dairy products that we cant use have to be eliminated and during that process produce an acid byproduct that slowly weaken bones and cause osteoporosis. This is what the science says. Not industry studies, not from nutritionists with mail order degrees. These are controlled studies with thousands of participants watched for decades and tested routinely.

    And this obesity crutch is bologna. Cals in vs cals out. Count your calories, go to the gym, weight train min 3x/week, do that for at least 3 months then tell me how you can’t lose weight. The reason most people get fat after dieting is because they eat all the muscle running and they continue to eat like they did when they were active. Rocket scientists.

    These guys are clueless. Eggs nor any other food are inherently bad. When you get too much of something and live a sedentary lifestyle, that’s when things start to create issues. Hell, water can even kill you if too much is consumed in a short period of time. Another thing these studies always fail to mention is that this “bad” cholesterol is used to make your hormones, male and female.

    What MOST of the “anti-cholesterol” experts seem to gloss over, is the fact that MOST of the body’s cholesterol is manufactured by the liver!

    That, and because we, as individuals, are going to have differing levels of cholesterol naturally.

    Most of these “studies” still make the interpretation that ALL of us should be exactly the same! – This is wrong, and very dangerous thinking that must change.

    This study says this, then this study says that… who cares anymore. Just going to eat what I want and if I die, I die, oh well.

    Nutrition science has some serious issues (as does scientific research across most disciplines). however alarmist and inaccurate reporting can be just as big of an issue.

    Two words to always remember: confirmation bias

    We tend to listen to and agree with what we want to hear. There’s no known cure except for vigilant self awareness and inhuman objectivity.

    Show me an egg diet that documents CVD reversal and I’ll give it some consideration.

    Otherwise I’ll try to continue to roll my dice with all the caution I can.

    I forget what doctor said it but it went something like this: “I’m not afraid of dying. I just would rather it not be my own fault.”

    Years ago my cholesterol was getting high. I go to a doctor that prefers to try to fix the ailment rather than give a pill. he suggested that I eat at least 2 eggs a day and I did for about 6 months. Then I got my blood work done again , my bad cholesterol was not only way down my good cholesterol was up. I have been eating at least 2 eggs a day since than, about 15 years and have never had a problem with my cholesterol again. Eat healthy whole foods and stay away from anything processed, that is the key to a healthy life.

    Interesting article and post comments. The following is how an average Joe processed the article and
    the proceeding comments.

    Thanks for all the input everyone. From the comments above, it seems, life style is worth considering
    first. If you enjoy a sedentary approach to life your dietary needs would be of foods that are slow to
    digest and offer up slow insulin increase. If you are highly active or hard charging, foods that support
    higher energy release and recovery requirements are needed. I have no formal training nor education in
    medical / nutritional science. Reading up on food studies is my way of maximizing my dietary needs to
    budgetary reality.

    I use to be really active because my body allowed me to be. Now that I’m getting on in years my body
    just doesn’t recover as fast as it use to. So less activity leading to less expensive injury (monetary and
    quality of life cost) seems to be the road to more enjoyable miles on life’s odometer. So, for me, lots
    less concentrated sugar and less process foods (foods that spike insulin ?) allow for more whole fruits
    and vegetables with more lean higher quality proteins with fats that promote good cardiovascular and
    mental function and include foods that increase my metabolic rate (intensify caloric burn rate(s)(?)).

    That said, how do eggs fit into my life style, dietary and monetary restrictions?
    1. Readily available, sustainable and affordable source of dietary protein? Seems so.
    2. Do eggs support the dietary requirements of a moderately active middle aged person? Seems so
    3. I’m I grazer or hunter? This animal eats animals, fruits, nuts and vegetables. ;-). Opportunistic
    because my job, wallet and local market said so.

    Well to close its seems consulting with a nutritional expert is the only means of getting closer to the
    truth about eggs. Be well and eat well my fellow animal friends. That is, if you can afford it.;-)

    God Bless

    P.S. – What eggactly is bulletproof coffee? I just want to get my head clear in the morning not put
    another hole in it. ;-)

    Here is what you need to know about all the bad nutritional science and obesity.

    https://youtu.be/YpllomiDMX0

    “it is impossible to disentangle the effect of one particular food or one macronutrient from the accompanying foods and macronutrients that characterize a typical dietary pattern.”
    And how do they account for the variety of genetic patterns throughout the human genome? Ie. what’s good for the goose may or may not be good for the gander

    Re: eggs

    Acquired from a good source (cage-free, humane certified, organic diet (or a guy down the road who lets his chickens run around) eggs are a wonderful food.

    Yup, lotsa cholesterol which so many of your cells need to keep you healthy and strong. BUT – also full of lecithin, the substance that cuts the sticky clumps cholesterol into tiny pieces so they can enter the cells and not get stuck to the walls of your arteries.

    This information has been known for over 50 years.

    There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

    Humans DO NOT need to ingest cholesterol; yet another myth. The body makes its own. The body can make 100% of all cholesterol you eat. You just have to understand what cholesterol is.
    To understand this, you need to go to the raw science. For example, the NCBI NIH’s database of hundreds of real medical articles.
    Reading “BRO Science” articles, including the one above, and other web based articles, is just another reason people just spew out garbage, whether in support or against, a particular topic.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470561/

    CHOLESTEROL can be introduced into the blood through the digestion of dietary fat via chylomicrons. However, since cholesterol has an important role in cellular function, it can also be directly synthesized by each cell in the body. The synthesis of cholesterol begins from Acetyl-CoA and follows a series of complex reactions that will not be covered in this article. A primary location for this process is the liver, which accounts for most de-novo cholesterol synthesis. Since cholesterol is mostly a lipophilic molecule, it does not dissolve well in blood. For this reason, it is packaged in lipoproteins which have phospholipid, and apolipoprotein [3]. Lipoproteins are made up of a lipid core (which can contain cholesterol esters and triglycerides) and a hydrophilic outer membrane comprising phospholipid, apolipoprotein, and free cholesterol.

    +++++

    Simply put, we DO NOT NEED need to ingest ANY Cholesterol at all.
    And HDL and LDL is NOT cholesterol; it is the lipoprotein that carries the cholesterol around.
    Don’t confuse a bus of children for the children themselves.

    +++

    There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than it does knowledge.

    It’s like you didn’t even read the article. The point is that none of what you said is verified scientifically. There are studies both for and against eggs and none of them are very good. We don’t really know which is correct.

    Sorry M. Lee, our bodies make all of the cholesterol we need, There is no need to ingest it what so ever. The terms you mentioned have very little if any real meaning in this context. If you can get eggs from a guy down the road, well then you are in the one half of one percent of those who can. The rest of the eggs are from birds living in their own excrement. They are not healthy nor nutritious. If they were, that information would be right under their tagline “the incredible, edible egg”. Fact is, they cannot use those words due to not meeting the criteria of either.

    Also, most food studies are on factory raised food: which is raised on extremely substandard and unnatural nutrition and conditions…and then it gets applied to all of that type of food i.e. eggs, milk, meat and various plants, even those naturally raised. I say eat God’s food (especially what grows naturally in your climate) grown in health promoting conditions, and eaten when that type of food is abundant (intensive on milk, eggs, greens/plants etc in the spring/summer/fall and foods that naturally store well in a root cellar or without refrigeration for winter (meat, real fermented food, root vegetables, apples etc). God has a perfect plan for us, and we just make ourselves miserable and unhealthy when we ignore it.

    That may be better than what the average American does but it certainly isn’t a plan devised by a deity. The China study would be a good example. Or how about Norway during the occupation during WW2. Both these studies showed on a massive scale, that populations that live on starch virtually eliminate heart disease, kidney disease and colon cancer and pancreatic cancer. Not to mention starch based diets reverse heart disease.

    This story reduced to 9 words:
    “Media wants simplistic, sensational stories but nutrition is complicated.”

    Ironically, this article itself is an example of what it’s talking about. “ZOMG! The humble egg has BROKEN all of nutritional science!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (!!!!!)” … meanwhile… many studies actually *do* have more acurate data than just trying to get people to remember what they ate days ago, even if they don’t necessarily meet up to the conditions of Hirsch’s work, eg asking people to fill out food journals as they eat things, entering the nutritional info from labels etc. Ultimately though nutritional science, like pretty much all the sciences, is a giant mixture of unexplained natural variances, trying to account for variable factors, commercial interests affecting research funding, biases of both researches and publishers, complext biochemical (and bioelectrical, biomagnetic, biomechanical etc. etc) psychological interactions, shifting compositions of food (wheat today is not the same plant as wheat 50 years ago. Neither are cows, eggs, bananas any common commercial crop) not to mention greater forces like the environment itself changing and affecting the whole shebang. And that’s just a start.

    Welcome to the wonderful, complicated world of real science.

    Try fitting all that into a pithy clickbait title.

    Zork, you have it right when you say “This story reduced to 9 words: “Media wants simplistic, sensational stories but nutrition is complicated.” I have a heart condition and my doctors have told me essentially what you said and then they gave me the more complicated answer. And for me, in the end, eggs are now off the menu. Think of wine: once it was O.K. for me to drink and then my liver began to fail. With that change, wine, with its alcohol, was dropped from my O.K. to have list. Eggs are the same. A lot depends on how one’s body is handling cholesterol. When I was healthy both eggs and wine were fine. Now, both are verboten. That said, I may not be healthy but I am leading a successful life with my modified diet. I am now on my second pacemaker/ICD and hope to live long enough to have a third. Cheers!

    Point well made.
    In my world. I appreciate simplicity. The problem begins with that. Then all things become convoluted and confusing.
    #1: People
    #2: People
    #3: People

    I for one don’t buy this study based on the erroneous information we’ve been fed about cholesterol. It’s another ploy to promote the use of statin drugs which have so many harmful side effects. Eggs are one of most nutritional foods we can eat, and if cage-free, pasture-raised the better.

    Your comment that eggs are one of the most nutritious foods cant be backed by any scientific study. All studies with exception of those by the meat and dairy industry have shown what cholesterol does and how it promotes heart Attacks and stroke. Cholesterol is merely a marker which shows how much animal proteins a person is consuming. Eggs being highly concentrated with cholesterol. The consumption of eggs creates choline in the gut which is another indicator like cholesterol. Almost all cancer patients have Colline in there system. so much so it is used to screen for cancer. No study has ever found that adding more protein to anyone’s diet has had positive effects on disease or life span. In fact they all show reduced life span and more disease.

    Ray, you say, “Eating embryos has got to be a bad thing.” Do you eat seeds? I bet so.

    Hi Don. Bet you didn’t get o level biology! I suppose man never went to the moon too! Nailed

    1) Carbohydrate is not a nutrient
    2) Fiber is not a nutrient
    3) Beef, specifically steak, is the only single food which has been proven to maintain human health indefinitely when eaten by itself.
    4) Plant-biased nutrition propaganda s driven by profit and misplaced empathy.
    5) Crops are the most environmentally destructive agricultural product, and the result is of low nutritive value.

    Could you please give us a reference for your statement about beef? I have a Ph. D. in nutrition and I teach nutrition to nurses, and to the best of my knowledge there is no Vitamin C in beef or steak, so you would eventually die of scurvy if you ate that as your sole item of food.

    Well, arctic explorers did prove the ability to subsist for rather long time periods on nothing but seal meat.

    Carbohydrates actually are a nutrient. Protein, Carbohydrates, and Fat are the three macronutrients. Protein and Carbohydrates are 4 calories per gram, and Fat is 9 calories per gram.
    Amazing what you can learn from a college nutrition class.

    “3) Beef, specifically steak, is the only single food which has been proven to maintain human health indefinitely when eaten by itself.” Not all people can survive on a beef only diet. I used to be on one and that is when I felt the most horrible with barely no energy, I had also had hard time staying awake and my weight kept going up. When I had switched form eating meat to a more whole plant food diet my weight went down and I am not as tired a used be and have more energy and have no problem staying awake. I do not eat meat anymore, i do not drink milk anymore. On occasion I will eat cheese. Granted anecdotal stories is not scientific studies. Every person handle food differently and react differently. Some people can do well on an all beef diet and some can not. I do agree crops can most destructive to ecosystem. But majority of the crops that are grown are not for human consumption. They are for animal consumption such cows being fed grain which is not the natural diet. The main reason I believe the people have the many health issues that they do is the eating of ultra process garbage from food manufactures instead making real food from scratch. Please research the Dr.Kempner diet and Dr. John McDougal diet. Also look at Dr. Campbell of the China Study and Dr. Esselystien. Now the food stated that are plant-based are also process food and are not health food since they devoid of most nutrition from the whole food counterparts. The plant base foods such as the impossible burger is give choice. Either eat a beef burger knowing that is promoting murder of an sentient being or eat the plant base alternative knowing that money spent was not spent on killing an animal.

    What a load of tripe! there is simply no food that, alone, provides everything a human body needs. That is why we are omnivores.

    Eating embryos has got to be a bad thing.

    RAY, It is NOT eating embryos to eat an egg. Eggs are ” candled” to see if there is an embryo inside. Fortunately, not all eggs contain embryos. Most are not fertilized and therefore contain no embryos. Basic facts of life 101.

    Actually, eggs aren’t embryos if they haven’t been fertilized. They are also not alive if they haven’t been fertilized. They only carry half of the dna required to produce a live embryo. I’m glad that I never bought into the hype about egg yolks being unhealthy. The yolk is on all those people who through away half of a perfectly good food for two decades.

    LoL the eggs we eat are generally unfertilized and definitely not embryos yet even if they are fertilized.

    The eggs people eat ARE NOT FERTILIZED! WHICH MEANS, THERE IS NO EMBRYO! According to your belief, every time a woman menstruates, she has a miscarriage.

    Follow the $$$$

    The strange idea that cholesterol causes atherosclerosis was revived in the 1950s when the vegetable oil industry learned that their polyunsaturated oils lowered serum cholesterol. (Many other toxins lower cholesterol, but that is never mentioned.) The industry began advertising their oils as “heart protective,” and they enlisted some influential organizations to help in their advertising: The American Dietetic Association, the American Heart Association, the US Dept. of Agriculture and FDA, and the AMA. Besides the early rabbit research, which didn’t make their case against cholesterol and might actually have had implications harmful to their argument (since Anitschkow had used vegetable oil as solvent for his cholesterol feedings), the oil industry helped to create and promote a large amount of fraudulent and unscientific work.

    Let me start by situating my source of knowledge on this topic–I have been a scientist for over 25 years and have had to deal with the problems commonly associated with research methodology during all that time. This article fundamentally misunderstands the manner in which the process of scientific research builds knowledge. First of all one instance of research is insufficient to produce unquestionable knowledge–on any topic, not just nutrition. In order to scientifically produce knowledge there must be a large body of research, meaning extensive numbers of individual research efforts in which, essentially, scientists efforts are all in competition with one another in order to help researchers refine ensuing efforts. Every scientist knows and sees the mistakes (methedological and otherwise) other scientists are making (as long as it is ethically reported in research report articles) and their own research, typically in the review of the literature portion of every scientific article, must address what others did wrong/right and how this influenced how and why they preformed research as they did. What I’m saying is that picking out a few specific articles will not adequately support the author’s contentions, and this means this article is highly flawed.

    The present article also ignores the fact that all science is flawed. There is no perfect way, even with the use of experimental research design, to filter out all possible errors. This is why the scientific process requires a large body of work addressing each topic, as well as replication research in order to examine and test previous research. Also, because of how science produces knowledge (using many varieties of research methods) there is most certainly room for research based on survey methods in nutrition research. With a great deal of replication research, over time survey research can and does most certainly contribute to our knowledge of nutrition. The real problems with all scientific research today is the way in which research gets funded and the manner in which scientists are pushed to produce “original” research.” Unfortunately too many scientists erroneously believe that “original research” refers to research on a topic that has never been done before, when all it really means is that they must do research in which they design it and collect the data. This common misunderstanding results in far too few replication studies which scientific knowledge relies on in order to test all previous research on a topic. Publication requirements also influence the types of research that gets done, and too often flawed publication efforts filter out really good research which then may never get published. Research that is highly technical or advanced also can get overlooked (not published) due to publication editors and reviewers who aren’t knowledgeable enough on a topic or are simply intellectually unable to comprehend a topic. My point is that the nature of the process of developing knowledge scientifically is filled with many areas in which errors are commonly made, and the idea promoted by this article, namely that using the experimental design would “fix” the flaws in nutrition research is quite preposterous.

    Tripe.
    Stop playing devil’s advocate with people’s health just to sell your stinky anti-foods.

    I should already be dead then. I had a gastric bypass years ago by surgeons that didn’t have a clue what they were doing. They were sued out of practice here in SC. Anyway I don’t hold many foods down but soft scrambled eggs are my go to meal when I can’t hold down anything else. They say you are what you eat. Well in my next life I’m probably going to be a chicken because chicken eggs and fish are the 3 things that I eat the most of and since eggs are so easy to make, you can say I eat quiet a lot of eggs. I been eating this way for 12 years and i’m still here, knock on wood. You guys have a safe and blessed day

    I thank God i still here and healthy as a sr, BIG CORPORATE IS THE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES AND DEATHS, ITS NO TRAINER ALL EVERDAY ON THE NEWS MN $ SPONSORS FOR COMMERCIALS BIG PHARMA ALCOHOL TOBACCO NOW MARIJUANA KILLING US BY CANCER AND ADDICTION, AND OUR CHILDREN S TRAGEDYS, MARKETED FIRST FOR SALE,BY MOVIES FAST AND FURIOIUS DEATHS bIG CORPORATE IS RUTHLESS TO CONTROL OUR MINDS ITS REALLY HARASSMENT ADVERTISNG, CONDITIONUG , THATS MARKETING 101 and will do anything to capture you, for our hard earned money to buy natural foods AS FAR AS LIVING HEALTHY GOD GAVE YOU NATUAL WAY, ORGANIC WAY,FROM THE POISONING BY POLITICIANS AND BIG CORPORATIONS AFTER YOUR WALLET, THERES WATER FILTERS, ORGANIC FOOD AND PRODUCTS, . ORGANIC GRASS FERTILIZERS INC ORGANIC MATTRESSES INFO HAPPSY == USE COMMON SENSE AND THATS YOUR CONTROL,, CAVEAT EMPTER ITS OUT THERE PEDPLE WHO CARE TO BUY ORGANIC== TO PREVENT CANCER=== ITS TIME FOR A NO DRUGS RETALIATION AND TUNE OUT ALL ADVERTISING LIQUOR STORES ADS TOBACCO IS HOOKED ON MNS, SEE THE TRUTH. READ GOOD SITES , OF COMMON SENSE AND STUDIES, ORGANIC HOLISTICS SITES HEMP OIL VS DRUGS I LEARNED SO MUCH BY MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL IN POLITICS AS THE GUARDIAN SAYS TH

    Keep your plate colourful. I find lots of reds greens and some whites (Carb) I’m 55 high cholesterol runs in my family. Older sister 95 lbs soaking wet chol total is over 350 and she’s not dead yet. My total is 208 with an HDL of 105. Mr Doc says keep doing what your doing. And I eat my share of saturated fats, but, you need some of that to absorb many vitamins and minerals. And remember, keep your body moving.

    None of the nutritional studies, whatever their results, seems to care that everyone has a particular and unique system. No rule applies across the board to everyone. This is simple common sense which Chinese medicine understands perfectly but Western medicine refuses to address or acknowledge. Eggs are fine for some people, not for others.

    There’s ONE very important fact that every study I’ve ever read about seems to miss and that is the “order” in which you eat certain foods.

    Let me explain. As a two-time cancer patient, I had bladder cancer in 2007 and colon cancer in 2017. I’ve had a neo-bladder since 2007 which is that they took a section of my small intestine ou and built a bladder that works as a substitute for the original. Also with the colon cancer, they removed some of my large intestines.

    So as you can imagine my entire digestive system is now shorter than what God intended and gove us. As a result, I need Vttiaman B12 injections every 28 days, because vitamin B12 is one of the hardest vitamins for our system to absorb.

    One of the worst side effects of having a shorter GI trace system is that I’m subject to diarrhea. This may sound like an advertisement but it isn’t.

    The simple solution that I found is taking 2 heaping teaspoons of ground chia seeds and 3 heaping tablespoons full of milled flax seed BEFORE eating anything EVERY day. The two tend to slow my GI trace down and thus I”m able to regulate myself this way. The easiest and most nutritional way I’ve found to do this is to add the two ingredients to a large smoothie I drink every day before eating anything. The smoothies consist of pineapple, apple orange, grapes, strawberries, blueberries, spinach or kale, or some other vegetables and fruits that are in season. I freeze the strawberries, blueberries, kale, and spinach as they perish quickly.

    So, in conclusion, I’d suggest that it’s not only what you eat it’s the order you eat it. It’s like eating a salad before a meal. So I’d suggest that people who are overweight tend to have slower digestive traces than people who remain thin no matter what they eat. For some reason, these facts never seem to be a part of these studies.

    “the study’s defenders say that it did a good job accounting for factors that might have influenced the findings, such as overall fat consumption, smoking, and lifestyle.”

    But sugar is not mentioned.

    Eggs contain everything necessary for to properly grow and sustain a living being. Of course eggs are healthy for us! If we don’t overeat, eat a varied diet of largely unprocessed foods with lots of fruits and veggies and stay active at least a little bit, most of us will be healthy. For example, my daily breakfast contains 1 egg, 1/2 of an avocado, and 1 slice of homemade whole wheat toast, snack is a plain yogurt or a piece of fruit like a grapefruit or banana. Lunch is leftovers from dinner the night before, and dinner might be something like chicken Marsala with a giant serving of green beans from the garden and brown rice. I usually have 1-2 dinners a week that are vegetarian, like black bean and sweet potato soup, or lentil Shepard’s pie. I choose to push mow my lawn. I walk my dog at least a mile every day, and when I go to the restroom at work I usually do 10 squats before washing my hands to squeeze in a little activity. I do no other exercise and at 29 years old I’m at an ideal body weight and all of my “vitals” are excellent with a resting heart rate of about 65-75 beats per minute and a blood pressure of 115/75. I get 7.5 hours of sleep every night. Good health and nutrition doesn’t have to be hard and focusing exclusively on one macro-nutrient is ignoring a bounty of other nutrients available to us!

    That picture looks like a breakfast healthier than most. God’s food, in it’s purest form, cannot be bad for you. Stick to the food God provided, in MODERATION, and healthy you will be.

    What kind of eggs makes a big difference. Are they from sick confined CAFO chickens or are they pastured with their pens moved daily. are the fed organic grains or GMO glyphosate contaminated grains? Big nutritional difference!

    Confusion, Confusion, Confusion. I have and seen so much of , do this not that, this is good, this is horrible! On and on it goes. I have , for better or worse, attempted to get back to ” Old School”. We weren’t as fat society back then. Oh we had obese folks. For reasons still not sure of but as a whole, we were a healthy lot. Sure we were active as a general rule. Kids went to school, learned real world issues and systems that worked and what didn’t. Never perfect and we talked and listened to each other. Recess was always active and energy was expended. We played with our friends, fought our enemy’s and ran scared when we thought it best for our safety. Scared, Sure! Learned what worked and what didn’t. Each of us did that, independently and together. Usually with different results. Why, because we are individuals and none of us are alike. Women are different just as men are different. I’m not talking sex Except in general form Female and Male but as human beings. If diets worked for a short while on one human, it usually didn’t for all the others. Because, we are all different. It as simple as that!
    Solution : Work whats best for you. Not your Girl friend / Wife/ buddy? Example: I am what is commonly known as a Steak and Potato guy. I do well when I make it simple.As for my wife, not so much. We have different metabolisms. Energy spent is different, Age is a factor, Physical development, from childhood to grandpa’s and grandpa’s. Her environment growing up was very different than mine! So what makes anyone think we should follow the same diet. Camaraderie,( Feels Good). Emotionally, ( Changes Daily) . Complex, of course. Simple, not easy, keep it simple. “That alone gets complicated in it’s own right”.
    BOTTOM LINE , IN MY POINT OF VIEW! Keep it simple. Trust yourself. Your body will inform you and listen to it. It ain’t easy but it is all I’ve got!

    Wasn’t it recently reported that the Mediterranean Diet study was flawed? I believe in “everything in moderation.” I must admit I have trouble with that. Genetics is also a big factor.

    The author of this essay should have correctly defined most of the studies referenced to as epidemiological studies. They are useful, but have limitations. They reveal association, not causation. Researching the latter is then next step in the scientific process.

    Epidemiological studies are too often misinterpreted and/or misstated, especially in the media. Again, here is where critical evaluation is important.

    For a primer on epidemiology, this website may be helpful.

    https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readers/publications/epidemiology-uninitiated/1-what-epidemiology

    A great majority of health studies are funded by the industries that produce food products. Even the universities receive grants from major food corporations. Take for instance dog food, there is no way the health benefits claimed for dog food could be correct when considering what goes into them and the processes employed in the manufacturing process. A dog in the wild could survive on roadkill and that is essentially what dog food is made from, but not listed on the package.
    The health studies are not going to publish finding that would interrupt the revenue stream.

    Today with all the food and nutrition tracking apps, I don’t see why a large-scale cohort could not be created for nutritional and dietary studies that self-report using a tracking app. If they can be made to self-report even when they “cheat” then those transgressions can be accounted for or excluded from the study.

    Anecdotally, I belong to a support group who do avoid excess carbohydrates on a low-carb, ketogenic diet. MANY report enormous health benefits in addition to weight loss and have found it to be sustainable in the long term. It happens that I am also fighting metastatic breast cancer. When I was diagnosed, I was halfheartedly doing the keto diet — frequently cheating, not really tracking, etc. — but after diagnosis I cracked down hard on the diet.

    Some reading of the research I was able to find indicated that indeed cancer cells do uptake glucose on a massive scale and through a different metabolic channel than do normal cells. What I had learned about a ketogenic diet — originally created to help people with intractable seizures — was that normal cells could live on ketones produced in the liver. I hypothesized that cancer cells probably could NOT, given their proclivity for massive amounts of glucose uptake and rapid reproduction.

    Since getting serious and strict with my ketogenic diet, my cancer has subsided over 50% in just 9 months, over 3 separate CT scans. Full disclosure — I AM getting chemo treatment with carboplatin. However my cancer was triple negative and I wasn’t given a lot of hope for it responding to much of anything over the long term.

    Unfortunately, whenever I have told this to people who have exhausted their treatment options and resigned themselves to die, I am as much as banned from the discussion boards for daring to give anyone any hope. I would hope that some scientist would undertake such a study and prove whether or not this has any merit. While I would not recommend anyone forego treatment with chemotherapy, this would be an excellent candidate for an adjunct treatment and might allow for less aggressive chemo with fewer side effects that would have a better success rate over the long term when combined with the proper dietary intervention. Why not include a dietician in the treatment team and give it a try?

    I had cancer and read everything I could about what contributes to it. One of the factors is high levels of Omega-6 such in corn.

    I have been raising sheep for the last 5 years, mostly pasture, but also a token mixture of whole grains (oats, wheat, alfalfa pellets) so they’ll come when I call them. I was amazed to find what a high level of corn all our animals are fed which we then eat. So it is not just the chicken or the beef or the fish that is bad for us; if our food sources are fed large amounts of corn (I am sure other feed too, but nothing is pushed like corn) as feed lot fed cattle, farm fed fish, confined chickens, and even wild herbivores such as deer and pigs (hunters plant corn so the deer are fat and tasty), we then consume the large amounts of Omega 6. When you combine that with the other things we eat full high fructose corn syrup and corn starch, which are in just about every processed food, I am not surprised that cancer rates are climbing.

    After my second heart attack, a friendly doctor said he was going to give me some free advice, because I looked pretty stupid and probably couldn’t figure it out myself. He gave me two rules; here they are.

    Rule 1: if it’s white, don’t eat it: salt, sugar, white bread, eggs, milk, white rice (brown rice is OK), white potatoes.

    Rule 2: if it’s in a can or package, avoid it. The only places I should be in a grocery store are in the fresh produce section, the fresh fish and meats section. Stay out of the aisles, as there is nothing there I should have. One exception: a frozen bag of unprocessed peas, or a frozen bag of unprocessed corn. A frozen bag of unprocessed mixed veggies is also OK

    Also, drink enough water to where I have to pee about every hour.

    I’ve held this belief about nutrition.food studies forever. In order to perform a scientific experiment that has valid results, there must only be one variable.

    Every other “thing” must be identical before the variable is introduced, and then that variable can be the ONLY one.

    If the study uses Bayesian statistics it is generally more reliable.

    jack16

    No mention of how the food industry influence the “scientific studies”… Hello
    i think you need to take a course in Food Science 101 to understand how it all works..
    Just Sayin

    When you remove real butter, real eggs and start using fat-free milk you will feel hungry. Your body will want to recoup those calories and fats elsewhere in your diet. Unless someone severely restricts their diet and uses iron wilpower there will be temptation to overindulge in other foods in order for the body to obtain the same vitamins and minerals and level of satiety.

    If it says ‘sugar-free’ or ‘fat-free’ check to see what else they put in there besides the natural ingredients. It is likely to mess with your body chemistry in undefined and unexpected ways.

    My mother and sister were never healthy when they were ‘dieting with diet soda and skim milk and margarine. They scared me ‘straight’ as they ate increasing amounts of these supposedly healthy items and began to balloon up to 200 plus pounds and became too heavy to exercise. Their backs and legs always hurt, making even a walk to the end of the street a sweating chest-heaving experience. They laughed as I cooked squash with butter and drank whole milk or sought out ‘strange’ combinations and prepared only as much of it as I craved.

    Best to eat ‘rational quantities of natural foods in small amounts, when you are hungry, and to stop eating even before you feel full. Even more surprising – you could listen to your own body and decide that your craving for fish and grapefruit today might have a real reason, then seek out and eat those items for lunch instead of consuming a non-fat yogurt, small green salad and diet soda and then inhaling a cream cheese danish at your work break with the excuses that you are ravenous and ‘you had a healthy lunch.’

    The best way of eating egg is both the yoke and white together, and don’t eat too much, about 2-3 max

    Excellent article. (Please note that your republish code presents the article showing formatting code.)

    Another thing to keep in mind is that it is very, very tricky to actually account for hidden variables, to the point of often being numerically impossible. So this quote:…

    “And in fairness, the study’s defenders say that it did a good job accounting for factors that might have influenced the findings, such as overall fat consumption, smoking, and lifestyle.”

    …is almost certainly unreasonably optimistic. The issue is indirectly pointed out in this article to, and that’s that when we account for stuff like “fat consumption” and “lifestyle”, we’re not actually accounting for “fat consumption” and “lifestyle”, but for *our measurements* thereof. There’s an error, and if they had just one questionnaire decades ago – that error is likely significant. And then there are certainly going to be non-linear interactions between the factors you’re correcting for – but you can only account for factors with some known model, and often that’s linear (but even if it’s not – your model is almost certainly not precisely correct). What if one of your corrected-for-factors interacts with a factor you didn’t correct for? I mention that because that’s actually quite expected – they’re trying to account for “lifestyle”, and even if they have some really specific definition of that, the fact remains that overal lifestyle patterns may well contain hidden risks and rewards, *and* that lifestyle, population wide, changes over decades. Even a small generalization error caused by interpreting decades old lifestyles as todays might, after interacting with all the statistical machinery needed to squeeze out significant but noisy effects from huge samples, render the result moot today.

    There’s a much more interesting discussion here: https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2016/06/11/the-great-minds-journal-club-discusses-westfall-yarkoni-2016/ including links to academic papers that (try) to work through the statistics.

    But I’d like to think of this as a validation of KISS. If you need lots of statistical machinery to find a significant result, there are lots of opportunities for mistakes. And even if somebody knew about all these mistakes, and were an expert on them… there’s just so many chances for gotchas, and places were incorrect model assumptions can throw out your interpretation… so even in the best of cases where unbiased experts honestly do their best work – I think it’s wise to retain a healthy dose of skepticism if they needed to correct for all kinds of factors to find a significant result. (Not to mention that the choice of correcting or not needs to be apriori, otherwise you’re introducing a kind of publication bias!)

    Nothing beats variety balance and moderation in all things including food, without these aforementioned anything can be deadly. All the variables noted I don’t put much stock on these studies, I do generally trust the scientist’s honesty. However, there are too many factors to weigh them all with any precision… So grain of salt is the rule.

    74 years old. Angioplasty with stent, 1996. 99% blockage, but no heart attack.
    Angioplasty with double stent, 1997.
    Found a great lipid specialist. He was just forced to retire after a botched colonoscopy caused bleeding and heart failure.

    Daily breakfast. One egg. Pasture raised. Local raised. $5.99 dozen. The eggs are unique in that are incredibly orange in color, Not yellow yolks. Chickens are routinely transported to different pastures.
    Dave’s bread toasted, with mashed avocado from Costco. Also, avocado mayonnaise from Costco.

    Also eat a lot of Kirkland brand mixed nut almond butter. Love Wild Planet Sockeye Salmon. A staple of mine. Occasionally, pork spareribs and steaks. You need to cheat. Lot of fermented sauerkraut from Costco.

    Of note, I also have ulcerated colitis since age 18, also Crones disease. Ascending colon removed in 2008, due to a false reading on a colonoscopy. Could not digest raw greens such as lettuce. Recently changed to low carb diet after a high glucose reading, Suddenly. I can eat raw greens with no problems. Has to be related to a 70% reduction in carbs. Also, urgent bathroom trips following removal of 1/3 of my colon have disappeared, after I started my low carb diet. Amazing difference.

    Work out 5 days a week. Swimming, weights, treadmill.

    Low-carb, ketogenic diet is what make the difference. All the fat and cholesterol will create blockages in your arteries if you are experiencing high levels of inflammation caused by excess sugar, grains and carbohydrates in your diet. However, if you are not eating those, the fat and cholesterol are not deposited in your veins and arteries, due to the lack of inflammation.

    Personally, I think people can live MUCH longer and this may well explain why some people can eat fatty meats, eggs, cheese, cream, etc. and live to a healthy ripe old age, while others who are health fanatics (with the wrong information) die an early death.

    I am currently using it as an adjunct treatment for my metastatic breast cancer and feel better than I have in years WHILE getting chemotherapy!

    Concerning your Ulcerative Colitis be sure and check out the SCD diet (Break the Vicious Cycle) which is a low carb type diet except for fruits and honey. My wife had universal U.C. for 4 years and was near colectomy. On her own she tried the SCD diet and stopped bleeding at 3 weeks. Entirely normal colonoscopy at 1 yr. (I did a survey medical paper on 50 similar cases). Now at 22 years she rarely has mild flares and controls by diet alone. Good Luck Roger Jackson MD

    Paul,
    You are doing the right things. Cut out most carbs and all sugars. Eat mostly protein including lean meats and fish. Eat eggs, they are high in protein. Less grains. FDA recommendations on diet are all off by 50 years. Those suggestions promote weight gain and heart problems. Cut out all High Fructose corn syrup. HFS is banned in Europe for good reason. It is a poison that tricks your body into eating more and more. Just what the food industry wants. NEVER go to a fast food restaurant. Eat in moderation. Good health to you. Leon.

    A disturbing new study reveals that studies are disturbing. (Ellen Degeneres)

    As an allegory……

    Bernie Sanders walks into a bay and announces, “Free rounds for everybody; who’s paying?”

    About the same sort of logic.

    Bravo, you’ve won the Dolt of the Day “comment” Award. Well done. 👏

    I’m tired of this lie. Senator Sanders has proposed funding streams for all of his policies. Policies that help us average Joe and Janes. For example, putting a tiny charge on Wall St. transactions. The only people that would be negatively effected are those skimming money off the top with their computer trades whiled creating/contributing NOTHING to society.

    Please stop with the right-wing propaganda of “free stuff.” You perpetuate the oligarchy when you fall into those lies and repeat them.

    In response to the Bernie Sanders analogy, the military-industrial complex is paying. They’re by far the biggest welfare recipients.

    He never said we wouldn’t pay, just that we won’t have insurance payments anymore. He has stated that taxes will go up, but again no insurance payments. Currently we pay 2.5x what other industrial countries do, and our health outcomes aren’t as good. Further, many are just one medical problem from bankruptcy. Not a great system. Health insurers and drug companies are making out big time, the later has been flooding the country with opiates killing 400,000 Americans since 1999, and we continue to lose 130 people a day. I don’t think the private solution has yielded the best results. It is good to look at the system as it is without all the political labels so we can make the best choices for the country, and not continue to do illogical things based on emotion.

    BOBBALOOBA, Why use a forum about nutrition science to sneak in an insult to a politician? There is no analogy between what you (falsely) accuse Sanders of (pie in the sky goals without a plan to pay for them) and what the article describes as weaknesses in the latest egg study (imprecise data collection, conflation of variables, etc.). Please use Facebook or Twitter for oversimplified political jabs.

    Nutrition isn’t that hard: high fibre good, low sugar good, complex carbs good, sulphorous veg good, good omega 3 to 6 ratio, reduced meat good.

    I’ve read multiple papers and they are imperfect, but the general trend is obvious. You can read meta studies and see the correllation.

    Observational studies are a specialist tool, it needs to be used in the correct way with awareness of their imperfections.

    The real problem is the media who completely misrepresent them to gain readers and generate advertising revenue.

    THank you for this comment. THe trends are obvious and we are not to do what the mega corporations that make money off our diets and sickness want us to believe.! Have studied this for decades and the healthiest balanced diets, might be slight variations based on heritage, age, and well-being, are in order.

    Lots of studies don’t always go in the right direction. The problem is selection bias at all levels. If a study contradicsts lots of studies it is likely
    not to get funded (who wants to throw good money after bad)
    not to be submitted (what researcher at any level, but particularly younger researchers pursue innovative ideas come up with contradictory results, that likely won’t be published at all)
    not to be published in a major journal (major journals use major peers who do the review, who often were the ones that came up with the original “wrong” data, that their peers have reinforced through observational bias)
    not read (if the study is published, and now days you can get just about anything published somewhere, it will be in a minor journal or other medium that just isn’t ready)
    not believed (people go with the consensus, that’s why eggs are still bad for most people and pasta is still good while white bread (another processed starch) is still bad) and sugar is now even worse, while fat is better).

    Bottomline, once a consensus is reached, it takes decades before it will change. You may well be right about this diet, but it’s probably more complex than that and bet in 20 years some of it will be found to be poor advice. Don’t worry, be happy and eat in moderation

    I agree but people don’t want to hear that nutrition is mostly a practical balance of overall understanding – like you say, reduce meat, lower carb/sugar, etc. because that does not give them the MAGIC bullet they are looking for. People want studies that validate what they want to eat! e.g. if you love eggs you look for studies to support its okay to have 2 a day (I love eggs), if you eat a lot of red meat you want studies to show you it isn’t horrible for you… that’s why they are so many ‘diets’ that reduce or eliminate specific foods because it suits the user. But, alas, I’ve lost and gained over 300 pounds in my lifetime and the only diet that worked to manage my weight, cholesterol, blood sugar, blood pressure, etc. was one of BALANCE and Portion control like Weight Watchers. I just don’t stick with it after the weight loss cause I WANT to eat more quantity/calories than I need and I find myself back to the starting line every time.

    There are Doctors who actually do research and read the health literature regularly. They know how to think when they practice.
    So I agree with Dr Mayo (Mayo Clinic?)

    Interesting comment but have three Doctors each proposing different dietary standard, I suggest nutrition is not a settled science. At 67 (healthy( years young I have lived through many “break through” diet standards and successfully avoided most of them. Have mostly survived on a farmers diet, lots of veggies, fresh and preserved fruits, a little beef, a little pork, mostly chicken for meat. Seafood when near the coast.
    Research methods tend to reflect the bias and opinions of researchers.

    From above, Brad Hansen: “…where did the funding come from…. ”
    And later from Andy Swarbrick, “The main takeaway from this article is that industry funded studies should be taken with a humungously large pinch of salt. ”
    This is the information we should consider first regarding any kind of so-called “study.”
    Various companies and industries will do practically anything to sell you on their foods, vitamins, cosmetics and other “health”-related products, even if it pushes or even breaks ethical or legal boundaries. They have lawyers to take care that. They don’t care. The all-mighty dollar trumps everything. It always will.

    Anybody read this?: “Controversial alcohol study cancelled by US health agency.” Do a search on it.
    It just goes to show how big money can steer research studies. This time it didnt succeed, but it often has and does.

    And by the way, I’ve always thought that “studies” on the health benefits of wine are bogus. (Full disclosure: I drink like a fish.)

    I recall that some time ago, the USDA conducted a survey. They asked people whether they were vegetarians. One month later they followed up on the survey and asked the vegetarians if they had eaten meat. Something like 70% conceded that they had consumed animal flesh in the prior week.

    If the USDA conducted the study, I would be skeptical. These large industries like dairy and meat are panicking at the increasing rate of vegetarians and vegans — and they may very well do anything to try to undermine it.

    Yup. Spot on commentary about how flawed nutritional science is. I’d go so far as to say, with very rare examples, any findings from the nutritional “scientific” community are not science at all. The humble egg is a rather easy example to help people question how accurate the ever-changing views on nutrition are. Something far more controversial that will have people convinced you are a lunatic for suggesting it, but equally as true, is to point out that the well-organized, world-wide and frequently government-sponsored attack on sugar is every bit as much based on fallacies and bad science.

    The only thing we know with scientific certitude regarding nutrition is that the body has energy requirements to function, that energy is provided by consuming food, and that the measurement of that energy, calories, can determine whether one gains or loses weight in a rather simple formula: more calories consumed than required leads to weight gain while fewer calories consumed than required to maintain weight leads to weight loss. There are a very few other nutritional scientific truths, but this is the one that should matter to most people and is actionable for people willing to use the information.

    Except you just missed one of the most important points, calories in must be < calories out to lose weight is a fallacy that does not take into account a person with a damaged (and therefore slowed) metabolism. That is one piece that has been empirically and scientifically shown more than once, and yet people who don't understand what that looks like continue to spout the same old calories in/calories out garbage.

    No, calories in < calories out = weight loss is indeed all you need to know. It takes into account metabolic rate: people with slower metabolisms have fewer calories out. That is what metabolism is – consumption of food calories to produce energy for cells. Indeed something like 80% of your food intake is spent entirely on metabolic processes – keeping you warm, breathing and alive. Only a small proportion is used in moving (exercise). Of course, determining your basal metabolic rate is not easy, so I think I see where you are coming from – if you have a "damaged" metabolism then you are liable to overestimate your calorie expenditure.

    Why is the “calories in must be < calories out to lose weight" a fallacy? Even with a damaged metabolism I would think it would hold true. If your metabolism is slower doesn't that just mean you use less calories? So instead of needing 2000 calories a day, you only need 1500 calories a day. If you were to consume 1250 calories wouldn't you lose weight?

    That is theoretically correct except that, as stated in the article…once you start dieting, the bodies metabolism slows down. For example, when eating a 2000 calorie day, regular life and exercise will burn maybe 1800 calories. However, when on a restricted diet of 1250 calories – the very same regular life and exercise that should be burning 1800 calories is now only burning around 1500 calories. It is how the body conserves the energy, unsure of when the next influx of energy will come from. Even worse off is the chronic dieters metabolism! It is very hard to increase the rate of metabolism for those people that diet on a regular basis. Pretty soon it becomes that you are on a 1200 calorie diet and still gaining weight. I am in this boat myself. Add to the effect that our metabolism naturally slows down as we age and all the processed food that we consume. As well as our addiction to sugar and everything white (white flour, white rice, white sugar etc) everything stripped of nutritional content. It is not hard to see how the population is becoming more and more obese.

    Yep. If your weight is healthy, you’re probably eating right. If not, you’re probably not. Medical conditions that cause people to be obese or too skinny even with healthy diets excepted of course.

    It’s been empirically and scientifically proven that you can consistently produce an energy surplus over time in a closed system while using more joules than are provided? Wow, that’s amazing! Do you have a link?

    Considering you’ve apparently figured out a way to break the laws of thermodynamics, reverse entropy, and therefore solve world energy and fossil fuel crisis, I’d have thought that would be pretty big news across the world, but somehow I missed it.

    What are you a doctor of, out of curiosity?

    Dr. Maya, a slowed metabolism also reduces calories out. It really is as simple as calories in<calories out. This does NOT mean that there are not reactions by the body to input differences, and that it is not a complicated system. But until/unless it is proven otherwise, laws of conservation of matter/energy and equal and opposite reactions holds true.

    It doesn’t matter whether the person has a “damaged (and therefore slowed) metabolism” or not — that simply meant that, for that individual, fewer calories are required. Any individual, regardless of his or her metabolic rate, will gain weight if calories consumed exceeds calories expended, and lose weight if the reverse is true. Period.

    I’m confused. Are you saying that those with damaged, slow metabolisms should consume MORE calories than they burn?

    How are you calculating Calorie out?? If you are doing by your age and weight then what Dr Maya is saying is that is wrong. Yes your Calorie in should be less than Calorie out, but how do we get the Calorie out calculatiny??

    It’s striking to see a “Dr.” make the claim that “calories in must be < calories out to lose weight is a fallacy." Half a dozen commenters here (some with searchable names and credentials) have questioned, countered, or openly mocked that claim, for good reason. If there's evidence to support such a claim, your Nobel Prize is forthcoming. Let's hear the details!

    Regarding your first and last sentences– Really? We know nothing about nutrition and its relationship to diabetes, heart and artery disease, rickets, scurvy, tooth decay, infant formula, feeding babies after weaning, etc.? Nor about nutritionally effective formulations of animal feeds? All those nutrients on the feed bags, and all that ag research is just another scam?

    A simple true fact. Take away more calories than the intake through exercise.

    “A recent study demonstrates that you shouldn’t believe studies….” ;-)

    As Julia Child said, ‘there are no bad foods. Eat everything in moderation.’

    Experts don’t agree about avoiding processed foods, as “processed” is way too vague of a term. Cooking something is a process, mixing a salad is a process, etc. Even “overly processed” is problematic, as most aren’t really concerned about the number of ingredients, but what the ingredients actually are.

    Biochemically, is there any fundamental difference between physiological and technological processing? If not, then all meat and dairy products are processed plant food, even in their raw state.

    My professor in college used the term “predigested” when referring to the insta-foods many refer to as “processed”.

    The key to evaluating nutrition studies is to examine three things: where did the funding come from, what was the experimental design, and how were the results analyzed?

    All the positive findings on egg consumption turn out to be funded by various Egg Boards. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Those studies also usually have small sample sizes and highly questionable designs.

    E.g. the egg study that resulted in the Time Magazine cover story “Eggs are Back” had only 60 participants. And they were all white men who had unhealthy cholesterol levels at the START of the study. And all were on cholesterol lowering medication before and during the study.

    So the actual result of that study is that if you’re a white man who has an unhealthy cholesterol level, even while on medication, eating an egg a day will not make you any more unhealthy. Hardly the recommendation that the mass media took from the study’s summary. Read past the summary!

    Brad,

    It’s not really appropriate to convey your point with broad and false generalizations. Not every positive study on eggs was paid for by the egg be industry.

    (1) Nutrition is a hypercomplex phenomenon encompassing many relevant, interactive variables – scientific methodology fairs poorly with hypercomplex phenomena like much of human physiology, psychology, climate, nutrition, economics, society.
    (2) Epidemiological studies do not address consideration of individual susceptibilities. One never knows where he lies in the distribution or what factors are responsible for his position in the distribution.
    (3) Studies based on human reporting are highly unreliable. People lie, spin, and don’t realize what they are saying much of the time.
    (4) Physicians are NOT scientists – they are technicians – and most have a poor grasp of the requirements of rigorous science. They also have a GOAL in mind of finding beneficial conclusions – something a rigorous scientist would never do.

    Actually, many doctors consider themselves scientists first. All valid research is required to have a specific stated outcome at the start.

    Dr. Maya – would you consider rephrasing the part of your comment where you state that “All valid research is required to have a specific stated outcome at the start.”? I believe you meant ‘stated hypothesis’, not ‘stated goal” The goal of research is to determine whether the stated hypothesis is true or false.

    “Actually, many doctors consider themselves scientists first. All valid research is required to have a specific stated outcome at the start.”

    Disagree. And perhaps a naive comment.
    Nearly all MDs I know often state they are not scientists and they rely on extracts or abstracts of medical research. And most of the same subset also confess they have no time to read medical-related literature, especially nutritional studies.

    As a long-time research biologist, the belief that “all research is required to have a specific stated outcome at the start” is naive. Published research, yes. However, that is easily manipulated to meet those publishing (and funding) requirements. All studies, all scientific literature, for that matter, should be read and critically evaluated: the methodology, data, interpretation, and, especially the conclusions. Even peer review is not always perfect.

    Too many times researchers have manipulated data, interpretations and conclusions to fit their stated hypothesis, or altered their stated hypothesis (and stated outcome) to match the data. Over the four decades as a scientist, I have seen it too often.

    Are all scientists then unethical? Are all published studies unreliable? Not at all. Most of the media and the lay public lack knowledge to critical analyze scientific literature. We teach students pursuing careers in science to critically evaluate and question reported science, and require evidence for criticisms, which often are based in related or non-related fields. Journal clubs especially focus on thoroughly dissecting specific studies and their publications. Many university tracts in medicine and nutrition do not emphasize that degree of scrutiny.

    Every report -agency, media, scientific- should be examined with careful and knowledgable scrutiny. That is part of the scientific process.

    “All valid research is required to have a specific stated outcome at the start.”
    This is exactly correct, albeit not well stated, which leads to the confusion you can see in the comments that reply to it. Dr. Maya is not saying that you start with a conclusion, and then you make the data show that conclusion. What Dr. Maya is saying is that, in order to do valid research, you need to follow a simple three step method:
    1. Create a hypothesis (“a priori”)
    2. Develop a research method that will test that hypothesis
    3. Test it using entirely new data, excluding any data that was used to create the hypothesis

    Observational studies tend to break all these rules. They take a set of data, and observe it, looking for associations, but skip the important steps, number 2 and number 3, that are essential to turn it into “research”. Consider the endive observation above. It’s fine to look at data and think “wow, people in this sample that ate endive weekly got less ovarian cancer”, but that only gets you to step one! You now have a hypothesis. The next step is to figure out a way to test it, and then to test it, using entirely different data. Shall we sign up 1000 people and have half agree to eat one cup of cabbage a week, and the other half agree to eat 1 cup of endive a week, and then track them for ten years, including monthly checkups where they verify that they are still eating their cabbage, or their endive, and that the diets of the two groups are otherwise similar? That would work, and now we have a test that, although imperfect, and difficult, and expensive, can actually hope to test whether eating endive is beneficial.

    Observational studies are interesting, but they are not research. All they do is help you discover some plausible hypotheses that you may want to actually test.

    That’s sadly not true, based on my experience. Most doctors I have come into contact with are woefully ignorant about research on many issues that affect their patients. I know only one MDs of the dozen+ I know well enough to say they take a scientific approach, they understand statistics, and are unafraid to go against the very standardized “guidelines” of their practice based on their own understanding of the patient’s history and current health.

    Like most industries, medicine is mostly populated by people who follow the trends of that industry for good or ill. The exceptional doctors who truly practice their art to its fullest are, well, exceptions.

    This is one of the best articles on “nutrition in the media” I have read in quite a while. Maybe the author should have put the word “Science” in quotes (?). I have long been frustrated by web click-bait and catch-phrases from TV personalities and news anchors who like to pare down a “study” to a few words such as “now you can enjoy red wine and chocolate every day!” or “New study says no amount of alcohol is safe!” or “Put turmeric in EVERTHING” “Leeches for everyone” I can go on! I won’t
    My point is, Every person need individualized diet needs, but our General health care providers do not have the time or training to provide it and Dietitians are not covered by most insurance. If a person has a medical problem or bloodwork that is out-of-normal range they are given general advice and medication. Generally, this can help, but for the general population, it can be frustrating and confusing if no progress is made. We then read about “studies” and listen to “Dr.” Oz and again get frustrated by spending a whole lot of money on whatever is being sold by these guys.
    Like this article brings to light, the media should take it easy on calling these trends “studies” or “science” and perhaps recommend that each person consult their own Dr. before changing their diet. We should have better basic nutrition education in schools. GPs should refer people with health problems to a Registered Dietitian immediately for individualized guidance.

    Actually, Naturopathic doctors have extensive training in nutrition and diet. Maybe look one up sometime, you might be very surprised.

    Per your request I decided to look up naturopathic doctors. After thorough research of the front page of Google, I came to the conclusion that naturopathic doctors aren’t real doctors. On that topic, are you really a doctor? Evidence from your other comments would suggest that you have not received the same extent of education as other doctors. I am concerned as to which institution is giving medical doctorates to people who lack a basic understanding of metabolism.

    Thank you Gina! I will become an RD at the end of this year. Nothing against GP’s but they often do not have specialized training in nutrition and frankly should not be expected to. I am working hard to support the American Dietetic Association’s efforts to increase the requirements for becoming an RD in an effort to (among other things) convince insurance companies to cover our services. We will still be 10 times cheaper to cover than an MD and I am expecting the resulting benefits to their bottom line will be obvious in time, simply because so many poor (and expensive) health outcomes experienced in the US are either directly related to or influenced by diet. I am expecting GPs will also welcome increased coverage because they are painfully aware they they do not have the time or expertise to properly address nutrition within their own practice. Currently they make brief nutrition recommendations because they are being realistic.
    Side note. By 2021 all RDs will also be required to have a Masters Degree and I’m not optimistic there will be a commensurate increase in salary so I’m hoping more stakeholders come around and I’m thanking you for your recommendation on behalf of my future profession.

    I realize anecdotal evidence is unreliable, but here’s mine. My father had bacon and eggs for breakfast every day of his life at least since I can recall.

    My sister drove him to the VA hospital for a check up at age 84. When his doctor said he should eat more fruits and vegetables, he replied,
    ” LOOK, I’m 84 years old! How much longer do you expect me to live if I start eating that crap?”, leaving his doctor speechless.

    My father just celebrated his 100th birthday on May 8, 2019.
    I figure why not stick to eggs for breakfast?

    Bacon, eggs, and toast? Or just the bacon and eggs? This enquiring mind wants to know!

    Second that. Note the guy above who switched to low carb and — suddenly — lifelong problems disappeared. Observational studies about eating eggs I have seen do not question whether or not breads/cereals/grains were eaten with the eggs.

    What everyone one is missing is the level of LPa cholesterol in your body. Few doctors test for this and it affects 20% of the world’s population. LPa is the sticky LDL cholesterol that is produced by the liver. Its hard to treat and is probably the main cause of many peoples clogged arteries. I had a brother drop dead from a heart attack a year ago at age 64. I went and had a heart scan and found I had a 1200 calcium score which is very very bad & 80% of it was in my LAD artery(widow maker). Anything above 400 is red alarm bell territory. I am 63 and a health nut who eats very clean and works out. I just had a orbital atherectomy to remove the clog and a stent. I now feel great after many months of angina and sharp heart pains. Bottom line is that all this crap about cholesterol is meaningless if you have this hereditary problem. Get tested and a heart scan before it’s too late.

    This is the unknown factor Ken. The annual medical check-up beats all. You must ask questions I had a 6.5 cm abdominal aortic aneurysm found during a annual check-up. Im 55 years old had physical job no heart problems no high blood pressure all hereditary.

    Hmmmm….. Eat food and not food products. The more whole foods you consume, the healthier you will be. Skip processed foods and limit the processed beverages. Exercise. BAM! If you have True food allergies, then obvo, don’t eat it! Why is this so incredibly difficult 🤦🤷

    here is my take on the difficulty of eating a balanced diet. The majority of people have the t.v. on, (for noise), and what they fail to recognize is the fact that their brains “hears” each and every commercial. that is to say they’re preprogramed to respond to all of those food based commercials which, for the most part are the products of food scientists, not farmers.

    Our obsession with dietary lipids has overlooked the fat soluble vitamins in them to our detriment.
    Atherosclerotic plaque is accurately measured via CAC measurements by CT scans…an awkward finding that frequently does not jibe with ‘traditional risk factors’ and which has made such as AHA/ACC jump through hoops to accommodate in their incredibly misguided guidelines.
    This calcium in arteries is highly predictive of death by all causes with a CAC score of zero conferring a 15 year warranty from death by all causes. (!)
    CAC is linearly associated with MACEs.
    So what makes CAC?
    Can it regress?
    One thing in CAC etiology is activation of vitamin K-dependent proteins such as matrix gla protein or osteocalcin, which require sufficient K status and a lack of interference of the complex processes that make this status.
    And vitamin K2 supplements do regress the plaque in animal models and better K2 intake has been observed in human assessments to offer reduced cardiovascular risk.
    K2 is different than vitamin K 1, the form if K we tend to consider to the exclusion of K2…and certainly we have missed what makes endogenously made menaquinone-4 (MK-4).
    Instead of looking at fats as saturated or unsaturated or monosaturated or whatever, let’s look at the nutrients they contain!!
    And we must also learn that hydrogenation of high K1 oils such as soy or canola oil (novel in human diets, increased exponentially in recent times along with obesity and diabetes and as an unintended consequence of disparaging saturated fats) creates an aberrant form of vitamin K – dihydrophylloquinone – that doesn’t act properly and thus makes calcium dysregulation in arteries because matrix gla protein is not properly activated.
    Thus, it’s NOT trans fats… it’s dihydrophylloquinone behind the observed ill effects of these ubiquitous novel oils.
    K1 can make endogenous MK-4, but K2 appears to be better.
    This form of vitamin K2 – MK-4 – the form of vitamin K highest in us is made endogenously. We eat it, but it is then cleaved in the small intestine to become vitamin K3, menadione, which is transported via the lymph system to bodywide tissues where an enzyme, UBIAD1, converts the K3 to MK-4. This enzyme also controls calcium behavior and cholesterol…in CKD patients, who tend to have calcium dysregulation, K2 supplements reduced cholesterol and when supplements stopped, cholesterol rose again.
    Dietary K is processed this way, tearing it apart to create K3 and packaged in chylomicrons to transport in lymph but how much and the factors that affect this are still unknown. Some is also transported seemingly directly in blood.
    My criticism of much here is the belief that we eat something and it goes directly to blood as this.
    It doesn’t work this way.
    Even silly guidelines on cholesterol – and I could argue that all our obsessions with it are missing what is downstream that makes its levels, so we are chasing the wrong things – now realize that consumption of cholesterol is not what makes serum levels and that the liver makes it mostly, which should be affected by homeostatic mechanisms.
    So back to calcium regulation:
    Endocrinology sees PTH
    Nutrition folks see lipids
    Heart folks see cholesterol
    Etc.
    All are missing these huge issues surrounding vitamin K2.
    It’s intimately involved in calcium regulation.
    MK-4 is a hormone…binds SXR.
    K2 appears to be intimately involved in obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, CKD, liver function, brain function and more.
    Go search! Be amazed!
    Ask about foods differently than here.
    And ask about all the additives in ultraprocessed foods- emulsifiers, colors, sweeteners, anti-mold ingredients- and what they do to guts, microbes and the processes I discussed.
    Ask what drugs do, too.
    We are seeing it all wrong.

    I didn’t read your whole post. I stopped as soon as you claimed that coronary artery calcium scans can identify atherosclerotic plaques, because while that may be true of plaques which are calcified, many (perhaps most) atherosclerotic lesions are not calcified. Calcification doesn’t always occur, and there’s even debate as to whether or not calcification stabilizes or destabilizes plaques.

    The article on Vitamin K2 is spot on!
    I have been avoiding surgery on a clogged carotid artery for at least five years with the use of K2. Regulating calcium and keeping calcium in your bones instead of the arteries. The body is constantly trying to achieve balance of ph. When we eat a lot of acid causing foods our body has to compensate by taking it from the bones. It may end up in the arteries as the patch for inflamation along with cholesterol.

    I’m tired of this at this point. It seems as is EVERYTHING we eat can kill us. Moderation is my ticket from now on and to hell with “this good can kill you!”, “That food can kill you!” Enough. I’ve heard this about vegetables, beans, grains, fruit, meats. The air, the water. How about a good study about the benefits of eating moderately. Then again, that will probably prove to increase our chances of cancer too.

    What we need to also realize also is that not all foods are the same. There is a big difference in nutrient content in the meat and the eggs they lay when it comes to commercially raised hens cooped up indoors that eat just grains vs pasture raised free roaming chickens that also eat bugs and grub. The same goes for farm raised vs wild caught fish, grain fed vs grass fed cows and the list goes on with mass agricultural farming practices. I personally don’t eat eggs unless I know where the chickens come from. I get my eggs when I can from farms where chickens roam free and when I do I have no qualms eating 4 eggs a day. My cholesterol levels are just fine and I am still in the best of health. That being said, we each have our unique gut microbiome which also deeply impacts how we process and digest our food.

    Who told you that a diet heaviest in fresh/minimally-processed fruits and vegetables, beans, legumes and whole grains, and lightest in meat, dairy, eggs, oils, and processed foods will kill you?

    All I know is that when I needed to lower my blood cholesterol, I stopped eating eggs and drinking 2% milk, and that worked.

    Egg YOLKS – you know, the tastiest part of the egg – are the culprit – high in cholesterol and very bad for arterial health.

    Egg whites – pretty bland – are among the most nutritious and least damaging of all possible foods.

    Will keep this simple – Eating WHOLE egg – GOOD, eating egg white only – BAD

    However, as people live into their 80s and 90’s many become visually impaired by macular degeneration. Egg yolks happen to have a high content of antioxidants which protect the eyes from macular degeneration. The egg whites don’t have these eye protective substances. As a primary care doc i recommend people consume a small number of whole eggs and not the whites

    Just think about it in terms of what it actually is.

    Would I want to consume the menstruation of another species?

    It is what it is, and that is, disgusting.

    There’s a reason the USDA and FDA don’t allow eggs to be called healthy, nutritious, nor safe.

    The USDA and the FDA have revolving doors for ex-corporate execs from Big Ag. Hardly trustworthy, and I’m fortunate enough to live in an area with a plethora of farms and farmer’s markets to purchase my foods from.

    The egg qualifies as Kosher in dietary standards meaning that it is given to us to be a part of our diets. Where you come up with it being menstruation is really bizarre. It is never in contact with blood and only becomes unclean to eat if it has a blood spot in it. (consumption of blood is forbidden) The prescribed method of eating it does not include breaking it open unless it was baked or boiled first. Science today seems hell bent on teaching us to abandon eating clean foods which included red meat such as beef, lamb, goat, deer, etc. We are not supposed to eat pork which as a white meat is often pushed on us as being healthier that red meat. Most of the traditional foods are being abandoned for vegetarian diets and those high in scavenger based meats. All quite contradictory to the Divinely prescribed diets. All a person has to do is eat what is to be meat for us and avoid that which is unhealthy and not intended to be received. You are what you eat; a scavenger such as catfish, eels, and filter feeders such as shellfish are full of the filth they clean up and out of our water. I like a little of it once in a while but I have no desire to drink my water by sucking it out of the dirty side of my water filter. An egg is clean and and can be consumed as food but maybe part of the way they benefit us is in the way they are prepared. Maybe frying them in a pool of bacon grease is not as good as hard boiled or baked. If my Lord said I should eat them and some scientist or doctor or someone who thinks they are menstruation says I shouldn’t eat them, to whom should I listen. Really, menstruation ? wow .

    People all over the world have been eating plenty of stuff. In my time in Ecuador I drank chicha a few times and ate guinea pig. I knew people that ate chicken feet. (Chicha is made by chewing corn, spitting it out and waiting for the salivary enzymes to help it ferment). Plenty of animal species eat afterbirth. In relative terms, I’m fine with whatever gross connotations one might make about chicken eggs.

    I had three eggs, three pieces of bacon, half an avacado and a cup of bullet proof coffee today for lunch. By the way, I swam 3,000 meters this morning and pushing 70 years old!

    That’s very impressive. Not quite a Jack LaLanne who ate very healthy. At 70 years of age he swam one mile while shackled and handcuffed and pulled 70 boats with 1 person in each boat.

    Surveys are the life blood of a few different sciences. They are easy to manipulate and rife with false testimonies. Especially when you are talking about hot issues.

    What’s the saying?
    “Lies, damn lies, and statistics”
    They can all be bent around even it comes to perception.

    For decades I gained a pound or two every year despite working out and keeping my calorie count <2000 and following the standard american diet. I ate vegetarian. A ate vegan. I ate low fat. I ate no fat (ornish).

    Observing the rise in obesity and diabetes and my frustrations with supposedly healthy/weight loss diets, I made up my own. I drank only water, ate lean proteins, healthy fats (olive, avocado, oily fish), plenty of low glycemic vegetables that grow above ground, an occasional piece of whole fruit, and nothing that I had to cook a while to make edible. Low glycemic foods. Understanding metabolic syndrome, blood sugar spikes, insulin response, etc. I aimed for a low and slow blood sugar curve.

    I lost 95lbs, actually getting too thin, and my blood tests went from bad to pristine. And I've maintained that diet easily, its not particularly restrictive, and my weight and blood tests remain good.

    Unfortunately peoples ideas of what are good and bad foods gets flipped over by bad nutritional studies and advice that changes every few months. And the format in which we eat foods, healthy or not, can also be problematic. For example if I eat a big salad, it takes hours to digest and release its nutrients. If I put those ingredients in a juicer or blender, they're absorbed within 15 minutes. You pee out half the vitamins, get less hard to digest fiber, and your digestive tracts gets a shotgun of nutrients when its not built to function that way. Similarly, a "healthy" food like oatmeal is worth a look. A whole groat or steel cut oats (looks like a bit of rice and pieces of rice respectively) have a glycemic index of 50. A steamed rolled "old fashioned/microwavable/instant" oat has a glycemic index in the low 70's. White table sugar is 67.

    My advice? Eat the eggs, skip the instant oatmeal.

    I think this a good point. I don´t know if it can be said that eggs are healthy or not on an absolute basis, but we can look at them on a relative basis compared to our other options. I feed my kids breakfast every morning. I have readily available to me option 1) some sugary, processed breakfast cereal doused in milk, 2) instant oatmeal topped with a little butter and brown sugar, or 3) scrambled eggs with some whole grain toast. The eggs, I feel, are the better option of the three and the oatmeal better than the cereal. Like most things in life, it’s relative.

    In reality, I rotate through multiple breakfast items during the week including some other options I didn’t mention, but it never includes breakfast cereal. I think variety is key and diet is only half the equation. If you don’t get enough exercise, having a good diet doesn’t get you very far.

    How about this: Don’t eat in restaurants where you have to look UP to read the menu (Mickey’D’s, Booger King, etc.), but only eat in restaurants where you have to look DOWN to read the menu. There might not be a huge difference, but every bit helps.

    Check out this website: Nutritionfacts.org.
    Dr. Gregor has a wealth of food information.
    He and his staff research the validity of research studies and publish only those that meet their requirements.
    His conclusion about eggs, they are unhealthy.

    If Dr. Greater was a Registered Dietician in addition to being an M.D. I would value his opinion regarding nutrition and eggs. They barely skim the surface of nutrition in Medical School. Dieticians and certainly one with a PHD in food science have much greater knowledge regarding food, nutrition and how various diseases affect the food absorption process. In addition food science degrees have a greater chemistry requirement than someone trying to get into medical school. If one cooks eggs in bacon grease then eggs are very unhealthy. How he can say eggs are unhealthy when they are full of B vitamins, contain the greatest source of choline which is a precursor to Acetalcholine and the egg yolk contains a high amount of high density lipoprotein (the good cholesterol) is ludicrous. If you have a high cholesterol health issue then you have to limit the amount of eggs you eat in one week. If you exercise and strength train you increase the good cholesterol in your body.

    RDs certification is governed by the AGA whose top board members are Coca Cola and General Mills and ConAgra to name a few. They design the food pyramid which is completely unhealthy, so RD education is all erroneous under this conflict of interest. Greger promotes plant-based eating. he has points although I don’t agree with all of it. I think eggs are a food source that man has been eating since the beginning of time.

    I think you are referring to the ADA. There are very few industry people (a couple are in the food services industry but are not directly tied to certain brands such as Coke). Most are professors/university department heads and individuals who own their own nutrition consulting practices. The ADA has ethical guidelines and can and does revoke membership based upon these guidelines (I’m not saying they are prefect). It’s possible you are confusing the accrediting agency (the ADA), with governmental entities such as the USDA. If you have evidence that any one of these individuals have a direct and conflicting relationship with one of the “big agra” companies you mention, I’d be interested in hearing about it. Please reach out to me via Twitter @EmilyPetro22

    In addition, lets say your premise is 100% true. RDs are independent professionals. We are actively encouraged to rely on information from a variety of sources in our practice and taught how to scrutinize information from the literature. We are also taught about how various governmental agencies and research organizations can be influenced by the food industry. Members of AMA (American Medical Association) can also have possible conflicts of interest and the organization itself has put out misleading statements in the past. Does that mean all MDs are not to be trusted? Is there a possibility a few RDs are giving their clients at least some information that may be misleading (intentionally or unintentionally)? You bet. Does this hold true for all healthcare related professions? You bet. Is the better alternative to experiment on yourself for the vast majority of people who have minimal basic scientific education and almost none specifically related to human nutrition. I would argue no.

    Dr Gregor has an impressive website with good studies and information. However he IS a militant vegetarian and everything on his site points to that. Methinks confirmation bias rears its ugly head and it made me stop reading his newsletters as gospel.

    No mention of Choline in eggs. No Mention of the effect of oxidized cholesterol floating in the blood stream that tear away the deposits on the artery wall which then lead to strokes and heart attack. No mention of the fact that animal fats cause type 2 diabetes. No mention of how animal fats block insulin receptors. No mention of the effect on elasticity to the arteries immediately after consuming fatty foods which include animal fats and processed cooking oils including olive oil. There is no special nutrition found in an egg that cant be found in a healthier source like plant base foods. Then you have the China study. I will assume this is funded or influenced by the meat and dairy industry or our own FDA which is run by former meat and dairy industry CEO’s.

    This article would have been greatly improved by the omission of the diet advice at the end, diet advice which originated from the same “experts” who do the trash studies that the article is lamenting.

    I followed the Atkins diet, cutting out carbs and eating all the red meat and saturated fat I wanted. I lost 30 pounds within a few months! Two years later with a 100% clogged artery I had a massive heart attack. Now I’ll stick to my newly acquired cardiologists advise and keep the salt, saturated fat, and cholesterol to a minimum in addition to sugar and processed foods.

    Its completely unlikely that your diet of 2 years caused a 100% blocked artery. That took a decade or more to happen.

    The main takeaway from this article is that industry funded studies should be taken with a humungously large pinch of salt. Sadly these days it is only the industry that is largely funding studies.

    Actually studies suggest that too much salt is bad for your health.

    (Joking!)

    Seriously though, yes, exactly.

    Eggs by themselves are very nutritious. Yes, eggs contain a great amount of cholesterol but most of the cholesterol is high density lipoprotein which is the good cholesterol. In the past it was the large amounts of bacon, sausage and buttered on fiber depleted white bread toast. Cholesterol is actually quite good for men’s testosterone if they lead a healthy lifestyle and maintain a lower body fat percentage. The problem is automation has made Americans less physically active and Americans waistline and obesity rates have increased and continue to increase. Only one third of all Americans are active at least 3 times a week. I personally eat a Mediterranean type diet, hit the gym 6 days a week and consume 4 to 6 eggs a day. I have my blood tested every 3 months and I am in excellent health. I also follow the philosophy of Hippocrates “The Father of Modern Medicine” Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food” I eat to live not live to eat.

    A few corrections to my comment. The large amount of sausage, bacon and buttered fiber depleted processed white bread toast in the past was more detrimental to the human body than the eggs. I am 56 years of age and in excellent health. Calories in/calories out “The law of thermodynamics is the best dietary advice for a healthier lifestyle if a Mediterranean diet is not your choice.

    A common misperception. Your body is not a furnace and responds to different foods in different forms differently and different types of calories are handled differently.

    If I eat a certain amount of calories of a lean protein and vegetables, I’ll get a limited blood sugar kick, it’ll stay flat and take hours to digest.

    If I eat a bunch of bread and instant oatmeal, it’ll be rapidly converted into blood sugar, triggering an insulin response that tells your body to store the excess blood sugar as fat.

    If I cut calories and work out more, your body will hang onto that fat for dear life as it enters “survival mode”, preserving fat stores while consuming muscle tissue.

    The laws of thermodynamics do NOT apply to the human body.

    Granted you have young individuals with fast metabolisms who consume mega calories and never gain a pound. But on the average person and or a person in their mid 20s if you burn more calories than you take in there is a much greater chance you will lose weight whether it is lean muscle tissue and or bodyfat. There is no such thing as a fat burning cycle with regards to cardio exercise. It was proven to be a myth. The human body is much like an automobile. After exercising the body targets the bodyfat while it is cooling down much like an automobile as it parked after driving it out on the highway. Also the more lean muscle tissue one possesses the greater basal metabolic rate (more calories burnt at rest) I have worked with many dieticians, was engaged to PHD in Nutrition and I know many Naturopathic Physicians. I myself have completed 75 percent of my Exercise Science /Pre Physical Therapy degree with a minor in Nutrition. I am also a Certified Personal Trainer with the NASM organization in addition to being specialized in CES, PES, Nutrition, Ladies Fitness, Senior Fitness and group fitness. What are your credentials?

    You are correct regarding the law of thermodynamics not being applicable to the human body. It was an older concept from the late 1990’s and early 2000s but proven wrong shortly thereafter. I understand insulin and fat storage concepts and that each food item consumed is processed a little different in the human body. I should have left that statement out of comment.

    >eggs contain a great amount of cholesterol but most of the cholesterol is high density lipoprotein<

    That's nonsense. LDL and HDL are particles in your blood. They got there because your body manufactured them for its own purposes. You don't get them from your diet like you get your potassium. If you drink blood you are consuming them, but they don't survive digestion and end up in your blood like potassium does. They are digested just like any other protein.

    Raw food cultists believe that heating carrots to the point that its enzymes are denatured destroys their nutritional value. Those enzymes are digested just like any other protein you eat is (and one might wonder what use carrot enzymes would be to a human in the first place since they don't serve any purpose of ours and would simply elicit an immune response to a foreign molecule if they did make it to the bloodstream, perhaps pursuant to carrot juice self-injection by a particularly zealous raw foodist).l

    There is a term for magical thinking of this sort: cargo cult.

    What is your medical or nutrition background? Take a nutrition course or two and you might learn something valid. Those that exercise also increase their HDL’s. Not to mention helps control one’s blood suagr levels. I guess my friends who are dieticians and Naturopaths don’t know squat in comparison to yourself.

    A small amount of heat actually helps break down the cellular wall in many vegetables which is a good thing as it releases more vitamins and minerals. It particularly applies to cruciferous vegetables. I steam my vegetables for 30 seconds in a microwave while covered in wax paper. Vitamin C is highly heat sensitive. Over Cooking vegetables offers very little vitamin and mineral content.

    If you’re “microwaving” your food, you’re destroying anywhere from 60 – 90 percent of the nutritive value!

    Prove it
    Reeks of exaggeration and substantiated purely by word of mouth.
    Please go elsewhere.

    I guess I will have to admit I am wrong regarding the HDL content in eggs. Eating an egg or eggs does have a positive effect with the liver releasing HDL into one’s bloodstream.
    Even when people ate three or more eggs per day their bodies made bigger LDL- and HDL-lipoprotein particles than when they ate no eggs. That’s important because other recent studies have suggested that larger LDLs are less likely than small ones to enter artery walls and contribute their cholesterol load to artery-clogging plaque. Similarly, larger HDLs are more robust than smaller ones at hauling cholesterol out of the bloodstream and, ultimately out of the body.

    Pretty sure 4-6 eggs per day (!) doesn’t fit the definition of Mediterranean diet.

    The eggs maybe not. But i do consume fatty fish, olive oil, avocado, and plenty of fruit and vegetables on a daily basis. Plus I incorporate sprouted grain bread, chia seeds, arugula, romaine lettuce, Kale, Spinach, overnight oats, raw garlic, onion, ginger root, curry powder, goats milk products. Etc, etc…

    Eggs are nutritious is a very relative statement. Compared to what? When comparing foods on an equal weight basis, eggs are NOT nutritious. If they were, that word would be included within any advertising campaign created to support them. Do you know what other word you will not find as part of any egg advertising? Healthy. That’s right. They are incredible, and they are edible, but they are NOT healthy NOR nutritious.

    I think my little wake up call to the BS was when one months issue of “unnamed health magazine” published an article that you should never ever eat steak, no matter how lean it is; that it’s basically poison for the cardiac system.

    Very next month’s issue: eat all the steak and butter your heart desires; fats are in!

    Great read.

    We die from living on planet earth. Diet is a four letter word…and the first three letters will kill you. Nothing kills appetite faster than a table full of people talking about dieting. I gained 17 pounds on Weight Watchers in the 1960s. I’ve lost 300 pounds by ignoring fads, eating as cleanly as I can, and everything in moderation

    The demonisation of cholesterol as a cause of heart disease is false

    Do you think the American Heart Association is purposely lying to the public? To what end?

    Probably his point was that how your body process food and synthesizes cholesterol is more important than your dietary intake of the compound. Some individuals can modulate their blood cholesterol levels by diet much easier than others.

    “Do you think the American Heart Association is purposely lying to the public?” I can answer your question. Just show me the funding listings for the AHA and for any ‘study’ the AHA approves. When I see that not one single commercial enterprise has contributed to their funding, I will accept the AHA pronouncements without question.

    “To what end?” It appears that you have no concept of the ‘funding -> desired outcome -> more (or continued) funding’ economic cycle in research fields. Those researchers are earning a living, and quite predictably they want to continue to get paid. Achieving a result that is contrary to what the funding source wants results in withdrawal of the funding … and having to go find a new job. Successive rounds of job-seeking results in lower (or no) wages due to “unreliable” job performance. This is true in ANY field of research.

    Many years ago, I did a study for Control Data Corp. The object of the study was to discover a reliable way to detect when a disk drive read/write head crashed against the surface of the spinning disk (they normally ‘fly’ on a thin boundary layer of air).

    My study came to the inescapable conclusion that a little heat probe built into a head could do the job with about 99.8% reliability. But that added $6.72 to the cost of each head, in a machine that had dozens of heads in multiple disk stacks.

    Another study determined that it was possible to detect the sound of a head ticking against the surface. Reliability was only about 41%, but the cost was only $19.95 for a cheap microphone from Radio Shack per disk stack. The detection reliability sort of sucked, but hey … the customers were VERY impressed that an audio system could detect ANY crashes.

    Guess which system went into the machines.

    Wrong. NEITHER system was implemented. The corporate marketing team determined from their own study that it was more financially beneficial to CDC to insist that customers increase the frequency of the routine maintenance which involved taking a drive off line and meticulously cleaning it. CDC received financial rewards for doing the more frequent maintenance cycles.

    I was out of a job.

    Is the AHA lying purposely lying to the public? Probably not. My educated guess (and it’s only an guess) is that:

    1. The AHA is made up of individuals from many different backgrounds, each with their own agenda. This agenda is not necessarily a malicious one, however we all have agendas and when many agendas either conscious or unconscious are at play, things get complicated.
    2. Nutrition science is complicated. See article and postings as an example.
    3. Many in the public lack the resources, education, time, and motivation to learn even the simplest nutrition concepts for reasons way to numerous to get into here. This is not a judgement of these people, it is simply a fact. These organizations have to keep the message simple in order to have any hope of producing meaningful behavior change.
    4. It takes time for consensus to be established in these organizations and they are often behind the “latest research”. You might think research that is 10-20 years old is, well, old news. But in order to develop an informed consensus, these organizations need to wait for follow up studies to be conducted. This is time consuming. They also have to weigh the benefit of being more pro-active with the risks. Currently there are very few known risks to consuming LESS cholesterol, so I believe they are still erring on the side of caution. Whether or not they’ve waited too long is debatable.

    As a public health professional with a biological sciences background who will be a practicing RD (Registered Dietitian) next year, this is obviously frustrating. In my dietetics program there are still professors who will contradict each other on this point. I could be wrong, but this is my theory based on my education and professional experience.

    The American Heart Association (AHA) is funded by huge amounts of money from various corporations whose interests are not the health of the American public but to make a profit. So yes, the AHA is motivated to keep their corporate funders happy, so they do not say negative things about their products–products which undoubtedly contribute a great deal to heart disease in the United States.

    All I can say is the food and drug admin are in bed together. make bad foods get sick, here are some drugs. Take the drugs and get sicker.

    I used to tell the Boy Scouts, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

Comments are closed.

Top

Whistleblowers
& Tipsters

Corruption in science?
Academic discrimination?
Research censorship?
Government cover-ups?

Undark wants to hear about it.

Email us at tips@undark.org, or visit our contact page for more secure options.