17 ms·

Associations of egg consumption with cardiovascular disease

83 points by manidoraisamy 8y ago

Jedd 8y ago
> From this prospective cohort study, we found more frequent egg consumption was associated with CVD, IHD, MCE, haemorrhagic stroke and ischaemic stroke, independent of potential confounders. Notably, daily consumers (up to <1 egg/day) were associated with a 26% lower in risk of haemorrhagic stroke. I'm assuming that first sentence is pointing out a negative association, rather than an intake greater than the slightly confusingly worded 'up to <1 egg a day' line. Later they write: > Lacking participants with consumption of more than one egg per day restricted us to assess the association between higher egg consumption (>1 egg/day) and the risk of CVD; but the usual amount of the highest frequency level in the present study was approximate to the recommended amount of the guidelines (0.76 egg vs 0.8–1.0 egg), indicating that adherence to the dietary guidelines with regard to egg consumption could result in a lower risk of CVD. As someone who regularly has 2-3 eggs a day, I'm much more interested in risks - and indeed whether there are even greater benefits - associated with higher consumption rates. Eggs are a fantastic food source. Even herbivores will often deign to eat them, albeit opportunistically.
- Empact 8y ago
  There's more research linked here, with mostly good news for you: https://examine.com/nutrition/are-eggs-healthy/ https://examine.com/nutrition/are-eggs-healthy/ E.g.: "Observational studies in middle-aged Japanese people and in people on a Mediterranean diet found no association between egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease. Another observational study found no increase in the risk of stroke or coronary artery disease in people consuming 1–6 eggs per week, whereas “greater than 6 eggs per week” appeared to increase the risk of coronary artery disease only in diabetics."
  - brolover 8y ago
    https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/05/07/-eggs-not-linked-to-cardiovascular-risk--despite-conflicting-adv.html https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/05/07/-eggs-not... Well, according to this study, eggs do not do anything for diabetics. I'm pretty sure all of those observational studies (including the one I cite) are severely flawed.
- manidoraisamy 8y ago
  My original title for this submission was "Moderate level of egg consumption (<1 egg/day) lowers risk of heart disease". It was edited probably because it was clickbait-y? [1] Nevertheless, I feel that the summary was quite surprising - "Daily consumers also had an 18% lower risk of CVD death and a 28% lower risk of haemorrhagic stroke death compared to non-consumers." [1] An egg a day might reduce your risk of heart disease, study says - https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/health/eggs-heart-disease-study/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/health/eggs-heart-disease...
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    Your title implies a causal relationship, which cohort studies are notoriously bad at probing.
- TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
  it's more complicated than that. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2644251/Un-scrambling-truth-Why-American-eggs-ILLEGAL-sell-UK-vice-versa.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2644251/Un-scrambl... Not all eggs are treated the same. I don't see how this study accounts for what kind of eggs or how they have been processed. It matters, a lot, if your eggs are bleached or how they have been stored.
- sunstone 8y ago
  Furthermore, mammals have been eating dinosaur eggs for over 100 million years, humans have certainly continued this habit. Chances are very good that eggs are excellent nutrition for most humans.
- amrx101 8y ago
  Yeah me too. I consume 3 to 4 eggs a day as they are more filling and very handy. I am often puzzled with egg research and their conclusions.
brolover 8y ago
This might suffer from the same issue the alcohol consumption study lacked. People that aren't consuming eggs might do so because of health issues. Meaning that they are more prone to feel the side effects. Similar effect happened in the alcohol study, where moderate consumption had a lower mortality than those consuming nothing. It turned out that those abstaining from alcohol were more prone to get side effects immediately. After adjusting for these errors in data reporting, the u-curve disappeared and the relationship was linear (more alcohol you consumed higher the mortality). I was also, embarrassingly, citing the alcohol study, since then I've realized the first reaction to a paper should be doubt and I'll definitely abstain from acknowledging epidemiological diet studies in the future. Even meta-analyses taking them into account. One of the best examples is that many meta-analyses conclude that dietary cholesterol does not increase serum cholesterol (proven risk in CVD). Disregarding the fact that many of the aggregated studies do not measure baseline cholesterol, and it is assumed that there's a linear response on serum cholesterol to dietary cholesterol when it's a 20 year old information that response is non-linear.
- mr_spothawk 8y ago
  > I've realized the first reaction to a paper should be doubt appreciating the reminder
  - jl2718 8y ago
    In sociology, the opposite is almost always true, in psychology, it’s usually false, in medicine, maybe half true, but what about machine learning?
    - samfriedman 8y ago
      >what about machine learning? The results are probably real, but maybe not for the reasons the author suggests.
      - andrewprock 8y ago
        And here we have the clearest demonstration of confirmation bias.
ianai 8y ago
(Opinion zone) Eggs cannot be healthy for you. They’re mostly cholesterol and saturated fat. The B vitamins in them come from supplementing their mothers with synthetics. For the high caloric price of admission you get very little vitamins, minerals, and protein. Just look at their nutrient profile for proof: 1 egg nets you 10+% of your daily saturated fat recommendation, 14% riboflavin, 11% vitamin b12, and all other vitamins less than 8%. For the minerals, 23% of your selenium (really not something you need in abundance - google selenium overdose), 10% phosphorus, and the rest 5% or below. All of that for only about 1/9th of your daily suggested protein. So to get your daily protein from eggs you would need to overdose on cholesterol by almost 9 times the recommendation, consume 90+% of your saturated fat, and overdose on selenium, and so on. And if that weren’t enough, you would be eating more fat (by weight) than protein. Edit-fixed saturated fat content to 10% Edit 2-The ratio of omega3 to omega6 is about 1:12. That should be more like 1:1 (preferably) or at least 1:4. So to correct that you would need to eat even more fats to correct that ratio intake.
- Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
  Your assertion is contradicted by the study here. Could it be that your assumptions are wrong?
  - brolover 8y ago
    The assertion is not in contradiction to the study. Study makes no claims on healthiness of eggs. Scientifically, healthy-unhealthy food does not exist. There's no health scale. Everything depends on the context. If your blood results and other health information is stable, whatever you're eating isn't doing you any harm, then that's a healthy lifestyle. Trying to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy is impossible.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Other (new) studies and meta-studies do, however. And contradict what you wrote. E.g. http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1846638/association-dietary-circulating-supplement-fatty-acids-coronary-risk-systematic-review?resultClick=3 http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1846638/association-d... >Trying to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy is impossible. They don't try to "divide foods into healthy and unhealthy". They try to divide diets of food, including amounts and limits, into healthy and unhealthy.
assblaster 8y ago
The body regulates cholesterol balance via the liver, and this is most influenced by genetics. Dietary cholesterol simply is inconsequential, and the old warning against too much dietary cholesterol was just bad medical advice based on incomplete knowledge of cholesterol metabolism. I eat between 4 and 6 eggs per day. We'll see what happens in 50 years, but I bet CAD won't be a significant problem because of my good genetics.
- JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
  What are your cholesterol levels eating 4-6 eggs a day?
  - assblaster 8y ago
    Normal ranges for total cholesterol and HDL actually. Triglycerides also normal range. The best part is my HDL to total cholesterol ratio which is well into the very healthy range. The key is good genetics in addition to exercise and eating lots of fresh foods and fish, and avoiding excessive red meat.
    - RegBarclay 8y ago
      I also have genetically low cholesterol. I eat whatever I want. It never makes any difference on my blood panels.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    Most of my calories come from meat, cheese, and organs, and my blood work looks just fine. I honestly just don't pay any attention to the ping-ponging research findings these days unless something is directly toxic.
    - b3b0p 8y ago
      I'm the same way. Follow a similar sounding diet. My total cholesterol is high, but the ratios are considered very healthy and my trigs are extremely low. From my research cholesterol is still an unknown and everyone has an opinion. It's hard to believe too much of the foods that we are supposed to eat (natural, meat, eggs, veggies, ...) can harm us to such an extent to actually become worried and obsessive about it.
onion2k 8y ago
Does it count if it's in a cake?
- bshimmin 8y ago
  To the same extent that the grapes in wine count as part of your five a day, I think.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    So that's a yes, absolutely? Great news!
gadders 8y ago
For anyone who has the space (and they don't need a lot of space), I recommend getting your own hens. Great fun, and about as hard to look after as a rabbit. Plus the best eggs you will have ever tasted.
- udp 8y ago
  Totally agree, they're great fun. :-) It's also why I don't agree with the moral argument for veganism - happy hens lay eggs too and eggs gotta be eaten!
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    ...but what happens to the roosters when everyone gets hens? :)
    - gadders 8y ago
      That is the saddest thing. You only really need one rooster per flock. If anyone invents a machine to sex hens whilst still in the egg they will have a lot of grateful chicken owners.
      - udp 8y ago
        You need exactly zero roosters per flock if you're only after eggs.
        gadders 8y ago
        That is true. Having a rooster makes it easier to introduce new hens into a flock though and raising your own hens from eggs is fun.
      - Moto7451 8y ago
        This is actively in the works. https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/livestock/new-technology-determines-the-sex-of-a-chicken-while-in-the-egg/ https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/livestock/new-technology-d...
EGreg 8y ago
Can someone summarize these findings? So is eating one egg a day “better” than not eating them at all?
- anonu 8y ago
  You must eat 0.76 eggs a day to match the results of the study.
- zaroth 8y ago
  The answer, as always it seems, is that no one really has a clue — probably because nutrition can’t be reduced to these cute little nuggets of wisdom. Unless the nugget is, “less overall, and especially less refined sugar.” I think the singular thing we can be certain of is nutritionists won’t wake up 20 years from now and say, “Oh man, we all should have been recommending a higher sugar intake!”
- liveoneggs 8y ago
  eggs are super healthy and are a better thing to eat than other foods higher in sugars/saturated fats/salts/etc Replace a deli sandwich with two eggs or replace a bowl of sugar cereal with two eggs or a slice of pizza with a nice omelette
ssijak 8y ago
Pointing fingers at just one food item is really dumb. Especially when you point that finger at the most nutrient dense and rich food on the planet. It is already shown that eating cholesterol will lower the cholesterol production so you end up with the same amount. Aside from that. What is the rest of the diet, eating patterns, exercise, environment, stress levels, etc. Yeah sure egg or <insert random food item here> will make a world of a difference on its own /endsarcasm. It is like taking a car to the mechanic for a checkup and he just check if front lights are working and try to conclude the state of the whole car.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Faaak 8y ago
As a non-native English speaker, I find the conclusion sentence very confusing: "Among Chinese adults, a moderate level of egg consumption (up to <1 egg/day) was significantly associated with lower risk of CVD, largely independent of other risk factors." Don that mean that it's best to eat a lot or less eggs ?
- your-nanny 8y ago
  Confusing to native speakers too. But I think the context is comparison with those who don't eat eggs at all.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Their study showed more eggs MAY reduce some Cardiovascular disease. The language used is pretty typical for academic studies, but isn't that easy to read without familiarity. I would be interested to know, for the people not eating at least one egg a day, what were those meals instead? It could be a case of "an egg is healthier than [Unknown]" instead of "an egg makes you healthier."
- mistersquid 8y ago
  One paraphrase of the quote you provide is "Among Chinese adults, consuming less than 1 egg per day is associated with lower risk of CVD". An even simpler paraphrase is "eating less than 1 egg a day is associated with lower CVD". To answer your question directly, one can reasonably infer from the quote you provide that it is best to eat fewer eggs. EDIT: change quantifying adjective from "less" to "fewer"
  - tgb 8y ago
    No that's exactly wrong. Consumption of eggs was positively correlated with better CVD outcomes but they only had data to conclude that this holds up to an amount less than 1 egg per day. People with .76 fared better than those with .29 per day.
    - mistersquid 8y ago
your-nanny 8y ago
What is typically eaten alongside eggs in China? Ingredients of food in cuisines are clustered. They cannot be treated as if they were independent. For example egg consumption might be highly correlated with bacon consumption in one population, and spinach in another: the recommendation to eat more eggs based on studies of the latter population might have unintended consequences if adopted by the former.
fencepost 8y ago
Take from this what you can take from many studies of this sort: Eggs have a fair amount of nutrition, and there's no sign of significant downsides or vast advantages to eating them in moderation. It's unlikely that any reputable study is going to show them as a surprise miracle superfood, and if you're consuming them as a major part of your diet that's not "in moderation" and this study is not relevant to you.
aviv 8y ago
It's amazing to me that these studies (and the people who look at them and comment) rarely ever consider the difference between eggs from sick factory farmed chickens on a nasty grain diet, vs. pasture raised chickens fed on grass and forage. People are just that clueless.
- emmanuel_1234 8y ago
  Do we have indications that it actually makes a significant difference, nutrition-wise?
  - aviv 8y ago
    This is one of those things you need to use common sense to realize these diseased animals are not going to have a positive effect on your body. This knee jerk reaction to ask for a full blown research paper on HN is getting out of control.
crb002 8y ago
How much is egg, and how much is having carbs alongside that egg early in the morning? There are some health benefits to intermittent fasting by not eating in the morning.
emtel 8y ago
I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as "an egg", and I'm skeptical that the health effects of consuming eggs can be generalized over all eggs. Try comparing an egg from the cheapest dozen you can buy at the cheapest supermarket in your area against an egg from someone who raises chickens. In my experience the cheap egg will have watery whites and a pale yoke that breaks if you look at it funny. Fry it up and it will basically taste like nothing. The other egg will have a much thicker white, and a yolk that stands up in the bowl, takes considerable work with a fork to really break apart, and is somewhere between orange and bright vivid orange. This egg almost certainly tastes a lot better. Is one healthier than the other? I don't know. But you can tell just by looking at them that they have substantially different compositions.

83 points by manidoraisamy 8y ago

Jedd 8y ago

> From this prospective cohort study, we found more frequent egg consumption was associated with CVD, IHD, MCE, haemorrhagic stroke and ischaemic stroke, independent of potential confounders. Notably, daily consumers (up to <1 egg/day) were associated with a 26% lower in risk of haemorrhagic stroke. I'm assuming that first sentence is pointing out a negative association, rather than an intake greater than the slightly confusingly worded 'up to <1 egg a day' line. Later they write: > Lacking participants with consumption of more than one egg per day restricted us to assess the association between higher egg consumption (>1 egg/day) and the risk of CVD; but the usual amount of the highest frequency level in the present study was approximate to the recommended amount of the guidelines (0.76 egg vs 0.8–1.0 egg), indicating that adherence to the dietary guidelines with regard to egg consumption could result in a lower risk of CVD. As someone who regularly has 2-3 eggs a day, I'm much more interested in risks - and indeed whether there are even greater benefits - associated with higher consumption rates. Eggs are a fantastic food source. Even herbivores will often deign to eat them, albeit opportunistically.

Empact 8y ago
There's more research linked here, with mostly good news for you: https://examine.com/nutrition/are-eggs-healthy/ https://examine.com/nutrition/are-eggs-healthy/ E.g.: "Observational studies in middle-aged Japanese people and in people on a Mediterranean diet found no association between egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease. Another observational study found no increase in the risk of stroke or coronary artery disease in people consuming 1–6 eggs per week, whereas “greater than 6 eggs per week” appeared to increase the risk of coronary artery disease only in diabetics."
- brolover 8y ago
  https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/05/07/-eggs-not-linked-to-cardiovascular-risk--despite-conflicting-adv.html https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/05/07/-eggs-not... Well, according to this study, eggs do not do anything for diabetics. I'm pretty sure all of those observational studies (including the one I cite) are severely flawed.
manidoraisamy 8y ago
My original title for this submission was "Moderate level of egg consumption (<1 egg/day) lowers risk of heart disease". It was edited probably because it was clickbait-y? [1] Nevertheless, I feel that the summary was quite surprising - "Daily consumers also had an 18% lower risk of CVD death and a 28% lower risk of haemorrhagic stroke death compared to non-consumers." [1] An egg a day might reduce your risk of heart disease, study says - https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/health/eggs-heart-disease-study/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/health/eggs-heart-disease...
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  Your title implies a causal relationship, which cohort studies are notoriously bad at probing.
TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
it's more complicated than that. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2644251/Un-scrambling-truth-Why-American-eggs-ILLEGAL-sell-UK-vice-versa.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2644251/Un-scrambl... Not all eggs are treated the same. I don't see how this study accounts for what kind of eggs or how they have been processed. It matters, a lot, if your eggs are bleached or how they have been stored.
sunstone 8y ago
Furthermore, mammals have been eating dinosaur eggs for over 100 million years, humans have certainly continued this habit. Chances are very good that eggs are excellent nutrition for most humans.
amrx101 8y ago
Yeah me too. I consume 3 to 4 eggs a day as they are more filling and very handy. I am often puzzled with egg research and their conclusions.

brolover 8y ago

This might suffer from the same issue the alcohol consumption study lacked. People that aren't consuming eggs might do so because of health issues. Meaning that they are more prone to feel the side effects. Similar effect happened in the alcohol study, where moderate consumption had a lower mortality than those consuming nothing. It turned out that those abstaining from alcohol were more prone to get side effects immediately. After adjusting for these errors in data reporting, the u-curve disappeared and the relationship was linear (more alcohol you consumed higher the mortality). I was also, embarrassingly, citing the alcohol study, since then I've realized the first reaction to a paper should be doubt and I'll definitely abstain from acknowledging epidemiological diet studies in the future. Even meta-analyses taking them into account. One of the best examples is that many meta-analyses conclude that dietary cholesterol does not increase serum cholesterol (proven risk in CVD). Disregarding the fact that many of the aggregated studies do not measure baseline cholesterol, and it is assumed that there's a linear response on serum cholesterol to dietary cholesterol when it's a 20 year old information that response is non-linear.

mr_spothawk 8y ago
> I've realized the first reaction to a paper should be doubt appreciating the reminder
- jl2718 8y ago
  In sociology, the opposite is almost always true, in psychology, it’s usually false, in medicine, maybe half true, but what about machine learning?
  - samfriedman 8y ago
    >what about machine learning? The results are probably real, but maybe not for the reasons the author suggests.
    - andrewprock 8y ago
      And here we have the clearest demonstration of confirmation bias.

ianai 8y ago

(Opinion zone) Eggs cannot be healthy for you. They’re mostly cholesterol and saturated fat. The B vitamins in them come from supplementing their mothers with synthetics. For the high caloric price of admission you get very little vitamins, minerals, and protein. Just look at their nutrient profile for proof: 1 egg nets you 10+% of your daily saturated fat recommendation, 14% riboflavin, 11% vitamin b12, and all other vitamins less than 8%. For the minerals, 23% of your selenium (really not something you need in abundance - google selenium overdose), 10% phosphorus, and the rest 5% or below. All of that for only about 1/9th of your daily suggested protein. So to get your daily protein from eggs you would need to overdose on cholesterol by almost 9 times the recommendation, consume 90+% of your saturated fat, and overdose on selenium, and so on. And if that weren’t enough, you would be eating more fat (by weight) than protein. Edit-fixed saturated fat content to 10% Edit 2-The ratio of omega3 to omega6 is about 1:12. That should be more like 1:1 (preferably) or at least 1:4. So to correct that you would need to eat even more fats to correct that ratio intake.

Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
Your assertion is contradicted by the study here. Could it be that your assumptions are wrong?
- brolover 8y ago
  The assertion is not in contradiction to the study. Study makes no claims on healthiness of eggs. Scientifically, healthy-unhealthy food does not exist. There's no health scale. Everything depends on the context. If your blood results and other health information is stable, whatever you're eating isn't doing you any harm, then that's a healthy lifestyle. Trying to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy is impossible.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Other (new) studies and meta-studies do, however. And contradict what you wrote. E.g. http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1846638/association-dietary-circulating-supplement-fatty-acids-coronary-risk-systematic-review?resultClick=3 http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1846638/association-d... >Trying to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy is impossible. They don't try to "divide foods into healthy and unhealthy". They try to divide diets of food, including amounts and limits, into healthy and unhealthy.

assblaster 8y ago

The body regulates cholesterol balance via the liver, and this is most influenced by genetics. Dietary cholesterol simply is inconsequential, and the old warning against too much dietary cholesterol was just bad medical advice based on incomplete knowledge of cholesterol metabolism. I eat between 4 and 6 eggs per day. We'll see what happens in 50 years, but I bet CAD won't be a significant problem because of my good genetics.

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
What are your cholesterol levels eating 4-6 eggs a day?
- assblaster 8y ago
  Normal ranges for total cholesterol and HDL actually. Triglycerides also normal range. The best part is my HDL to total cholesterol ratio which is well into the very healthy range. The key is good genetics in addition to exercise and eating lots of fresh foods and fish, and avoiding excessive red meat.
  - RegBarclay 8y ago
    I also have genetically low cholesterol. I eat whatever I want. It never makes any difference on my blood panels.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Most of my calories come from meat, cheese, and organs, and my blood work looks just fine. I honestly just don't pay any attention to the ping-ponging research findings these days unless something is directly toxic.
  - b3b0p 8y ago
    I'm the same way. Follow a similar sounding diet. My total cholesterol is high, but the ratios are considered very healthy and my trigs are extremely low. From my research cholesterol is still an unknown and everyone has an opinion. It's hard to believe too much of the foods that we are supposed to eat (natural, meat, eggs, veggies, ...) can harm us to such an extent to actually become worried and obsessive about it.

onion2k 8y ago

Does it count if it's in a cake?

bshimmin 8y ago
To the same extent that the grapes in wine count as part of your five a day, I think.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  So that's a yes, absolutely? Great news!

gadders 8y ago

For anyone who has the space (and they don't need a lot of space), I recommend getting your own hens. Great fun, and about as hard to look after as a rabbit. Plus the best eggs you will have ever tasted.

udp 8y ago
Totally agree, they're great fun. :-) It's also why I don't agree with the moral argument for veganism - happy hens lay eggs too and eggs gotta be eaten!
- Vinnl 8y ago
  ...but what happens to the roosters when everyone gets hens? :)
  - gadders 8y ago
    That is the saddest thing. You only really need one rooster per flock. If anyone invents a machine to sex hens whilst still in the egg they will have a lot of grateful chicken owners.
    - udp 8y ago
      You need exactly zero roosters per flock if you're only after eggs.
      - gadders 8y ago
        That is true. Having a rooster makes it easier to introduce new hens into a flock though and raising your own hens from eggs is fun.
    - Moto7451 8y ago
      This is actively in the works. https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/livestock/new-technology-determines-the-sex-of-a-chicken-while-in-the-egg/ https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/livestock/new-technology-d...

EGreg 8y ago

Can someone summarize these findings? So is eating one egg a day “better” than not eating them at all?

anonu 8y ago
You must eat 0.76 eggs a day to match the results of the study.
zaroth 8y ago
The answer, as always it seems, is that no one really has a clue — probably because nutrition can’t be reduced to these cute little nuggets of wisdom. Unless the nugget is, “less overall, and especially less refined sugar.” I think the singular thing we can be certain of is nutritionists won’t wake up 20 years from now and say, “Oh man, we all should have been recommending a higher sugar intake!”
liveoneggs 8y ago
eggs are super healthy and are a better thing to eat than other foods higher in sugars/saturated fats/salts/etc Replace a deli sandwich with two eggs or replace a bowl of sugar cereal with two eggs or a slice of pizza with a nice omelette

ssijak 8y ago

Pointing fingers at just one food item is really dumb. Especially when you point that finger at the most nutrient dense and rich food on the planet. It is already shown that eating cholesterol will lower the cholesterol production so you end up with the same amount. Aside from that. What is the rest of the diet, eating patterns, exercise, environment, stress levels, etc. Yeah sure egg or <insert random food item here> will make a world of a difference on its own /endsarcasm. It is like taking a car to the mechanic for a checkup and he just check if front lights are working and try to conclude the state of the whole car.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Faaak 8y ago

As a non-native English speaker, I find the conclusion sentence very confusing: "Among Chinese adults, a moderate level of egg consumption (up to <1 egg/day) was significantly associated with lower risk of CVD, largely independent of other risk factors." Don that mean that it's best to eat a lot or less eggs ?

your-nanny 8y ago
Confusing to native speakers too. But I think the context is comparison with those who don't eat eggs at all.
Someone1234 8y ago
Their study showed more eggs MAY reduce some Cardiovascular disease. The language used is pretty typical for academic studies, but isn't that easy to read without familiarity. I would be interested to know, for the people not eating at least one egg a day, what were those meals instead? It could be a case of "an egg is healthier than [Unknown]" instead of "an egg makes you healthier."
mistersquid 8y ago
One paraphrase of the quote you provide is "Among Chinese adults, consuming less than 1 egg per day is associated with lower risk of CVD". An even simpler paraphrase is "eating less than 1 egg a day is associated with lower CVD". To answer your question directly, one can reasonably infer from the quote you provide that it is best to eat fewer eggs. EDIT: change quantifying adjective from "less" to "fewer"
- tgb 8y ago
  No that's exactly wrong. Consumption of eggs was positively correlated with better CVD outcomes but they only had data to conclude that this holds up to an amount less than 1 egg per day. People with .76 fared better than those with .29 per day.
  - mistersquid 8y ago

your-nanny 8y ago

What is typically eaten alongside eggs in China? Ingredients of food in cuisines are clustered. They cannot be treated as if they were independent. For example egg consumption might be highly correlated with bacon consumption in one population, and spinach in another: the recommendation to eat more eggs based on studies of the latter population might have unintended consequences if adopted by the former.

fencepost 8y ago

Take from this what you can take from many studies of this sort: Eggs have a fair amount of nutrition, and there's no sign of significant downsides or vast advantages to eating them in moderation. It's unlikely that any reputable study is going to show them as a surprise miracle superfood, and if you're consuming them as a major part of your diet that's not "in moderation" and this study is not relevant to you.

aviv 8y ago

It's amazing to me that these studies (and the people who look at them and comment) rarely ever consider the difference between eggs from sick factory farmed chickens on a nasty grain diet, vs. pasture raised chickens fed on grass and forage. People are just that clueless.

emmanuel_1234 8y ago
Do we have indications that it actually makes a significant difference, nutrition-wise?
- aviv 8y ago
  This is one of those things you need to use common sense to realize these diseased animals are not going to have a positive effect on your body. This knee jerk reaction to ask for a full blown research paper on HN is getting out of control.

crb002 8y ago

How much is egg, and how much is having carbs alongside that egg early in the morning? There are some health benefits to intermittent fasting by not eating in the morning.

emtel 8y ago

I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as "an egg", and I'm skeptical that the health effects of consuming eggs can be generalized over all eggs. Try comparing an egg from the cheapest dozen you can buy at the cheapest supermarket in your area against an egg from someone who raises chickens. In my experience the cheap egg will have watery whites and a pale yoke that breaks if you look at it funny. Fry it up and it will basically taste like nothing. The other egg will have a much thicker white, and a yolk that stands up in the bowl, takes considerable work with a fork to really break apart, and is somewhere between orange and bright vivid orange. This egg almost certainly tastes a lot better. Is one healthier than the other? I don't know. But you can tell just by looking at them that they have substantially different compositions.