3 ms·

I went back and read the source paper carefully, and realised this was a mistake on my part. The relevant study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10217054 ht

I went back and read the source paper carefully, and realised this was a mistake on my part. The relevant study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10217054 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10217054 ---- After adjustment for age, smoking, and other potential CHD risk factors, we found no evidence of an overall significant association between egg consumption and risk of CHD or stroke in either men or women. The relative risks (RRs) of CHD across categories of intake were less than 1 per week (1.0), 1 per week (1.06), 2 to 4 per week (1.12), 5 to 6 per week (0.90), and > or =1 per day (1.08) (P for trend = .75) for men; and less than 1 per week (1.0), 1 per week (0.82), 2 to 4 per week (0.99), 5 to 6 per week (0.95), and > or =1 per day (0.82) (P for trend = .95) for women. ---- At face value this seems to imply increased relative risk (1.08) of >=1 egg per day, and that's what I concluded. But reading the results section of the paper, I came across this: ---- Because of the relatively strong correlation between consumption of eggs and bacon, we further adjusted for bacon intake. The adjusted RRs across categories of egg consumption are less than 1 per week (1.0), 1 per week (1.00), 2 to 4 per week (1.04), 5 to 6 per week (0.78), and 1 or more per day (0.93) (P for trend=.36) for men; and less than 1 per week (1.0), 1 per week (0.81), 2 to 4 per week (0.96), 5 to 6 per week (0.91), and 1 or more per day (0.78) (P for trend=.73) for women. Additional adjustment for other foods including whole milk, fish, beef as main dish, chicken, or cereal had little impact on the results. ---- So it looks like 5-6 eggs/week actually resulted in the lowest relative risk of heart disease, at least when the effect of bacon is accounted for. >=1 egg/day resulted in lowered risk as well. It's quite telling that bacon raises the relative risk significantly while meats, milk, and cereals did not. So, sorry I posted misinformation, and thanks for pointing this out. I hope this post helps elucidate the current state of research for anyone reading. I'm actually happy, because I've been eating 5 eggs/day on-and-off lately and was reluctantly considering reducing my intake. Now I get to continue eating dem eggs! (At least, one or two a day...)

beagle3 14y ago
Thanks. It's amazing how many things we believe (and when I say "we", I mean society, including e.g. doctors whose job it is to know better) that have never been scientifically looked at properly -- or worse, were looked at and shown to be wrong. My current list: - dietary cholesterol is bad for you (truth: essentially irrelevant) - serum cholesterol is bad for you (truth: it's a marker, not a cause. apparently, the body makes more of it in an attempt to solve other problems, which will manifest faster if you use statins to reduce cholesterol) - dietary sodium is bad for you (truth: blood pressure is tightly regulated, and dietary sodium has very little to do with serum sodium and blood pressure, unless it is in ridiculous excess. Too little sodium is also harmful) - butter is bad for you. (truth: some is bad, some is good. butter is so ill-defined to make general statements useless. grass-fed organic european style butter is good for you) - you should avoid introducing allergens such as nuts to young kids, lest they develop allergies. (truth: not clear, but observational evidence show inverse correlation between how early you introduce nuts and the prevalence of nut allergies) - weight change is equal to c*(calories in - calories out). (truth: only in the tautologically useless sense. generally wrong the way 99% of the people apply it. nutrition science is anything but) I'm looking for a rigorous study that shows toothpasts are helpful (indeed, that brushing is helpful). Some studies by Weston Price (and his successors) imply that cavities correlate with grain and sugar consumption, and that brushing is not helpful against cavities if the diet is bad.
- creamyhorror 14y ago
  > - serum cholesterol is bad for you (truth: it's a marker, not a cause. apparently, the body makes more of it in an attempt to solve other problems, which will manifest faster if you use statins to reduce cholesterol) That's an interesting (and good) point - if it's (mostly) a marker, actively reducing it without addressing the root cause makes no sense as a strategy. But the probability remains that a high reading indicates underlying problems. The uncertainty lies in whether it's only HDL or LDL that's a negative indicator, or the ratio of HDL to LDL, or a particular subtype, etc. My previous reading of bloggers on this topic only left me more confused. > - butter is bad for you. (truth: some is bad, some is good. butter is so ill-defined to make general statements useless. grass-fed organic european style butter is good for you) I guess it would be easier if it was specified that "high sat-fat butter" is bad for you, or the like. I don't know about the composition or nutritional analysis of grass-fed organic euro-style butter, but I do think it still makes sense to regard saturated fats with suspicion, at least under current studies. Do you have any studies to share on this? > - weight change is equal to c*(calories in - calories out). (truth: only in the tautologically useless sense. generally wrong the way 99% of the people apply it. nutrition science is anything but) I've been wondering if the composition of macronutrients affects the metabolic rate significantly, resulting in increased calories-out. Or if macronutrients are somehow wasted as excess heat, or excreted only half-used. That would clarify the apparent conflict, in my mind. > I'm looking for a rigorous study that shows toothpasts are helpful (indeed, that brushing is helpful). Some studies by Weston Price (and his successors) imply that cavities correlate with grain and sugar consumption, and that brushing is not helpful against cavities if the diet is bad. Not heard anything about this, but such studies would be interesting to read. I've heard doubts and disparagement expressed about the advice given on the Weston Price foundation's website (not about the views of the man himself), though.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    > I guess it would be easier if it was specified that "high sat-fat butter" is bad for you, or the like. I don't know about the composition or nutritional analysis of grass-fed organic euro-style butter, but I do think it still makes sense to regard saturated fats with suspicion, at least under current studies. Do you have any studies to share on this? Apparently, grass fed vs. grain fed does NOT culminate in "high sat-fat" or "low sat fat". There's a lot more, to the point that no one seems to have a better characterization than "healthy cows, grass fed, organic, european style (ver high fat content)". refs: don't have any peer reviewed off hand, but Seth Roberts and Dave Asprey have quite a bit (nothing as high caliber as NEJM or BMJ or nature -- but convincing data nevertheless) > I've been wondering if the composition of macronutrients affects the metabolic rate significantly, resulting in increased calories-out. There are well known thermo-generating nutrients, I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. But there's also a lot to be said about the biome composition (recently shown to control type 2 diabetes in rats, as in cause and cure by replacing gut cultures). > Or if macronutrients are somehow wasted as excess heat, or excreted only half-used Oxidation is the dominant energy conversion mode, but it by no means the only one. Glycolysis is about 20-50 times less efficient, and is used under some circumstances (most notably, but thankfully not commonly, cancer); So assumptions about energy availability are kind of flaky. Not to mention, paper (cellulose) is a carbohydrate - if you assume 4kc/1gr of carbs, you should be able to live well on paper. > I've heard doubts and disparagement expressed about the advice given on the Weston Price foundation's website (not about the views of the man himself), though. I've heard them too - but when they had any specifics, and I tried to verify them, it seemed those doubts were FUD rather than genuine scientific inquiry.

beagle3 14y ago

Thanks. It's amazing how many things we believe (and when I say "we", I mean society, including e.g. doctors whose job it is to know better) that have never been scientifically looked at properly -- or worse, were looked at and shown to be wrong. My current list: - dietary cholesterol is bad for you (truth: essentially irrelevant) - serum cholesterol is bad for you (truth: it's a marker, not a cause. apparently, the body makes more of it in an attempt to solve other problems, which will manifest faster if you use statins to reduce cholesterol) - dietary sodium is bad for you (truth: blood pressure is tightly regulated, and dietary sodium has very little to do with serum sodium and blood pressure, unless it is in ridiculous excess. Too little sodium is also harmful) - butter is bad for you. (truth: some is bad, some is good. butter is so ill-defined to make general statements useless. grass-fed organic european style butter is good for you) - you should avoid introducing allergens such as nuts to young kids, lest they develop allergies. (truth: not clear, but observational evidence show inverse correlation between how early you introduce nuts and the prevalence of nut allergies) - weight change is equal to c*(calories in - calories out). (truth: only in the tautologically useless sense. generally wrong the way 99% of the people apply it. nutrition science is anything but) I'm looking for a rigorous study that shows toothpasts are helpful (indeed, that brushing is helpful). Some studies by Weston Price (and his successors) imply that cavities correlate with grain and sugar consumption, and that brushing is not helpful against cavities if the diet is bad.

creamyhorror 14y ago
> - serum cholesterol is bad for you (truth: it's a marker, not a cause. apparently, the body makes more of it in an attempt to solve other problems, which will manifest faster if you use statins to reduce cholesterol) That's an interesting (and good) point - if it's (mostly) a marker, actively reducing it without addressing the root cause makes no sense as a strategy. But the probability remains that a high reading indicates underlying problems. The uncertainty lies in whether it's only HDL or LDL that's a negative indicator, or the ratio of HDL to LDL, or a particular subtype, etc. My previous reading of bloggers on this topic only left me more confused. > - butter is bad for you. (truth: some is bad, some is good. butter is so ill-defined to make general statements useless. grass-fed organic european style butter is good for you) I guess it would be easier if it was specified that "high sat-fat butter" is bad for you, or the like. I don't know about the composition or nutritional analysis of grass-fed organic euro-style butter, but I do think it still makes sense to regard saturated fats with suspicion, at least under current studies. Do you have any studies to share on this? > - weight change is equal to c*(calories in - calories out). (truth: only in the tautologically useless sense. generally wrong the way 99% of the people apply it. nutrition science is anything but) I've been wondering if the composition of macronutrients affects the metabolic rate significantly, resulting in increased calories-out. Or if macronutrients are somehow wasted as excess heat, or excreted only half-used. That would clarify the apparent conflict, in my mind. > I'm looking for a rigorous study that shows toothpasts are helpful (indeed, that brushing is helpful). Some studies by Weston Price (and his successors) imply that cavities correlate with grain and sugar consumption, and that brushing is not helpful against cavities if the diet is bad. Not heard anything about this, but such studies would be interesting to read. I've heard doubts and disparagement expressed about the advice given on the Weston Price foundation's website (not about the views of the man himself), though.
- beagle3 14y ago
  > I guess it would be easier if it was specified that "high sat-fat butter" is bad for you, or the like. I don't know about the composition or nutritional analysis of grass-fed organic euro-style butter, but I do think it still makes sense to regard saturated fats with suspicion, at least under current studies. Do you have any studies to share on this? Apparently, grass fed vs. grain fed does NOT culminate in "high sat-fat" or "low sat fat". There's a lot more, to the point that no one seems to have a better characterization than "healthy cows, grass fed, organic, european style (ver high fat content)". refs: don't have any peer reviewed off hand, but Seth Roberts and Dave Asprey have quite a bit (nothing as high caliber as NEJM or BMJ or nature -- but convincing data nevertheless) > I've been wondering if the composition of macronutrients affects the metabolic rate significantly, resulting in increased calories-out. There are well known thermo-generating nutrients, I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. But there's also a lot to be said about the biome composition (recently shown to control type 2 diabetes in rats, as in cause and cure by replacing gut cultures). > Or if macronutrients are somehow wasted as excess heat, or excreted only half-used Oxidation is the dominant energy conversion mode, but it by no means the only one. Glycolysis is about 20-50 times less efficient, and is used under some circumstances (most notably, but thankfully not commonly, cancer); So assumptions about energy availability are kind of flaky. Not to mention, paper (cellulose) is a carbohydrate - if you assume 4kc/1gr of carbs, you should be able to live well on paper. > I've heard doubts and disparagement expressed about the advice given on the Weston Price foundation's website (not about the views of the man himself), though. I've heard them too - but when they had any specifics, and I tried to verify them, it seemed those doubts were FUD rather than genuine scientific inquiry.