Eggs Are Bad for You

Diet and Nutrition
21

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]

Which “physiological fact” are you referencing in particular?
[/quote]

Perhaps that nutrient wise one of the healthiest foods on the planet… oh wait, that would be why they are good for you

22

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]
You should read more than just the article. Read the sources too. I read the article and am going through the citations. There are a number of issues I see in some of the studies he cited. This is the problem with quoting things as “physiological facts”. His conclusions are based on the conclusions of others without actually looking deeply into their data which is one of the pervasive problems with research these days.
[/quote]
Yes, you are correct. Too much emphasis is placed on the ‘story’ rather than correct citations these days. All too often citations are second to the article rather than actually making the article. This is happening too much with MDs and worst of all on ‘review’ articles.

You have to remember that these guys don’t do their own original research. So all they are doing is telling a story from their own perspective. That on its own is worthless. But if there is substantive evidence backing it up, it can help shift the direction of research. More research in these new directions is what will change dogmatic believe, not one article.

23

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]

Which “physiological fact” are you referencing in particular?
[/quote]
That dietary cholesterol does do harm to the body.

24

[quote]tork94 wrote:

[quote]tolismann wrote:

[quote]tork94 wrote:
I was just diagnosed with an egg allergy, so im going to be completely cutting them out for 4-6 weeks and slowly add them back in and get re-tested[/quote] What are the symptoms of such an allergy ?
[/quote]

well mine isnt to serious or really all that noticeable, but a bit of gas and sort of an uneasy feeling after having lots of eggs, seemed much more noticeable when stressed out.

I really love eggs and know they have a lot of good stuff in them so im hoping it will reverse itself
[/quote]

I get nasty dirty egg farts but I don’t think that has any relation to my egg consumption, my farts are just nasty.

25

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]

Which “physiological fact” are you referencing in particular?
[/quote]

Perhaps that nutrient wise one of the healthiest foods on the planet… oh wait, that would be why they are good for you[/quote]
There is no question that there are many beneficial nutrients in eggs. But does that mean there cannot be something bad in there as well?

26

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]

Which “physiological fact” are you referencing in particular?
[/quote]

Perhaps that nutrient wise one of the healthiest foods on the planet… oh wait, that would be why they are good for you[/quote]
There is no question that there are many beneficial nutrients in eggs. But does that mean there cannot be something bad in there as well?[/quote]

Depends on how the chicken is raised…if a chicken comes from a dirty factory, then you will have chicken that lay dirty eggs. If they are grass fed chickens, the nutrient levels will be more abundant and life giving.

27

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]
You should read more than just the article. Read the sources too. I read the article and am going through the citations. There are a number of issues I see in some of the studies he cited. This is the problem with quoting things as “physiological facts”. His conclusions are based on the conclusions of others without actually looking deeply into their data which is one of the pervasive problems with research these days.
[/quote]
Yes, you are correct. Too much emphasis is placed on the ‘story’ rather than correct citations these days. All too often citations are second to the article rather than actually making the article. This is happening too much with MDs and worst of all on ‘review’ articles.

You have to remember that these guys don’t do their own original research. So all they are doing is telling a story from their own perspective. That on its own is worthless. But if there is substantive evidence backing it up, it can help shift the direction of research. More research in these new directions is what will change dogmatic believe, not one article.[/quote]

I’m having a hard time understanding how you can agree with what I’m saying, basically word for word, yet come to the conclusion that this person is still right. He tells a story using citations he probably didn’t read critically and spins a story without the evidence he needs. Many of the studies he cites are flawed in one way or another (methodology) and that in no way proves his point. Now these facts alone don’t disprove his point, other research needs to be cited to do that, but these facts lead to the conclusion that he doesn’t prove his point either. Basically, the article you cited in no way supports your argument.

28

So, in conclusion: Anything that tastes good, builds muscle and/or is produced by animals, is bad for you. Let’s all become vegetarians, so we can be weak and fat.

29

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]

dude, you are aware there are tons of studies that say just the opposite of this. Eggs are one of the healthiest foods you can eat. Where is their proof, actual proof, eggs are bad for you. sorry, but i didn’t see any concrete evidence to support that.

30

How has nobody else run into this when trying to access the article?

Blocked by Websense

Internet use policy restricts access to this web page at this time.

Reason:
This Websense category is filtered: Marijuana.

URL:
Egg Cholesterol in the Diet | NutritionFacts.org

31

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]

Which “physiological fact” are you referencing in particular?
[/quote]

Perhaps that nutrient wise one of the healthiest foods on the planet… oh wait, that would be why they are good for you[/quote]
There is no question that there are many beneficial nutrients in eggs. But does that mean there cannot be something bad in there as well?[/quote]

Sure there could be. What is it? This radical vegan MD that put out the video claims eggs are bad for you because they “increase inflammation” in endothelial tissue. Which substances? The fatty acids in a typical egg yolk are:

Unsaturates:

Oleic (yes, the olive oil fatty acid) 47%
linoleic 16%
palmitoleic 5%
linolenic (omega 3) 2%

saturates:

palmitic 23%
stearic 4%
myristic 1%

In fact, here is what is in an egg yolk:

Chicken egg, yolk, raw, fresh
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy 1,325 kJ (317 kcal)
Carbohydrates 3.59 g
Fat 26.54 g
Protein 15.86 g

  • Tryptophan 0.177 g
  • Threonine 0.687 g
  • Isoleucine 0.866 g
  • Leucine 1.399 g
  • Lysine 1.217 g
  • Methionine 0.378 g
  • Cystine 0.264 g
  • Phenylalanine 0.681 g
  • Tyrosine 0.678 g
  • Valine 0.949 g
  • Arginine 1.099 g
  • Histidine 0.416 g
  • Alanine 0.836 g
  • Aspartic acid 1.550 g
  • Glutamic acid 1.970 g
  • Glycine 0.488 g
  • Proline 0.646 g
  • Serine 1.326 g
    Water 52.31 g
    Vitamin A equiv. 381 �¼g (48%)
    Thiamine (vit. B1) 0.176 mg (15%)
    Riboflavin (vit. B2) 0.528 mg (44%)
    Pantothenic acid (B5) 2.990 mg (60%)
    Folate (vit. B9) 146 �¼g (37%)
    Calcium 129 mg (13%)
    Iron 2.73 mg (21%)
    Magnesium 5 mg (1%)
    Phosphorus 390 mg (56%)
    Potassium 109 mg (2%)
    Zinc 2.30 mg (24%)
    Choline 682.3 mg
    Cholesterol 234 mg
    One large egg contains 17 grams of yolk.

Lecithin

Lutein

zeaxanthins

carotenoids

I’m not seeing anything that would remotely promote inflammation, like an oxidized polyunsaturate.

[/quote]

I believe that a lot of eggs from caged hens are high in arachidonic acid, which can cause inflammation, it can be pretty dire for people suffering from IBD’s.

Omega 3 eggs are a lot lower in arachidonic acid I believe as it displaces it.

I have always eaten about 10 eggs a day and I have decent cholesterol levels. I also eat pots of double cream each day.

32

I don’t eat egg-yolks just suck back a lot of egg-whites. Chances are if you are young, workout, do some cardio and your cholesterol metabolism isn’t all messed up, you can get away with eating a lot of egg-yolks.

Then again human bodies are adapted to hunter-gatherer societies where we spent 99.9% of our time as a species.
Even young children who die in car crashes etc are found to have some level of atherosclerosis, that all of us have some level of heart-disease. So unless you live like a hunter-gatherer or tribal you are not taking care of your heart as well as you think you are.

So, it’s something to consider. You can probably get away with it, whether it’s healthy considering the modern human lifestyle, (even modern athletes and power houses) it’s probably a bad idea, in the long run.

33

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]

Which “physiological fact” are you referencing in particular?
[/quote]

Perhaps that nutrient wise one of the healthiest foods on the planet… oh wait, that would be why they are good for you[/quote]
There is no question that there are many beneficial nutrients in eggs. But does that mean there cannot be something bad in there as well?[/quote]

Sure there could be. What is it? This radical vegan MD that put out the video claims eggs are bad for you because they “increase inflammation” in endothelial tissue. Which substances? The fatty acids in a typical egg yolk are:

Unsaturates:

Oleic (yes, the olive oil fatty acid) 47%
linoleic 16%
palmitoleic 5%
linolenic (omega 3) 2%

saturates:

palmitic 23%
stearic 4%
myristic 1%

In fact, here is what is in an egg yolk:

Chicken egg, yolk, raw, fresh
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy 1,325 kJ (317 kcal)
Carbohydrates 3.59 g
Fat 26.54 g
Protein 15.86 g

  • Tryptophan 0.177 g
  • Threonine 0.687 g
  • Isoleucine 0.866 g
  • Leucine 1.399 g
  • Lysine 1.217 g
  • Methionine 0.378 g
  • Cystine 0.264 g
  • Phenylalanine 0.681 g
  • Tyrosine 0.678 g
  • Valine 0.949 g
  • Arginine 1.099 g
  • Histidine 0.416 g
  • Alanine 0.836 g
  • Aspartic acid 1.550 g
  • Glutamic acid 1.970 g
  • Glycine 0.488 g
  • Proline 0.646 g
  • Serine 1.326 g
    Water 52.31 g
    Vitamin A equiv. 381 �¼g (48%)
    Thiamine (vit. B1) 0.176 mg (15%)
    Riboflavin (vit. B2) 0.528 mg (44%)
    Pantothenic acid (B5) 2.990 mg (60%)
    Folate (vit. B9) 146 �¼g (37%)
    Calcium 129 mg (13%)
    Iron 2.73 mg (21%)
    Magnesium 5 mg (1%)
    Phosphorus 390 mg (56%)
    Potassium 109 mg (2%)
    Zinc 2.30 mg (24%)
    Choline 682.3 mg
    Cholesterol 234 mg
    One large egg contains 17 grams of yolk.

Lecithin

Lutein

zeaxanthins

carotenoids

I’m not seeing anything that would remotely promote inflammation, like an oxidized polyunsaturate.

[/quote]
We have to agree to disagree here. I believe cholesterol is the most concerning here.
Dietary cholesterol is packaged into lipoproteins and secreted into the systemic circulation were their uptake through conventional pathways is dependant on proper lipolysis and apolipoprotein transfer. Lipoproteins with abnormal composition (increased cholesterol for instance) have an increased plasma residency time and form abnormal (surprise) remnants.
Endothelial cells have a greater involvement in lipid metabolism than is generally thought of. Depending on the endothelial phenotype (there are many different ones), the remnant lipoproteins are taken up and sent down several pathways. One of these pathways breaks the lipoprotein apart and can overload the cell with cholesterol. Other pathways involve an exagerated exposure to endogenously produced reactive oxygen species and thereby producing oxidised lipids.
Nonetheless, a unified mechanism that explains all observations still eludes us. Unfortunately I cannot give you a better answer than that. I will say though that we routinely use cholesterol feeding in rodents to induce endothelial dysfunction.

34

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]
You should read more than just the article. Read the sources too. I read the article and am going through the citations. There are a number of issues I see in some of the studies he cited. This is the problem with quoting things as “physiological facts”. His conclusions are based on the conclusions of others without actually looking deeply into their data which is one of the pervasive problems with research these days.
[/quote]
Yes, you are correct. Too much emphasis is placed on the ‘story’ rather than correct citations these days. All too often citations are second to the article rather than actually making the article. This is happening too much with MDs and worst of all on ‘review’ articles.

You have to remember that these guys don’t do their own original research. So all they are doing is telling a story from their own perspective. That on its own is worthless. But if there is substantive evidence backing it up, it can help shift the direction of research. More research in these new directions is what will change dogmatic believe, not one article.[/quote]

I’m having a hard time understanding how you can agree with what I’m saying, basically word for word, yet come to the conclusion that this person is still right. He tells a story using citations he probably didn’t read critically and spins a story without the evidence he needs. Many of the studies he cites are flawed in one way or another (methodology) and that in no way proves his point. Now these facts alone don’t disprove his point, other research needs to be cited to do that, but these facts lead to the conclusion that he doesn’t prove his point either. Basically, the article you cited in no way supports your argument.
[/quote]
I do agree with you. The article is poorly referenced, but the concepts are not without merit. For those scientifically minded can easily find articles to support the ideas. For those not, they will not care about references (or know what to do with them) and do not really have any reason discredit the work other than they do not agree.
BTW, that article was the article referenced in the video. I merely posted a link so people can read it.

35

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]

dude, you are aware there are tons of studies that say just the opposite of this. Eggs are one of the healthiest foods you can eat. Where is their proof, actual proof, eggs are bad for you. sorry, but i didn’t see any concrete evidence to support that.[/quote]
For many people the only way they will accept an idea is to see a well designed blinded clinical trial. Which is fine. People require different levels of proof before they are willing to accept ideas.
Unfortunately, in most cases, there is no drive to support such studies. Nobody is going to fund a proper study to see if eggs are good or bad for humans.
We have the capability to image in humans, in real time, the production of reactive oxygen species, inflammation, endothelial dysfunction and blood flow. That is more than enough to figure out if eggs are good or bad. But it is soo damn expensive and a publication would barely make a ripple.

EDIT: For those interested, I still eat whole eggs everyday.

36

Modok, I realise you are a very smart and accomplished individual. I was in no way trying to blow smoke in front of your eyes. If you do not agree with my views on endothelial cell - lipoprotein interaction, I suggest you perform your own literature search. You may be surprised what you find.

But to address your most recent comments.
Firstly, chylomicrons are lipoproteins. It is quite obvious we are talking in a dietary context and in a public forum. I did not feel it necessary to make that distinction.
Secondly, I said blinded - not double blinded. It is obvious a double blinded study is not correct.

I should really not have expected 100 words to make any kind of a persuasive argument, but I feel I am wasting both our time continuing this discussion.

37

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Yup, MD’s can dispense all the nutritional information they want, whether they are right or wrong and regardless of their level of knowledge. And there will always be well-meaning people who follow their recommendations blindly. “Well he’s a doctor” they’ll say, even as they see their health failing. [/quote]

So is Dr. Kevorkian, and Michael Jackson’s doctor.
The eggs and high cholesterol myth was debunked at least 12 years ago. It was started as a lobbying effort by the wheat famers’ council to get people to eat more breakfast cereals, FFS. Next thing you know people are going to believe Chik Fill-A’s ads with cows telling people to eat more chicken are authoritative.[/quote]
The article isn’t about eggs and high cholesterol. It even says in it that eating lots of eggs barely does anything to your cholesterol levels. But that doesn’t change the fact that eating eggs isn’t too good for your body. That also doesn’t mean if you eat eggs you will have a heart attack, but it does have a negative impact on your body.[/quote]

Makes total sense that something that has been around for millions of years and sustained life for numerous animals would be poisonous for us humans, get outta here with your bad info
[/quote]
Things don’t need to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to be a physiological fact.
Just read the article and then we can discuss their findings. Perhaps we may come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]

Which “physiological fact” are you referencing in particular?
[/quote]

Perhaps that nutrient wise one of the healthiest foods on the planet… oh wait, that would be why they are good for you[/quote]
There is no question that there are many beneficial nutrients in eggs. But does that mean there cannot be something bad in there as well?[/quote]

Sure there could be. What is it? This radical vegan MD that put out the video claims eggs are bad for you because they “increase inflammation” in endothelial tissue. Which substances? The fatty acids in a typical egg yolk are:

Unsaturates:

Oleic (yes, the olive oil fatty acid) 47%
linoleic 16%
palmitoleic 5%
linolenic (omega 3) 2%

saturates:

palmitic 23%
stearic 4%
myristic 1%

In fact, here is what is in an egg yolk:

Chicken egg, yolk, raw, fresh
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy 1,325 kJ (317 kcal)
Carbohydrates 3.59 g
Fat 26.54 g
Protein 15.86 g

  • Tryptophan 0.177 g
  • Threonine 0.687 g
  • Isoleucine 0.866 g
  • Leucine 1.399 g
  • Lysine 1.217 g
  • Methionine 0.378 g
  • Cystine 0.264 g
  • Phenylalanine 0.681 g
  • Tyrosine 0.678 g
  • Valine 0.949 g
  • Arginine 1.099 g
  • Histidine 0.416 g
  • Alanine 0.836 g
  • Aspartic acid 1.550 g
  • Glutamic acid 1.970 g
  • Glycine 0.488 g
  • Proline 0.646 g
  • Serine 1.326 g
    Water 52.31 g
    Vitamin A equiv. 381 �??�?�¼g (48%)
    Thiamine (vit. B1) 0.176 mg (15%)
    Riboflavin (vit. B2) 0.528 mg (44%)
    Pantothenic acid (B5) 2.990 mg (60%)
    Folate (vit. B9) 146 �??�?�¼g (37%)
    Calcium 129 mg (13%)
    Iron 2.73 mg (21%)
    Magnesium 5 mg (1%)
    Phosphorus 390 mg (56%)
    Potassium 109 mg (2%)
    Zinc 2.30 mg (24%)
    Choline 682.3 mg
    Cholesterol 234 mg
    One large egg contains 17 grams of yolk.

Lecithin

Lutein

zeaxanthins

carotenoids

I’m not seeing anything that would remotely promote inflammation, like an oxidized polyunsaturate.

[/quote]
We have to agree to disagree here. I believe cholesterol is the most concerning here.
Dietary cholesterol is packaged into lipoproteins and secreted into the systemic circulation were their uptake through conventional pathways is dependant on proper lipolysis and apolipoprotein transfer. Lipoproteins with abnormal composition (increased cholesterol for instance) have an increased plasma residency time and form abnormal (surprise) remnants.
Endothelial cells have a greater involvement in lipid metabolism than is generally thought of. Depending on the endothelial phenotype (there are many different ones), the remnant lipoproteins are taken up and sent down several pathways. One of these pathways breaks the lipoprotein apart and can overload the cell with cholesterol. Other pathways involve an exagerated exposure to endogenously produced reactive oxygen species and thereby producing oxidised lipids.
Nonetheless, a unified mechanism that explains all observations still eludes us. Unfortunately I cannot give you a better answer than that. I will say though that we routinely use cholesterol feeding in rodents to induce endothelial dysfunction.
[/quote]

Dietary cholesterol is packaged into chylomicrons, not lipoproteins but your goofy, made-up diatribe would probably fool most everyone that isn’t trained in biochemistry. You chose the wrong guy to try to snow on this stuff. You and I both know everything you just wrote is mumbo jumbo bullshit without a shred of science behind it. Good job stringing together “oxidised (sp), lipoprotein, and reactive oxygen species” though. The next step for you is looking up what each term means and what role they play in physiology.

There are some funny goobers on this site.[/quote]

Chylomicron is a lipoprotein particle…

Pseudo-science on t nation is entertaining!

38

How about egg YELLOWS vs. egg WHITES? I used to train as a bodybuilder and my understanding was that “bodybuilders eat egg whites” so I ate many. But now I’m a competitive powerlifter and still only eat the whites. When I order eggs at a restaurant I get to sound like a health snob, so I think I’ll stick with the whites until I hear a good reason to eat the yellows.

39

the yellow bit is the chicks soul - some good shit in there you’re missing

40

[quote]Vortura wrote:
How about egg YELLOWS vs. egg WHITES? I used to train as a bodybuilder and my understanding was that “bodybuilders eat egg whites” so I ate many. But now I’m a competitive powerlifter and still only eat the whites. When I order eggs at a restaurant I get to sound like a health snob, so I think I’ll stick with the whites until I hear a good reason to eat the yellows. [/quote]

The yolk is where all the nutrition in an egg is.
White = protein (the high score egg protein gets comes from the yolk protein)
Yolk = protein, good fat, trace amounts of vitamins and minerals, choline, lutein and zeaxanthin, etc

My Grandmother would back hand me for throwing out the yolks.