Some excerpts from the article below. I almost didn’t post it when I saw it was funded by an egg company, but it’s interesting.
Researchers randomly assigned people to eat either 12 fortified eggs per week or to eat fewer than two eggs of any kind per week. People could cook the eggs however they liked.
In the study, after following participants for four months, researchers did not see any adverse effects on cardiovascular health among people who ate 12 fortified eggs per week.
For example, blood cholesterol levels were similar between people who regularly ate fortified eggs and those who ate few or no eggs.
People in the fortified egg group also had a reduction in their total cholesterol level, insulin resistance scores, and high-sensitivity troponin (a marker of heart damage). They even saw an increase in their vitamin B levels.
In addition, “there were signals of potential benefits of eating fortified eggs that warrant further investigation in larger studies,” Nouhravesh said in the release.
In particular, there were possible benefits of eating fortified eggs among older adults and those with diabetes, including a rise in HDL (“good”) cholesterol and a decrease in LDL (“bad”) cholesterol.
The results of the study, which was funded by Eggland’s Best, have not been published yet in a peer-reviewed journal, so should be viewed with caution.
I see those egg council creeps got to you too
Looks like it.
See my other comment about my personal experience - definitely an interesting subject.
Here’s a funny one: it’s pretty well established that the giant jump in concern about dietary fat in the 60s came from things paid for by the sugar lobby.
Ohho no, Homer you got it all wrong - I-It’s not like that!
You’d better run, egg!
If you get your diet info from sources that profit from your attention you’re forever going to be confused about whether eggs are deadly and your wine makes you live longer.
Someone not willing to learn should get their advice from a dietician if that’s an option. Those willing to learn should dive a bit deeper and question assumptions. This article assumes cholesterol is bad and should be minimized. Is that true? Why? How does cholesterol operate in my body? Who might be profiting from this assumption? Is cholesterol a major factor in a sugar metabolism disease (diabetes)?
Seems like many dieticians still promote diets based purely on the lipid hypothesis, so I support your position in theory, in practice it doesn’t always seem quite that simple.
You’re not wrong.
About 20% of cholesterol comes from direct consumption. And about 80% comes from sugars and fats. According to this article (https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/about/newsroom/articles/how-is-cholesterol-produced). Cholesterol is the parent compound to all the steroidal hormones, including pregnenalone, DHEA, testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, and vitamin D. So one needs cholesterol, just not too much of it. Oxidized cholesterol turns out to be associated with pathophysiology, in atherosclerosis (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7836017/), and Alzheimers disease (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4473000/) One needs sugars and fats, but the amount is dependent on how one uses those compounds. And the body uses them in all sort of ways, including energy production for exercise.
It’s a subject I’m always curious about - not eggs specifically, but cholesterol intake, serum cholesterol, and heart disease.
A few years ago, I had a physical and my doctor said my cholesterol was high, but he also said there was a contraindicator, and he didn’t want to put me on statens unnecessarily, so he had my get a coronary calcium scan, which is like a CT scan of your torso and they can measure how much buildup is in your arteries. The ranges are:
- 0 = no calcified plaque detected (risk of coronary artery disease is very low – less than 5%)
- 1-10 = calcium detected in extremely minimal levels (risk of coronary diseases is still low – less than 10%)
- 11-100 = mild levels of plaque detected with certainty (minimal narrowing of heart arteries is likely)
- 101-300 = moderate levels of plaque detected (relatively high risk of a heart attack within 3-5 years)
- 300-400 = extensive levels of plaque detected (very high risk of heart attack, high levels of vascular disease are present)
I was in my late 50s, so something like 50 would be typical, but it came back as zero. I had relatively high cholesterol, but zero plaque buildup in my arteries relatively late in life.
I’m told that the relationship between cholesterol intake and heart disease isn’t well understood, and that there’s certainly a genetic component. Articles and studies like this one always catch my eye.
Cholesterol, low density lipoprotein and atherosclerosis are three separate topics. Trying to take shortcuts may result in getting the wrong idea of what’s going on. Cholesterol does work as a decent indicator, but it isn’t guaranteed to work every time. Apparently you are one of the many exceptions to the general rule of thumb.
What’s a “fortified egg”?
one that’s dug in and prepared for a long defense. ideally they’d have gathered supplies of weapons, ammo, repair and maintenance tools, food, water and medicine. preparing static obstacles to funnel attacking forces into potential kill zones, preferably covered by crew served weapons with large amounts of overlap makes the enemy pay for every step they take towards the egg.
We have known for years that dietary cholestorol does not directly translate to blood cholestorol. More confirmation still good, but this is not exactly new information.
University of Granada in Spain has made many studies including a multi year one of people consuming eggs. Conclusion: you can eat as much as you want.
I had a high cholesterol reading that coincided with me eating a lot of eggs all of a sudden (I bought a lot when the price went down after the first ridiculous price gouging and then needed to finish them before they expired) but I was eating 4+ eggs a day and maybe the sudden diet change contributed. I think there’s some correlation between eating eggs and increased cholesterol levels, but what I’m wondering more about is the effects of cholesterol itself. It can depend on the individual and it’s not necessarily as simple as a single number. It wasn’t that long ago when cholesterol was just assumed bad and there wasn’t even a distinction between “good” and “bad” cholesterol.
I mentioned in a top -level comment in the thread that I had high cholesterol, but my doctor had me do a coronary calcium scan, which said I had zero plaque buildup in my arteries (and I’m an older guy). So apparently high cholesterol doesn’t necessarily equate to heart disease.
I don’t think you can make a study about “fortified” eggs and apply the findings to normal eggs (look at the title). Also The Big Egg funding is certainly a red flag, as well as article being in the headlines even though it’s not even published yet. I’m honestly sceptical.
regardless, chickens don’t deserve what we do to them. It’s time to stop
