Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is just an opinion piece, one that is filled with fallacies, and does little to debunk the study that was conducted. But one is always going to be able to find some problems with individual studies due to ethical limitations on study design. But this is by no means the only recent study that demonstrates the harmful effects of egg yolks.
I was amused that he says that paleoanthropologists tell us that eggs have been part of our diet since the "stone age" when they say no such thing, that is pure speculation and we have no idea whether eggs were consumed because egg consumption would leave very little evidence.
Why? It has nothing to do with veganism but instead the naturalistic fallacy.
This is just an opinion piece, one that is filled with fallacies, and does little to debunk the study that was conducted. But one is always going to be able to find some problems with individual studies due to ethical limitations on study design. But this is by no means the only recent study that demonstrates the harmful effects of egg yolks.
I was amused that he says that paleoanthropologists tell us that eggs have been part of our diet since the "stone age" when they say no such thing, that is pure speculation and we have no idea whether eggs were consumed because egg consumption would leave very little evidence.
What's amusing is you say that my pieces are all just opinion pieces, the direct counter to one of your pieces is just a fallacy, but your Time article even states right in it:
Quote:
However, the study’s findings raised brows among other health experts, ABC News reports:
[C]ardiologists say the study shouldn’t be taken so seriously because the research is flawed.
“This is very poor quality research that should not influence patient’s dietary choices,” said Dr. Steven Nissen, who chairs the department of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, in an email. “It is extremely important to understand the differences between ‘association’ and ‘causation’.”
Nissen said the researchers relied on patients to recall how many eggs they consumed, but asked them once and assumed it remained constant, which isn’t reliable. He said the way researchers measured patients’ plaque has come under “considerable criticism,” and that researchers failed to adjust for other dietary factors.
Not to mention the Time article and the rttnews article were the same thing. I guess pieces that are posted in the NYTimes and on Time are more "solid" pieces of evidence and pieces posted by Harvard School of Health, posted by John Berardi, Ph.D.Founder, Precision Nutrition, Precision Nutrition, posted by nutrition experts, even posted with the evidence right in them:
Quote:
First, the research
Most epidemiological research — the kind of research that studies large populations over time and analyzes their diets and their health — has found no connection between eating eggs and increases in heart disease. On the other hand, controlled clinical studies — where researchers feed subjects specific amounts of cholesterol and measure the effect on blood — do show a slight increase in blood cholesterol with increases in dietary cholesterol, though how much depends on genetic factors.
Quote:
A 2012 study in the journal Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care covers several studies that found that individuals who consume moderate amounts of eggs are not observed to have increases in cholesterol when compared to individuals who cut eggs out of their diets entirely.
Quote:
When scientists learned that high blood cholesterol was associated with heart disease, foods high in cholesterol logically became suspect. But after 25 years of study, it has become evident that cholesterol in food is not the culprit -- saturated fat has a much bigger effect on blood cholesterol. Full-fat dairy products and fatty meats are examples of foods that are loaded with saturated fat and which trigger the body to produce cholesterol.
are less trustworthy? At least read the opposite side's theories before saying "they lack evidence" when even one of your own pieces found itself wanting. I requoted the parts so it would be easier to see more people say eggs are fine than those that say they are bad. They also have more conclusive studies compared to asking someone how many eggs they eat.
The TMAO study has some merit but it is new and will require much more study
Why? It has nothing to do with veganism but instead the naturalistic fallacy.
My nutrition coach considers eggs to be a healthy fat/cholesterol/protein as do many others.
She used to be a vegan for a couple of years but had to stop that diet because for one, she developed thyroid problems and she wasn't losing any weight.
I suspect that steering away from some healthy and good meat, eggs, and other saturated fats may be causing other problems in certain people.
Why eat a bunch of tofu, beans and quinoa when proper portions of grass fed beef, eggs, free range meats without hormones steroids nitrates and nitrites etc., and wild caught cold water fish might be better for you and more tasty? Especially given the thread title here and this subforum category?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I'm not sure what you're trying to say but I was responding to what the other poster cited which was, in fact, an opinion piece.....and not an actual piece of research. An opinion piece doesn't refute peer reviewed studies
I don't know about y'all, but I don't personally consider my own experience, my own body, nor my own current good health to be an opinion piece.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Well your nutrition coach has an opinion that is outside of mainstream science.
People have no dietary need for saturated fat, our bodies can create it, we only have a dietary need for omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids which are primarily found in nuts, seeds, some vegetables and some seafood.
Because the consumption of whole grains and legumes has been consistently linked to lower body weight, lower rates of heart disease, lower rates of diabetes, etc....while the opposite can be said of beef and eggs. Saturated fat is not considered a "good fat", the "good fats" refer to polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats which are primarily found in plant foods and some seafood.
Fish rich in omega-3 may have some benefits, but one shouldn't eat more than 3~4 servings of fish a week due to mercury and other pollutants.
And, just to note, all meats have hormones....hormones are a natural part of any animal flesh. Also, what one finds "more tasty" is obviously a matter of personal opinion. While I don't touch quinoa, its pricey and doesn't taste like much, I eat plenty of oats, whole wheat, barley, rye, etc and find them to be rather tasty. I'll take some toasted whole wheat bread with some sliced avocado (a source of healthy fats) over beef or eggs any day.
I could care less about mainstream science. Most people in the US are fat to morbidly obese. I'll listen to a healthy nutritionist thankyouverymuch.
Quinoa can be made to taste very good mixed with certain veggies, black beans, chili powder cumin cayenne pepper etc and some juice from a lemon. I ate this stuff and beans with no meat nor dairy nor eggs for about a month.
I plateaued on the weight loss and was dizzy. I started eating some eggs and felt immediately better.
I backed off on the beans and rice and started eating sensible portions of meat and off the weight came without any effort on my part.
Keep in mind that I balance out every meal with something like this;
50% greens and other low starch veggies
25% healthy protein including healthy meats, eggs, etc.
12.5% other carbs
12.5% healthy fats including butter evoo and some olive oil, coconut oil, avocados, seed and nuts, fats from eggs and other healthy meats, etc.
12.5% fruit.
I'm not even going there with you on grains, "whole" wheat, rye etc. I love bread but just will not do it. It's as if I get addicted to it.
I'm becoming well versed on the omega 3 to omega 6 ratio and how it should be 1 to 4 or even as high as 1 to 2 but how some Americans eating fast food all the time can be as low as one to 20.
The fish I'm talking about eating, wild caught cold water fish is less prone to some of the dangers, and I'm shooting for just a couple of servings per week. I probably don't eat enough of it yet.
What's amusing is you say that my pieces are all just opinion pieces, the direct counter to one of your pieces is just a fallacy, but your Time article even states right in it:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say but I was responding to what the other poster cited which was, in fact, an opinion piece.....and not an actual piece of research. An opinion piece doesn't refute peer reviewed studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmedes2
are less trustworthy? At least read the opposite side's theories before saying "they lack evidence" when even one of your own pieces found itself wanting.
Its not a matter of their "trustworthiness", instead the details and design of the study as such quoting a few sentences from researchers doesn't say much. Some studies have not found a link between eggs in "moderate amounts" (usually < 7 week) and heart disease but these studies are typically looking at a population with relatively high cholesterol intake. But a number of studies have found associations with lower amounts.
In any case, your claim that new research has determined eggs to be "just fine" is not accurate. There aren't any new studies that demonstrate that eating large amounts of eggs is safe, rather the opposite, you see consist links between heart disease and egg consumption beyond relatively low amounts.
Eggs are pretty easy to avoid, but if one really wants to eat them they can eat egg whites and avoid all the cholesterol and fat.
My nutrition coach considers eggs to be a healthy fat/cholesterol/protein as do many others.
I suspect that steering away from some healthy and good meat, eggs, and other saturated fats may be causing other problems in certain people.
Well your nutrition coach has an opinion that is outside of mainstream science.
People have no dietary need for saturated fat, our bodies can create it, we only have a dietary need for omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids which are primarily found in nuts, seeds, some vegetables and some seafood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog
Why eat a bunch of tofu, beans and quinoa when proper portions of grass fed beef, eggs, free range meats without hormones steroids nitrates and nitrites etc., and wild caught cold water fish might be better for you and more tasty?
Because the consumption of whole grains and legumes has been consistently linked to lower body weight, lower rates of heart disease, lower rates of diabetes, etc....while the opposite can be said of beef and eggs. But with the exception of tofu, the mentioned foods aren't a significant source of fat. If we're discussing fat, then the comparison should be to nuts, seeds, avocado, etc.
Fish rich in omega-3 may have some benefits, but one shouldn't eat more than 3~4 servings of fish a week due to mercury and other pollutants.
And, just to note, all meats have hormones....hormones are a natural part of any animal flesh. Also, what one finds "more tasty" is obviously a matter of personal opinion. While I don't touch quinoa, its pricey and doesn't taste like much, I eat plenty of oats, whole wheat, barley, rye, etc and find them to be rather tasty. I'll take some toasted whole wheat bread with some sliced avocado (a source of healthy fats) over beef or eggs any day.
Well your nutrition coach has an opinion that is outside of mainstream science.
People have no dietary need for saturated fat, our bodies can create it, we only have a dietary need for omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids which are primarily found in nuts, seeds, some vegetables and some seafood.
Because the consumption of whole grains and legumes has been consistently linked to lower body weight, lower rates of heart disease, lower rates of diabetes, etc....while the opposite can be said of beef and eggs. But with the exception of tofu, the mentioned foods aren't a significant source of fat. If we're discussing fat, then the comparison should be to nuts, seeds, avocado, etc.
Fish rich in omega-3 may have some benefits, but one shouldn't eat more than 3~4 servings of fish a week due to mercury and other pollutants.
And, just to note, all meats have hormones....hormones are a natural part of any animal flesh. Also, what one finds "more tasty" is obviously a matter of personal opinion. While I don't touch quinoa, its pricey and doesn't taste like much, I eat plenty of oats, whole wheat, barley, rye, etc and find them to be rather tasty. I'll take some toasted whole wheat bread with some sliced avocado (a source of healthy fats) over beef or eggs any day.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, the article you are citing is about revised food labeling which will draw more attention to added sugar and less attention to the amount of fat and instead the type of fat. The labels will still require, as is done today, the amount of "bad fat" (saturated and trans fat) to be listed.
In any case, this change doesn't conflict with anything I've said. Whole grains and legumes don't contain sugar and the "good fats" are contained in foods like nuts, seeds, avocado, vegetables and some seafood....not eggs, beef, bacon, etc.
Though I do think its strange that the new labeling is going to distinguish added sugars vs naturally occurring sugars but is not going to do the same for fat. Many of the things you can say of added sugar, such as being devoid of nutrients, also apply to added oils, butter, etc which are commonly used in manufactured foods.
You don't want to know -- actually, you want to actively obscure the knowledge of -- the benefits of saturated fat, because you personally don't find it palatable.
You don't want to know -- actually, you want to actively obscure the knowledge of -- the benefits of saturated fat, because you personally don't find it palatable.
What benefits? The medical community, the USDA, etc....all recommend that one limit saturated fat. My comments about saturated fat have nothing to do with how I find the taste instead they are based on the available scientific literature.
But the premise here isn't even true to begin with, there are numerous foods high in saturated fat that I think taste good. For example, coconut and dark chocolate. Also I doubt I could tell the difference between vegetables sauteed in unsalted butter vs olive oil.....I use olive oil because it contains "good fats".
You've lost me there. Taking it a step further, it's my believe now that butter and animal fat are not "bad" fats in proper quantities per meal. Even sodium in proper quantities may not be bad. Now I'm looking at the train of thought that there may be good salt and bad salt, despite the addition of iodine.
As I said before and as folks who are trying to peer-review-study for you have said, America has gotten fat and it's not fat's fault.
I'd like you to show me/us objective proof that "whole" wheat is any better than white processed flour.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
~
