Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just today I was discussing with a friend the pros and cons of eggs and fish. They both appear to exhibit some alleged benefits with inherent potential problems .

One drawback of farmed eggs is the unnatural biochemistry derived by unknown compounds in industrial chickenfeed. Conversely, eggs from free ranging hens have pretty good biochemistry but biologic hazard is potentially high, since we do not now the germ strains which develop into the coop and the chicken itself, contaminating the egg and most probably its content after breaking the shell. Perfect cooking would be required and  disinfection of hands. I'm aware our immune system is in charge and is boosted by cold expposure, the biohazard remains though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally different perspective on choline (Peter Attia podcast, guest Chris Masterjohn):

https://peterattiamd.com/chrismasterjohn/

I must say, I found it pretty persuasive, or at least it showed that the choline story is far, FAR more complex than what we supposed just a couple of years ago - there's choline and then there's choline. The more you learn, the more you appreciate that you can't just run off with far going conclusions without seeing the larger context. 

Yet again, biology is far more complex than we give it credit for and humility is called for - we're often far too confident of our conclusions... the cure to that is more knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just yesterday I listened to that podcast. Interesting point is that if we take TMG and creatine supplements we may lower the need for choline if I understood well. The role of homocysteine and the reasons of potentially high values of it is very well explained as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egg and egg-sourced cholesterol consumption in relation to mortality: Findings from population-based nationwide cohort

Quote

Highlights

  • Egg consumption is associated with lower total mortality among Chinese population.
  • Substituting eggs for dairy products, nuts/legumes, or red meat was associated with lower mortality.
  • Intake of cholesterol from eggs was inversely associated with total mortality.
  • Consuming cholesterol from non-egg sources was positively related to mortality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different strokes (yolks?) for different folks?

The above study Todd referenced looked at “egg and cholesterol consumption in relation to mortality in a nationwide Chinese cohort

JAMA reports in a study of US adults Associations of Dietary Cholesterol or Egg Consumption With Incident Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality

Findings  Among 29 615 adults pooled from 6 prospective cohort studies in the United States with a median follow-up of 17.5 years, each additional 300 mg of dietary cholesterol consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted hazard ratio , 1.17; adjusted absolute risk difference [ARD], 3.24%) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.18; adjusted ARD, 4.43%), and each additional half an egg consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.06; adjusted ARD, 1.11%) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.08; adjusted ARD, 1.93%).

Meaning  Among US adults, higher consumption of dietary cholesterol or eggs was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD and all-cause mortality in a dose-response manner.

It is very interesting that while both studies report an association of cholesterol and mortality, they report the association in opposite directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, corybroo said:

It is very interesting that while both studies report an association of cholesterol and mortality, they report the association in opposite directions.

That's epidemiology.   Strikes me as just a bit more reliable than consulting a ouji board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

That's epidemiology.   Strikes me as just a bit more reliable than consulting a ouji board.

I’m skeptical of this egg study. They do not mention conflict of interest. Most studies do! Egg industry bullshit?? There’s a lot of it out there and then they play with the data to get the result they want.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/14/research-group-that-discounted-risks-red-meat-has-ties-program-partly-backed-by-beef-industry/

Edited by Mike41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×