Research on eggs on Yahoo news today

[lausie]

Middle-aged men who ate seven or more eggs a week had a higher risk of earlier death, U.S. researchers reported on Wednesday.

Men with diabetes who ate any eggs at all raised their risk of death during a 20-year period studied, according to the study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The study adds to an ever-growing body of evidence, much of it contradictory, about how safe eggs are to eat. It did not examine what about the eggs might affect the risk of death.

Men without diabetes could eat up to six eggs a week with no extra risk of death, Dr. Luc Djousse and Dr. J. Michael Gaziano of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School found.

"Whereas egg consumption of up to six eggs a week was not associated with the risk of all-cause mortality, consumption of (seven or more) eggs a week was associated with a 23 percent greater risk of death," they wrote.

"However, among male physicians with diabetes, any egg consumption is associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality, and there was suggestive evidence for a greater risk of MI (heart attack) and stroke."

They urged more study in the general population.

Eggs are rich in cholesterol, which in high amounts can clog arteries and raise the risk of heart attack and stroke.

One expert on nutrition and heart disease said the study suggests middle-aged men, at least, should watch how many eggs they eat.

"More egg on our faces? It's really hard to say at this point, but it still seems, if you're a middle-aged male physician and enjoy eggs more than once a day, that having some of the egg left on your face may be better than having it go down your gullet," said Dr. Robert Eckel of the University of Colorado and a former president of the American Heart Association.

"But, remember: eggs are like all other foods -- they are neither 'good' nor 'bad,' and they can be part of an overall heart-healthy diet," Eckel wrote in a commentary.

The Harvard team studied 21,327 men taking part in the much larger Physicians' Health Study, which has been watching doctors since 1981 who have agreed to report regularly on their health and lifestyle habits.

Over 20 years, 1,550 of the men had heart attacks, 1,342 had strokes, and more than 5,000 died.

"Egg consumption was not associated with (heart attack) or stroke," the researchers wrote.

But the men who ate seven eggs a week or more were 23 percent more likely to have died during the 20-year period.

Diabetic men who ate any eggs at all were twice as likely to die in the 20 years.

Men who ate the most eggs also were older, fatter, ate more vegetables but less breakfast cereal, and were more likely to drink alcohol, smoke and less likely to exercise -- all factors that can affect the risk of heart attack and death.

[pauleo]

Men who ate the most eggs also were older, fatter, ate more vegetables but less breakfast cereal, and were more likely to drink alcohol, smoke and less likely to exercise -- all factors that can affect the risk of heart attack and death.

Seems like the vegetables and breakfast cereal might mistakenly be the wrong way round?...

[Rose1942]

I wondered about that too, pauleo. But then, breakfast cereal is touted as the ultimate 'heart healthy' food so that didn't make sense either. Maybe the 'more vegetables' that the men ate were corn chips and french fries?

[ReginaW]

Seems like the vegetables and breakfast cereal might mistakenly be the wrong way round?...

Probably not....since veggies include potatoes, corn and peas too.

Context of their entire diet matters, not simply the eggs.

[LessLiz]

Context of their entire diet matters, not simply the eggs.Gee, ya think?

This reminds me of the guy who shows up regularly to warn everyone that Atkins causes heart disease. He knows because he was found with heart disease after eating Atkins for 6 months. It had nothing to do with the previous 20 years of smoking, or lifetime SAD. You remember him Regina.

[moggsy]

Well, not only that, but as they mentioned, the people who ate eggs were more likely to smoke or drink alcohol (which I am sure both are particularly risky for diabetics).

If you follow conventional dietary advice, you probably won't eat eggs, and if you do, it won't be daily or whole eggs. But if you follow conventional dietary advice, you're probably more likely to reduce your risks by other lifestyle choices. Some non-food choice lifestyle choices/'beetus management were mentioned, but not all of them. I imagine med compliance and blood sugar monitoring weren't as strict with the egg eaters either.

I may be just rationalizing it, but a better title might be: "Diabetic men who totally ignore medical advice tend to die earlier than those who don't"

It doesn't mean that all the advice is spot on. In fact, most dietary advice for diabetics (at least from conventional sources) is more than likely wrong. It just means that when people ignore everything, their health craps out.

I bet the guys who ate eggs also didn't ask for directions when they got lost either. Refusing to ask for directions may lead to early death.

[64dodger]

I have three eggs every morning. I guess I might as well start making my funeral arrangements.

[LessLiz]

Yeah, especially after taking one for the team in the butter aisle!

[Baerdric]

It's funny how they say "a greater risk of all-cause mortality"... I had eggs for breakfast and fell out of an airplane and died, Damn those eggs!"

Also they do the thing where they claim percentage of increased risk. Generalized befuddlement without actually misrepresenting things.

Like wearing seat belts double your chances of surviving a 60mph head-on collision. Sounds good, eh? Right, the chances used to be one out of a million, now they are two out of a million.

I'm a T2 diabetic (with an A1C about 5) who doesn't smoke, drink or forget to wear my seat belt either in a car or an airplane, what are a few (ok, a large number of) eggs doing to my chances?

[pauleo]

I wondered about that too, pauleo. But then, breakfast cereal is touted as the ultimate 'heart healthy' food so that didn't make sense either. Maybe the 'more vegetables' that the men ate were corn chips and french fries?

seems it was the correct way round - another study by the same researchers attached below suggests they like (whole-grain) breakfast cereal. still seems sort of odd to use 'less breakfast cereal' as a way to knock 'more vegetables' though, i cannot imagine it is an obvious either-or tradeoff in most real peoples' diets.

-----------------------------
Luc Djousse, MD, MPH, DSc, and J. Michael Gaziano, MD, both of the Division of Aging, observed a 28 percent decrease in the risk of developing heart failure in people who ate whole-grain breakfast cereal seven or more times per week compared to those who ate refined cereal. Djousse presented this finding at the American Heart Association’s 47th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention on March 2, 2007.
------------------------------

[M Levac]

Thanks lausie.


There is a correlation between stupidity and ignorance. But does one cause the other? I don't know but looking at that article makes me wonder if the ignorance of what an epidemiological study's purpose is may lead to stupidity in the analysis of the data that it provides.

But, as I often say these days, correlation does not equal causation. Proof is that sometime, ignorance leads to education. And stupidity often leads to enlightenment.

[KarenJ]

Also they do the thing where they claim percentage of increased risk. Generalized befuddlement without actually misrepresenting things.



It's the old "torture the numbers and they'll confess" scenario. Way too many variables, tricksy numbers, weak associations. All the usual hallmarks of biased epidemiological studies. I'll bet even the old "carrot" cliche would apply here as well.
That 23% number- is that relative risk or absolute risk? The author doesn't say, and also doesn't say where it was published.

[TBoneMitch]

There is a great book written by Dr James LeFanu in the UK ('The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine).

In it, he argues that the epidemiology departments should be closed, as they bring nothing useful to medical science but seem to only be able to generate contradictory scares and junk analyses.


It has been said many times in this forum's discussions, but correlation does not equal causation.

If more people understood this simple fact, 99% of the health scares would be laughed off as ludicrous.

Unfortunately, not many people seem to have a functioning brain these days.

[TBoneMitch]

Karen: I am quite certain that the 23% figure is a relative risk number, as it seems to be the only figure used by epidemiologists.

Makes insignificant numbers appear large.

As was said earlier in the thread: not fastening your seatbelt increases by 100% your chance of dying in a car collision.

These chances increase from 1/1 000 000 all the way to 2/1 000 000.

So if you are an epidemiologist hungry for headlines and research grants, what figure are you going to use, since both of them are technically correct?

[Zei]

Men with diabetes who eat anything at all run a higher risk of men who don't because they have diabetes. But men with diabetes who eat nothing at all run a still higher risk of death than men with diabetes who do eat. Meanwhile, pass the huevos rancheros, please. :)

[Mrs. Skip]

Men who ate the most eggs also were older

Have they adjusted the statistics for this fact? It's sort of a "duh" that the older a man is, the more likely he is to die, from any cause.

[j_the_p]

What about those of us that eat 60 to 80 eggs per week? Inquiring minds want to know. :)

[FenwayGuy]

I have three eggs every morning. I guess I might as well start making my funeral arrangements.

I am right behind you my friend. Please do not take the nicest casket. :rolleyes:

[KvonM]

It's funny how they say "a greater risk of all-cause mortality"... I had eggs for breakfast and fell out of an airplane and died, Damn those eggs!"
this reminds me of the argument i use when people start knocking atkins...

low-fat advocate: if low-carbing is so great, why did dr. atkins die?
K: you show me a diet that prevents head trauma from slipping on ice and i'll gladly give up low-carbing for it!

[FenwayGuy]

There is a great book written by Dr James LeFanu in the UK ('The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine).

In it, he argues that the epidemiology departments should be closed, as they bring nothing useful to medical science but seem to only be able to generate contradictory scares and junk analyses.


It has been said many times in this forum's discussions, but correlation does not equal causation.

If more people understood this simple fact, 99% of the health scares would be laughed off as ludicrous.

Unfortunately, not many people seem to have a functioning brain these days.

Thanks TBone, I shall certainly look into reading that book.

I agree 100% with your assessment on "functioning brains". I always wish I could remember where I saw it or who to attribute the quote to, but it goes something like this:

"There are two very easy ways to get through life. One, believe you everything you hear/read or believe nothing you hear/read. Both absolve you from exercising critical thought." In other words, just go through life with that non-functioning brain!

[teaser]

For years when I had eggs, it was eggs, sausages, toast, jam, and hash brown potatoes. Other than that, my favourite breakfast was apple pastries. In rabbits, cholesterol plus insulin equals artherosclerosis. Maybe that cholesterol really isn't good for you, If taken in conjuction with food that demands high release of insulin, whether it be from pancreas or needle. Eggs eaten by themselves cause very little insulin release.
Eggs also contain lots of choline. Choline causes the reversal of fatty liver. I read one study a while back where mice fed choline deficient diets and given a treatment that would normally cause type 2 diabetes actually failed to become insulin resistant. Supplementation with choline reversed this. Even essential nutrients can become dangerous in the wrong dietary context. (I realize how stupidly vague this is. I'll try to dig out the actual study later.)

[renegadiab]

I have three eggs every morning. I guess I might as well start making my funeral arrangements.

I only eat 2 a day. Maybe I'll live a year longer than you do. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[LessLiz]

Media articles like this make me wish there were some minimum requirements for being a "science" reporter or writer. One of the things that has made Gary Taubes different -- besides the fact that the man is incredibly bright -- is that his physics background meant that he doesn't just swallow whatever is published. Or maybe they don't teach what statistics really show in stats classes anymore.

Researchers at Pacific Northwest National Labs developed a program called Inspire, a statistical program that handles very large amounts a diverse types of data. One of the things it does quite well is search for and find "unexpected" correlations. The point of the program, is to look for questions, not answers.

The program finds correlations, which allows researchers to ask questions about whether there is a causal connection. When I saw a lecture on InSpire they showed the results obtained when looking for any and all correlations that existed between all the data they had available and cavities in children's teeth. The program found a remarkable correlation between living in a white house or apartment and tooth decay. Someone then postulated that white paint contained a substance that promoted cavities. Nope, looking at another set of data there was a remarkable correlation between low income levels and living in white buildings -- most of the subsidized housing was painted with white paint. Ultimately they found that very poor nutrition levels correlated with increased cavities.

The point was to show one can find correlations, but random correlations do not necessarily have meaning, or the meaning that it has may arise from something completely outside the obvious.

Guaranteed, the media would report that living in white houses causes kids to have cavities.

[Nancy LC]

The media was spinning this like mad last night on TV. They said "Too many eggs will kill you!!!!111!"

[Dodger]

Those fatter, older people who were eating eggs most likely ate them with lots of toast and hash browns, with a side of pancakes.
They then lit up a Marlboro to go with their coffee, which was sweetened with four tablespoons of sugar.

[pauleo]

Those fatter, older people who were eating eggs most likely ate them with lots of toast and hash browns, with a side of pancakes.
They then lit up a Marlboro to go with their coffee, which was sweetened with four tablespoons of sugar.

I was wondering about this. There is a correlation between eggs and heart failure. The relationship is either (a) causation or (b) not causation, in which case the correlation maybe arises because unhealthy people tend to (i) have heart failure and (ii) eat eggs. I always think of egg eating as being associated with healthy diet. If explanation (b) were correct, then people with bad lifestyles are eating more eggs than people with healthy lifestyles. I'm no expert on egg statistics, but it doesn't seem right to me that people who are bad-eaters in general are also the ones having most eggs...

p.s. My daily breakfast omelette means I also have to join the line for 'death by egg'

[teaser]

Here's the full study. Physician study eggs and diabetes (http://http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/87/4/964?ijkey=af751ed1859d94ada5cb02bcd79ae824ccf51f89)

First, you might wonder what kind of diabetes is so dangerous in combination with a high-egg diet. Type one? Type two? The only answer to that question I could find was "prevalent." I did a search, to see if there was a specific medical meaning of the term "prevalent diabetes" beyond the strict english meaning of the words, but couldn't find anything. So the type of diabetes we're dealing with is basically undisclosed. Insulin both controls blood sugar and is instrumental in the delivery of amino acids to the individual cells. If you under-produced insulin, the possibility occurs to me that if you ate a protein source that caused a moderate release of insulin, like say lean beef, plus crappy starches, you might have a better day to day blood sugar profile than someone who ate those same crppy starches plus a protein source that caused a smaller insulin release, like say, eggs? This only in those producing, but not releasing, sufficient insulin for the carbs they eat. No idea what that would do to the amino acid end of your metabolism. (I chose lean beef in my example because it might just be the fat content of the eggs causing the lower insulin release.)

One other interesting thing is that they adjusted their data for consumption of breakfast cereals. They don't say, but I think they probably considered breakfast cereals to have a protective role against premature death. I wonder if the authors of the studies they used to define the effect of breakfast cereals themselves corrected for the well-known deleterious effects of eggs in the diet on human health?

The average consumption of eggs in the whole cohort was one a week. They get to impress you with the size of the cohort of 21000, but by the time they got to those eating seven or more eggs a week, the numbers were much smaller. The fact that these doctors on average ate so few eggs during a period of time when eggs were so demonized, suggests that they were generally very health conscious.

Another thing, diabetic men who ate seven or more eggs a week had twice the risk of death compared to men without diabetes who ate one or less eggs a week. The statement in the article that diabetic men who ate any amount of eggs had double the risk of death is simply false. Another report on the study, this one at HealthDay, quotes a dietician as saying "It contains all the essential immunoacids that your muscle needs for building."

Gotta get me some of those immunoacids. :yum: