Do you believe this ADA info?

[astonish]

http://www.lifescript.com/Health/Conditions/Diabetes/Tips/Are%20Eggs%20Diabetes-Friendly.aspx?utm_campaign=2008-11-10&utm_source=living-with-diabetes&utm_medium=email&utm_content=tip-of-day_Are%20Eggs%20Diabetes-Friendly&VID=19318&FromNL=1

:lol: :eek:

astonish

[Nancy LC]

No. Next question. :lol:

[NixCarbos]

Has that nonsense already come full circle? :lol:

I hadn't realized I was so old! :D

Lisa

[RobLL]

oh no, what will three eggs do?

[Cajunboy47]

Egg Beaters and other egg substitutes give you the taste of eggs without the yolks.

I suspect the driving force behind that report is the fake food industry.... I wonder how many people who eat Egg Beaters and other egg substitutes die each year of heart disease, heart attacks and strokes....

I eat no less than one egg every day. I doubt if I've skipped three days in the last 2 years without eating at least 1 egg and many times 3 or 4 eggs in a day.

My last cholesterol test in August was 135, triglycerides were 95... That and other reports from the ADA are useless to me.

Just as there is no reason to reinvent the wheel, I see no reason to reinvent real food... :)

Ron

[Jayseem]

That article is just dripping with special interest money. Somebody will profit from scaring diabetics into giving up whole eggs. The comments after the article says it all. There were 5 commenters who saw through the bs of the article and said so in plain English. Not one person who responded supported the facts presented by the article. That must tell us something (actually the comments were better reading than the article).

[girlbug2]

What?!

That is just literally IN-credible.

[CAKron55]

This makes me think of a Weight Watchers dessert recipe someone here at work circulated recently. It included a boxed cake mix and substituted Egg Beaters for 2 eggs! The cake mix probably had 2000 calories of starch alone but WW had taught her that Egg Beaters were healthier.

[ijw]

Egg is safe as long as the yolk does not break. So, separate yolk from white,mix the white, put in pan then add yolk. As long as yolk does not break no oxidation of yolk i.e. no cholesterol.

Gold, Jerry!

[Wifezilla]

UnFREAKINbelievable.

[astonish]

Here is the original research:

http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002-8223(08)01558-7/abstract?wpisrc=newsletter

I am not good at math, in fact, I am terrible at math
During a mean of 13 years, 1,140 HF hospitalizations were identified. After multivariable adjustment (energy intake, demographics, lifestyle factors, prevalent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension), HF risk was lower with greater whole-grain intake (0.93 [0.87, 0.99]), but HF risk was higher with greater intake of eggs (1.23 [1.08, 1.41]) and high-fat dairy (1.08 [1.01, 1.16]). These associations remained significant independent of intakes of the five other food categories, which were not associated with HF.

I have no idea what those figures mean. But I do know that stating things one way, makes them sound a lot different if they are stated another way.

For instance I read one time that 30% of all cancer was caused by environment and 1/3 was caused by diet. Even someone who is terrible at math can figure out that they were actually saying that environment and diet were equal in the causation of cancer.

I was reading a book yesterday called, "Selling Sickness". In the chapter on high blood pressure, they were discussing medication for bp.

These statistics were presented to a group attending a lecture on bp.

"Would you take a drug for five years if it:
1. Lowered your chances of having a heart attack by 33%
2. Lowered your chances of having a heart attack from 3% down to 2%, a difference of 1%
3. Saved one person in 100 from having a heart attack but there is no way of knowing in advance who that one person would be?"

Most people responded to yes to number one. Twenty percent responded yes to number 2 and 3. The statistics were actually the same figures, stated in a different way.

The doctor who was giving the talk explained that 33% off a $300 item would lower the price to $200. While 33% off of a $3.00 item would only lower the price to $2.00.

Were the actual results skewed to make it sound worse than it actually is in this instance. I don't know. I repeat, I am not good at math.

Can someone break this down into a more understandable format?

Astonish

[eddiemcm]

"For instance I read one time that 30% of all cancer was caused by environment and 1/3 was caused by diet."
I don't think it's possible to know what percent of what causes
cancer anymore than it's possible to know what percentage of
people get lung cancer from secondhand smoke.
I think the people who are spouting the numbers are trying to
blow smoke up our axx's.
Eddie

[Wifezilla]

According to their report in the current issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, scientists at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have developed a new genetic test that, for the first time, can easily distinguish between hereditary and sporadic forms of breast cancer. This new approach should make it possible for physicians to quickly and accurately diagnose the cause of an individual woman's disease and may ultimately guide decisions about the most effective treatment.

Approximately 5 to 10 percent of breast tumors are hereditary; the remaining cases are caused by genetic changes that occur during a woman's life and are commonly called sporadic. In the mid 1990s, scientists identified mutations in genes now called BRCA1 and BRCA2 that are the major cause of the hereditary form of the disease. Women inheriting these mutations have a 40 to 85 percent lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, as well as an increased risk of ovarian cancer.

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2001/nhgri-21.htm

[RCo]

"For instance I read one time that 30% of all cancer was caused by environment and 1/3 was caused by diet."
I don't think it's possible to know what percent of what causes
cancer anymore than it's possible to know what percentage of
people get lung cancer from secondhand smoke.
I think the people who are spouting the numbers are trying to
blow smoke up our axx's.
Eddie


:agree: :agree: :agree:

[Wifezilla]

Read "Good Calories Bad Calories". Nice big hints in there about cancer rates prior to the introduction of easily digestible carbs to native populations vs cancer rates AFTER.

It is my belief based on that info as well as the Mexican breast study population and several dozen others that diet is about 75% responsible for cancer cases. The exact triggers being a diet high in sugar, flour, potatoes, high fructose corn syrup, etc...

[eddiemcm]

Most current theory blames heredity and various carcinogens
for cancer.An old link:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13276
who knows?
Eddie

[CantEven]

ANY QUESTIONS? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5gBJGnaXs) :bash: :daze:

~Danielle