Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Jun-10-17, 10:59
RawNut's Avatar
RawNut RawNut is offline
Lipivore
Posts: 1,174
 
Plan: Very Low Carb Paleo
Stats: 270/185/180 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Florida
Default One Egg per Day Increased Growth in Children

Quote:
Eggs significantly increased growth and reduced stunting by 47 percent in young children, finds a new study from a leading expert on child nutrition at the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis. This was a much greater effect than had been shown in previous studies.

"Eggs can be affordable and easily accessible," said Lora Iannotti, lead author of the study.

"They are also a good source of nutrients for growth and development in young children," she said. "Eggs have the potential to contribute to reduced growth stunting around the world."

The study, "Eggs in Complementary Feeding and Growth," was published online June 6 in the journal Pediatrics.

Iannotti and her co-authors conducted a randomized, controlled trial in Ecuador in 2015. Children ages 6-9 months were randomly assigned to be given one egg per day for 6 months, versus a control group, which did not receive eggs.

Eggs were shown to increase standardized length-for-age score and weight-for-age score. Models indicated a reduced prevalence of stunting by 47 percent and underweight by 74 percent. Children in the treatment group had higher dietary intakes of eggs and reduced intake of sugar-sweetened foods compared to control.

"We were surprised by just how effective this intervention proved to be," Iannotti said. "The size of the effect was 0.63 compared to the 0.39 global average."

Eggs are a complete food, safely packaged and arguably more accessible in resource-poor populations than other complementary foods, specifically fortified foods, she said.

"Our study carefully monitored allergic reactions to eggs, yet no incidents were observed or reported by caregivers during the weekly home visits," Iannotti said. "Eggs seem to be a viable and recommended source of nutrition for children in developing countries."




https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70607085615.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28588101
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Jun-10-17, 17:30
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,993
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Finely minced egg was a standard baby food when I was little. Still love deviled eggs.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Jun-10-17, 21:24
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Posts: 3,330
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

When my children were babies and toddlers scrambled eggs were an almost daily part of their diet.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sun, Jun-11-17, 03:46
Karhys's Avatar
Karhys Karhys is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 323
 
Plan: Primal-ish
Stats: 172/158/132 Female 5'2"
BF:
Progress: 35%
Location: Rural NSW, Australia
Default

Oh! A friend of mine was involved in running this study, it is so great to see that it's been released at last!

The group who did the study have a FB page here:
https://www.facebook.com/lulunproject/

And they posted this update back in April:
https://www.facebook.com/lulunproje...708252652695168

For me the most interesting part was this (emphasis mine):
Quote:
The major findings of Lulun Project, that the introduction of eggs into the diet of children from 6 to 9 months of age provides substantial nutritional benefits, improves growth and does not represent a risk of allegries, has been accepted by the Ministry of Health and is the basis for changing the recommendation in the public health system throughout the country.

Rock on, Ecuador!
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sun, Jun-11-17, 07:07
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,993
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karhys
Oh! A friend of mine was involved in running this study, it is so great to see that it's been released at last!

For me the most interesting part was this (emphasis mine):

Rock on, Ecuador!


That is fantastic.

When I was a child there was an emphasis on "good protein." And how much children need it. I see parents avoiding meat like it's poison and that makes me so sad.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Jun-11-17, 07:56
RawNut's Avatar
RawNut RawNut is offline
Lipivore
Posts: 1,174
 
Plan: Very Low Carb Paleo
Stats: 270/185/180 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Florida
Default

It does make sense that something made to make a baby chick develop completely would also have most everything a human baby needs to develop. A single egg had so much impact though!
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Jun-11-17, 10:39
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,722
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

With the anti-sat-fat, anti-cholesterol dogma over the last ~20 yrs, there is probably a generation of North Americans stunted by false government ideology. Luckily I reached my full height before this nonsense started.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sun, Jun-11-17, 12:17
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,993
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
With the anti-sat-fat, anti-cholesterol dogma over the last ~20 yrs, there is probably a generation of North Americans stunted by false government ideology. Luckily I reached my full height before this nonsense started.


Likewise. Now, there are photos of me at one year old, clutching a beachball, and the dimensions are ridiculously similar but in farm country a "good eater" is something for all parents to strive for at that time.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sun, Jun-11-17, 14:07
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,251
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/175/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 100%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

And there are still 'nutritionists' who tell people that it's OK to eat an egg as long as you throw away the yolk.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Sun, Jun-11-17, 17:56
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,043
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Eggs significantly increased growth and reduced stunting by 47 percent in young children


How do they decide that one particular food increased growth? My kids didn't lack for protein, but my son was so short until he hit puberty that well-meaning friends suggested he should be given growth hormones.

I have no problem with eggs being promoted as a good source of protein - I love them & eat them every single day - but I eat a lot of other things, too. Perhaps if the children in the study were malnourished, then one egg a day would be better. But how about one hamburger patty or other serving of meat?
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sun, Jun-11-17, 19:48
RawNut's Avatar
RawNut RawNut is offline
Lipivore
Posts: 1,174
 
Plan: Very Low Carb Paleo
Stats: 270/185/180 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie OFS
How do they decide that one particular food increased growth?


They tested it. It was a controlled trial, not an observational study. One group got an egg a day, the other didn't. That was the only variable.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sun, Jun-11-17, 20:52
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,043
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RawNut
They tested it. It was a controlled trial, not an observational study. One group got an egg a day, the other didn't. That was the only variable.


Still other variables that they couldn't control - other foods (unless these kids were in an orphanage or hospital) & genes. Probably other things that I can't think of right now. Mainly I'm critical of it because I'm leery of any study that concludes that there is one magical food. Had they compared it to other protein sources, I wouldn't be quite as critical.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Mon, Jun-12-17, 03:53
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,250
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

OK, so we got kids who grow taller cuz of cow milk, now we got kids who grow more cuz of eggs, next we'll get kids who grow tallest and mostest cuz of uber fat ribeye at every meal. Just kidding, but it would be logical.

I have a big problem with using infants for experiments. The results sound good, but what if the intervention was exactly the same as the controls in this experiment? It would show a certain detriment to the intervention thereby making the experiment unethical by its very nature. Well, that's exactly what this experiment did - it showed a detriment to the controls intervention, because a controls is an intervention in its own right. Imagine any other comparison where there is an obvious benefit for a group - there's a concurrent obvious detriment for another group.

I have read something about that a while ago where the interventions were monitored and once a benefit was noted for one group, all groups were then put on that intervention. This then allowed an a priori unethical intervention to become ethical by virtue of discovering the detriment, stoppping it, then switching to the beneficial intervention. I still have that big problem with experiments on kids, but then maybe it was needed to establish precisely that the controls were put on a detrimental intervention outside the experiment by some standard guidelines?
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Mon, Jun-12-17, 04:46
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,024
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
OK, so we got kids who grow taller cuz of cow milk, now we got kids who grow more cuz of eggs, next we'll get kids who grow tallest and mostest cuz of uber fat ribeye at every meal. Just kidding, but it would be logical.

I have a big problem with using infants for experiments. The results sound good, but what if the intervention was exactly the same as the controls in this experiment? It would show a certain detriment to the intervention thereby making the experiment unethical by its very nature. Well, that's exactly what this experiment did - it showed a detriment to the controls intervention, because a controls is an intervention in its own right. Imagine any other comparison where there is an obvious benefit for a group - there's a concurrent obvious detriment for another group.

I have read something about that a while ago where the interventions were monitored and once a benefit was noted for one group, all groups were then put on that intervention. This then allowed an a priori unethical intervention to become ethical by virtue of discovering the detriment, stoppping it, then switching to the beneficial intervention. I still have that big problem with experiments on kids, but then maybe it was needed to establish precisely that the controls were put on a detrimental intervention outside the experiment by some standard guidelines?


I'd say that's the case.

If they'd done the study on rodents, then despite the fact that the study showed eggs as a superior nutritious food for growth, we'd say rodent studies are fine, but rodents are not humans.

They couldn't do the study on adults, because they're past the point of vertical growth. It needed to be done on children, and the younger the better, because the younger they are, the faster they grow.

I'm just glad it's another step towards exonerating the much maligned egg - as someone mentioned earlier, eggs contain enough of all nutrients necessary to nurture a chick - there's enough nutrients there for the chick to grow and become strong enough to peck it's way out of the shell. Eggs even have vitamin D, a micronutrient which can be very difficult to come by naturally in food, since the primary sources of it these days is as a chemical addition to milk and cereal products.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Mon, Jun-12-17, 10:21
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is online now
Posts: 5,936
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/208/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 101%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
With the anti-sat-fat, anti-cholesterol dogma over the last ~20 yrs, there is probably a generation of North Americans stunted by false government ideology. Luckily I reached my full height before this nonsense started.

About 20 years ago I worked with a guy who fired his nanny over a dietary transgression in feeding his children. Her crime? She fed the kids two eggs apiece for breakfast when the dietary guidelines said that the limit should be one egg at most. I remember him trying to get me to concur with his decision to fire the nanny. I guess that he felt guilty or something. I don't remember what I said, but I do remember thinking 'are you kidding me? Fire someone for feeding you kids eggs?'
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:15.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.