Yes, I not only remember but am still an active member in my own way. I fill out the questionnaire answering as a LCer, so of course some of the answers are completely screwy and mess up their reports. Then I write an email to the lead researcher explaining how I eat, why his questions are biased towards only a low fat answer, calorie counting approach, how to correct their questions, and send him new studies on ketogenic diets. This past holiday they sent a special extra questionaire on tricks to make it through the holiday season...in reply I emailed them Dr. David Ludwig's new study on the 400 calorie Metabolic Advantage to eating low carb. Because this is a long term project, he has answered me they can't change the questions mid-stream to reflect LC diets.

In other words, if you stop eating the diet being measured, the outcome of the study is totally bogus. And yet, someday they will claim this as a "definitive very long-term study of dietary effectiveness."

And I'm miffed that they aren't sending me updates anymore. What am I, chopped liver?? Probably. That's a good LC choice.

I took part for several years filling out the questionnaire and commenting that the questions didn't reflect the way I ate. I think I quit even trying to participate when they sent some preliminary results of their study that stated to lose weight one should eat less and move more. I gave up. Low carb eaters were lost in their masses of data.

I started to take part after I'd lost 80+ lbs and kept it off for about three years. Got their initial set of questions and quickly realized that NONE of the answers provided made any sense given the way I'd lost my weight and what I was doing to keep it off. So I gave up and didn't bother even returning the questionnaire. I considered doing what Jey did and sending a long email to the primary researcher but decided that it wouldn't do a bit of good.

I also considered answering every single question with the response that I KNEW to be furthest from their "expected mantra" of "eat-less-move-more-and-avoid-red-meat-and-fat-like-they-are-poisons"... just to screw with them! Now I kinda wish I'd done that! Maybe all us low-carb long-term maintainers should have! Might have at least kept them from publishing yet another bogus study.

One of the local radio stations runs a daily 3 hour "talk show" out of Boston. One of the hosts, who did use LC years ago to regain control of his weight, will only eat white only eggs for breakfast. He has been ranting about the long history of eggs - good- bad- good-- now bad again...... almost comical, except that the show has a big following.....

Im eating my eggs--- carbs would have a bigger impact IMHO. And other foods might have a bigger impact on health overall like hot dogs, or other nitrate added meats.

My doc doesnt like my cholesterol at 205, lol, really? Good enough.

Thanks all I bought an 18 pack of XL eggs!

I lived through 3 years of not being able to cook, living on fast food my total cholesterol stayed the exact same number 130, eggs or no eggs. My trig went up first on fast food and in 3 years my blood sugar, blood pressure increased and I was slightly anemic.

I agree with everyone's comments on problems with epidemiological associations, the inaccuracy of food questionnaires, etc. and had another thought on the egg study. If there actually is anything accurate there, think about which people would be eating eggs during a time eggs were thought to be extremely unhealthy. People who didn't care too much about taking care of their health, perhaps? And, surprise, weren't healthy? You have to kind of wonder what else they were eating, doing or not doing that wasn't healthy.

Exactly.





Of course if there were any LCers at all among those chosen for the food questionnaire, and that they continued to eat whole eggs frequently (despite the health warnings), they would have confounded the results by improving their health, or remaining healthy.



However, if they gave up eggs (and other LC foods) because of all the cholesterol propaganda, and replaced them with more high carb low fat foods in the hopes of maintaining their health, chances are their health would have also deteriorated, just like those who didn't care about their health.

You're not alone .. I was thinking the same thing .

I've loved eggs since I was a baby. Mom told stories of how I'd spit out the cereal offering, or dump it on the floor around my high-chair. But give me a scrambled egg .. I'd gobble it up, lick the bowl and hold it out asking for more, pweez

Eggs have always been a regular part of my diet. I'm now 60 .. my cholesterol and triglycerides are just fine, thank you. Oh, I should say that my total cholesterol is high-normal because my HDL (the "good" type) is very high. For the record, I can't afford expensive organic, free range eggs .. I buy regular grocery store offerings, unless the former are on sale

I wish the media and headlines would give more airtime to this other recent study .. Sugary drinks increase risk of dying.

*sigh*

March 19, 2019
Associations of Dietary Cholesterol or Egg Consumption With Incident Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality

Question Is consuming dietary cholesterol or eggs associated with incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause 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 [HR], 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.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...bstract/2728487

Can somebody translate that into English?

is "...happily gobbling up..." a new scientific term for ingesting?

BS. Granted I know I have a genetic component to my high cholesterol, but I spent an entire YEAR eating no more than 1-2 eggs per week (not counting the use of eggs in a dish, but no eggs for breakfast, no omelets, no hardboiled eggs, egg salad etc.), and it made NO difference.

Then I also like to point to dh, who prior to going on IF and Keto earlier this year, ate what I did (and more). His cholesterol levels are a dream, on the same diet.

I eat 2 eggs a day now, every day, and my last cholesterol test - my total and ldl actually went down

HR means hazard ratio. The closer it is to 1, the more likely the findings were pure chance. The findings in this case were pretty close to 1, so pretty weak association between eating cholesterol/eggs and cardiac trouble. Statistically significant refers to how likely findings were not just totally by chance, not whether they are "significant" as in important or big. Recap of my previous comment, people who didn't try to take care of their health were probably more likely the ones eating eggs/cholesterol foods (meat, etc.) when they'd been led to believe such foods were bad. Thus they'd be the sicker people and also eating eggs, so eggs and bad health marginally tended to show up together.