I have 12 eggs per day, at most i’ve had 18 or so. But it kinda gets boring eating too much of one food.
However i’ve never feelt better, I had bloodwork done at my local hospital and they said the results were excellent.
You deserve a medal or something, I feel ill after 4 eggs.
I’m going to have to try raw eggs. Sometimes I just don’t feel like cooking.
A shot of fish oil and four raw eggs down the hatch is a meal for champions.
i heard that raw eggs aren’t as usable by the body as cooked eggs.
[quote]1morerep wrote:
i heard that raw eggs aren’t as usable by the body as cooked eggs. [/quote]
x2. I believe that cooked eggs are absorbed better…
SCRAMBLED EGGS
drools
Omega 3 eggs are fantastic, and the taste has a little something extra.
I figure since I don’t have work for once tomorrow I am gonna have me a lumberjack breakfast.
i love eggs. They go in salads, and scrambled eggs tend to be my default meal any time i don’t know what to eat or have very many good options. Cover with a little bit of grated cheese and parmessan cheese. yum!
What about whole egg powder?
How does the bioavailibilty/absorption compare with cooked and raw eggs?
[quote]mudpro69 wrote:
1morerep wrote:
i heard that raw eggs aren’t as usable by the body as cooked eggs.
x2. I believe that cooked eggs are absorbed better…[/quote]
As really, really strange as it seems for a denatured protein, solidified by cooking as a result of formation of disulfide bonds as is the case with egg white being hardened by cooking, to be better absorbed as a result, there are at least two studies that indicate this.
The first one cited I would wonder about if that was all there is, as testing conditions were odd and I don’t know how well they correlate with normal conditions, but the second one appears sound as a pound. Sole exception I can think of being, results may be different when consumed with other foods than when consumed alone. But that seems to be a complete unknown and not necessarily the case.
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/128/10/1716
http://www.humankinetics.com/eJournalMedia/pdfs/5642.pdf
I do want to add that while I think it is well-established that consuming raw eggs the way done in the studies results in markedly less bioavailability than consuming cooked eggs the way done in the studies, the studies do not state their methods (or at least the second does not in the full text and the first does not in the abstract.)
The conclusion is so exceedingly strange, even bizarre, that I have no confidence that the outcome of their methods has anything to do with methods commonly employed.
For example, the idea that raw egg thoroughly shaken into water is poorly absorbable is just about unbelievable.
In contast, it’s not unbelievable that ingesting a raw egg as an entire raw egg, not scrambled, not shaken into water, might result in the egg or portions of the egg tending to continue to adhere to itself in the GI tract, damaging absorption.
It could be – I don’t know it is the case – that their findings are an artifact of consuming the raw eggs whole rather than scrambling or shaking into water.
I find it pretty incredible that raw eggs shaken into water aren’t absorbed approximately 100% and until I see a study that states it did it that way, I won’t assume that these studies tested that or apply to that, as my personal position.
However, in terms of what can responsibly be recommended to others as having been demonstrated, I have to say that cooked eggs are demonstrated to have fairly high bioavailability and there is no study showing that for raw eggs, and in fact there are studies using unknown methods of consumption that show poor bioavailability for raw eggs. So one route is proven efficient, and the other gambles that outcome will be different than from the studies based on a guess that method of intake is different and a guess that outcome depends on method of intake.
By the way, if anyone wants to answer the question for themselves, it would be easily enough done.
An example 24 eggs per day, e.g. four eggs at a time 6x/day, shaken into a protein shake, would be about 280 calories/serving and about 28 g protein per serving. A scoop of Grow Complete (or another MRP could be used) would add another 133 cal/serving and another 13 g protein. The total would be 41 g protein and 413 cal per serving. This would yield 2478 calories per day, which will keep any of us going even if a bit low for many.
Use for 2 days.
Observe amount of stool resulting from the second day. (I can’t predict what your transit time is, you will have to judge this.)
If the amount of stool is quite small, then there is no way the raw, shaken eggs mixed into water and taken with a small amount of another food (an MRP powder) were poorly absorbed.
If it’s substantial, then yes they were poorly absorbed.
(Stool volume is mostly dead bacteria that got their mass by outcompeting the human body for absorption of nutrients. Very little of it indeed is due to bile, sloughed-off intestinal cells or any other human-body source. Some is due to insoluble fiber, but there is very little of that in this suggested brief-trial diet.)
If desired, to evaluate significance of the observed stool volume on the high-egg diet, try another 2 days with an MRP/oil based diet of very similar protein and calories, e.g. 6 servings a day of 3 scoops Grow Complete (you can use another MRP) which is 41 g protein and 300 calories, plus about a tbsp olive oil which wlll get calories virtually the same. If stool volume drops yet further then one could say it looks as if the MRP protein is better absorbed than the shaken-raw-egg protein was.
DIY science: it’s a great thing. I love when something can be done for free that actually is more meaningful than big-$$$$$ science done in much harder ways and taking up far more time to do. Who needs doing an isotopic study, tens of thousands of dollars, probably writing a grant proposal and waiting on that, getting IRB board approval, lining up subjects, and many months of time for research and analysis (not even counting time waiting to be published) when you can just notice how much crap is in your toilet? 
(Not to say that having the study also is not worthwhile, but if the two don’t correlate then the study ought to be re-examined to see why not.)
The sad part is, most scientists do not choose to do such a thing even as backup to see, informally, if their big-study results correlate with observed actual outcomes. Nor, often, do they let themselves be deterred by their findings being weird, thus suggesting need for looking for reasons why they might have come out weird (such as, for example, having the subjects consume the raw eggs whole, if they did.) Published science would be a lot better if scientists took the trouble before publishing to informally and privately see if their results held up to a differing practical, simple test; but they just don’t (referring to nearly but not quite all scientists.)
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Who needs doing an isotopic study, tens of thousands of dollars, probably writing a grant proposal and waiting on that, getting IRB board approval, lining up subjects, and many months of time for research and analysis (not even counting time waiting to be published) when you can just notice how much crap is in your toilet?
[/quote]
And this is why I love reading your posts Bill. Bravo! 
[quote]theAnj wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Who needs doing an isotopic study, tens of thousands of dollars, probably writing a grant proposal and waiting on that, getting IRB board approval, lining up subjects, and many months of time for research and analysis (not even counting time waiting to be published) when you can just notice how much crap is in your toilet?
And this is why I love reading your posts Bill. Bravo! ;)[/quote]
Bill is unbelievable. I’m so glad there are guys like him around here.
Thanks, Anj!
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
So you are a big fan of pilot studies, to asses viability of a full-blown study then Bill?
Bushy[/quote]
Yes. In fact while finishing my coursework and research in medicinal chemistry and hoping to have a small pharmaceutical company of my own (with partners of course) at some future date, I held it that our motto would be, “People first,” meaning, that we test on people first, namely ourselves.
Why not cut through to the chase first to see if something at least seems to work and at least has no bad side effects within a small group, before blowing tens of millions before ever getting around to testing that? And a high percentage of the time, then finding “Oops, this stuff makes people throw up,” or whatever.
True, you can’t admit to the FDA that you did it and you can’t publish it, but for doing things sensibly it’s the way to go, IMO.
(Of course, this is applicable only to cases where safety is not an issue, e.g. an ester of a compound already found in the body, that sort of thing. Not some weird synthetic for which one of course is going to have to do toxicity studies first.)
And in practice, yes, at Biotest we do simple “Does it work for us, so far as we can tell?” tests before we have a clinical done.
As I see it, the simple fact is, if the personnel at a company cannot perceive for sure if a proposed product works for them, then who cares if a study does show some small benefit? The customers probably won’t perceive it either. It does become desirable to quantitate benefits once you have strong reason to conclude something works, of course. Not only as a double-check and to make sure you haven’t confused yourself, but for example our clinical studies on A7-E showed that our current dose works every bit as well as a former higher dose and this allowed a nice savings in price for the buyer. We wouldn’t have known that without the study.
Or for say Methoxy-7 (now Se7en) the only way to correctly evaluate what bioavailability-enhancing method worked best was to do blood analyses comparing each of many methods. There was no other way that I can think of to have valid knowledge on that.
An example of the opposite (relying on a clinical trial and probably not even doing in-house “does it work for us?” testing) is a product which has commercials I wish ours for Fahrenheit had been good as, with the tag line, “Such-and-such is worth the price, because such-and-such is clinically proven to work,” very well delivered by the spokeswoman. Simple and persuasive. Of course, the actual results of that clinical study are something like an extra 0.8 lb of fat lost per month, which would never have been perceived in in-house testing and is unlikely to be perceptible or worth the price to customers. So in-house testing would have resulted in that product never making it and their having to figure something else out, or at least I would think so.
Nice, 15-18 is a lot. I eat 5 eggs a day for breakfast and my mom keeps telling me that I’m gonna die or something, so I got a blood test. My cholesterol is fine.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
<< By the way, if anyone wants to answer the question for themselves, it would be easily enough done.>> [/quote]
First of all, someone please do the self-study Bill suggested, given that there are like a thousand threads on T-Nation about cooked vs raw eggs and the question seems to come up every week!
As a scientist, I believe this very strongly. I have often wanted to write an article about it, but because it would be a lot of work, I haven’t done it.
Science is the best tool we have for learning the truth about cause and effect. It is simply controlled observation and analytical reasoning, combined with statistical models that allow us to logically quantify how sure we are of our conclusion. (With self-experimentation, we don’t need the statistical models.)
The analytical reasoning part is critical for the interpreting the results. In nutrition and exercise studies, there is SO often overgeneralization of results leading to incorrect conclusions. This is the MAIN reason some people believe that studies are worthless compared to the “real world.”
In nutrition and medicine, the research is nomothetic, meaning that it is intended to characterize a large population, and for the results to be generalized and applied to a large population.
For example, a population study with the goal of reducing medical costs associated with diabetes may look at the effect of chromium supplementation in a large number of subjects. If the rate of diabetes is lower in the supplemented group, then doctors and nutitionists would recommend chromium supplements, or policy makers may even mandate that food manufacturers add it to foods so that people have no choice but to get more of it. However, if you look at the individual differences in the study, you will usually find some individuals don’t benefit, or do even worse, with the study treatment.
But here on T-Nation we have individuals seeking to maximize performance or body comp, or both. THIS IS NOT THE GOAL that the population studies have, and therefore they can be used ONLY as a starting point for self-experimentation – if at all. Some studies have no application to the individual, of course.
Self-experimentation is the key to individual performance. These are sometimes called n(1) experiments, and every individual seeking to maximize their own health, or body comp, or performance, does them.
There are always questions of control in n(1) experiments, because it is difficult or impossible to keep everything the same except for one variable. For example, you might try a new training program, but at the same time, work gets stressful and you have to put in lots of overtime. Or a close friend dies suddenly. With the additional life stress, you can’t independently assess the affect of just the training.
But you can overcome this limitation by repetition. Repetition (also called replication) is important for population studies, too, and is often underrated and underappreciated. For yourself, you change one variable in your diet, training, or supplementation and observe the results for a period of time. Then remove that one variable. Then introduce it again.
I have done this with fish oil, for example. Periods with fish oil. Then stop. Then resume. Because of my self-experiment, I am fairly confident that fish oil reduces joint soreness and inflammation, improves skin, and greatly reduces my airborne allergy response.
We don’t really need studies with LARGER numbers of subjects. Instead we need more studies with individual subjects.
Outstandingly well put.
Bill,
I’ve seen another post where you recommend a DIY experiment measuring stool volume as a measure of digestability. However, I was wondering if you know if stool density changes (or doesn’t change) depending on various nutritional or other factors.
The conclusion could be that if density increases but volume decreases, then the same massed stool could lead to a decreased volume and this DIY experiment would lead to questionable results. Of course, if density rarely changes then the volume would be a great measure of the resulting mass.
Yet on the other hand, I could be thinking of this way too much as a physicist and mass is not as important as volume, since volume may be a better measure of other factors I’m not considering. I guess I’m just wondering because when I was growing up almost all my stool was floaters, whereas I can’t remember in the past decade having more than 2 floaters that weren’t a result of loose stool.
Anyway, just my two relatively uninformed cents, and I’d love to hear your response to this.