Fucking hilarious! So if you eat up to 6 eggs a week you are perfectly fine but add just 1 egg a week and you’re almost dead!
Ridiculous!
well I didnt plan on living 60 so im aight! more than 6-7 eggs per week. just bullocks. Most of us probably eat double that. I think that applies to the dominant culture ie sedentary, obese, unhot, office workers that scarf down more protein than coleman and claim to be on a diet that only allows them to eat 7 saltine crackers and all the water they can eat. Bullocks, I say!
Eggs will kill you and corn flakes will cure you…
Man we live in bizarro world…
We should probably read the actual scientific paper on this rather than infer from more or less buzz journalism with a few quotes here and ther.
Of course, having unhealthy people as a population subgroup is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you limit your generalization to them. Moreover, the fact that a group was fatter, smoked and so on and so forth was probably adjusted for through various means, most likely some form of linear regression models. However, it is entirely possible that the model was not sufficiently accurate to compensate.
That’s one significant problem with epidemilogical nutrition studies, you can identify links that can be true in a general population, but might not be in a number of individuals. It follows also that what comes out of these studies are purely markers (perhaps a marker of a generally bad lifestyle for example, despite eggs being good).
Another problem is that the effect size in nutrition are usually very small, which render the subject matter more prone to contradicting results. (Also, study design and methodology is often an issue, because, its is very difficult to account for everything.)
Anyway, I’ll probably go read the original instead of letting a journalistic blurb make up my mind for me.
Have a good day,
AlexH
It is only one study. The sad thing is eggs were just starting to be considered healthy again by mainstream society and now this. One more reason for the typical American to just have donuts for breakfast.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/04April/Pages/Eggslinkedtoearlydeath.aspx
eggs raped my mother. 
Key points :
American
Middle Aged Men
Diabetes
You readers do realize they are talking about your average obese guy that is over a certain percentage in body-fat.
American Obese, mainstream eaters. Along with the fact that a lot of these guys they looked at had adult-onset diabetes. Does anyone know how many years of poor nutrition with or without exercise you have to go through to pick this form of diabetes up? I have no idea but the worse your diet and lack of physical activity ~ the more likely you will eventually pick up adult-onset diabetes.
Eggs are not bad. For those of us that actually workout on a consistent basis, and eat, sleep, train for our fitness /health/sport/ whatever goals. This article wasn’t written for you or I. Unfortunately the onslaught of ignorant conversations will continue with an increased volume.
I love eggs. The end.
THIS JUST IN!
SWIMMING OFF THE COAST OF SOUTH AFRICA WITH A FRESHLY SEVERED LEG INCREASES YOUR CHANCE OF SHARK ATTACK BY %230,003!
I guess no more swimming for me…ever.
Seriously, where do these “doctors” get licensed? No wonder our health care system sucks. A professional health study was just debunked by a bunch of dudes on a bodybuilding forum.
[quote]DtrainUSMC wrote:
Seriously, where do these “doctors” get licensed? No wonder our health care system sucks. A professional health study was just debunked by a bunch of dudes on a bodybuilding forum.
[/quote]
Nothing was ‘debunked’. The actual journal article is simply stating that the researchers found this relationship by analyzing data in a particular way. Like most epidemiology studies though there are too many confounding factors to draw a strong conclusion, which the authors acknowledge. Epidemiology studies can make pretty much any two factors seem correlated if you analyze the way you want.
I think the authors’ intent wasn’t to stir up controversy but to instead share an observation they found that may or may not be true- that’s pretty much the case with any scientific journal article.
its not the article thats at fault(well the lack of variable control sucks but…), its whoever makes the headlines.
‘EGGS CAUSE DEATH IN MIDDLE AGED MEN’
this is as far as 70% of readers will look, and it will stay in their subconscious and help inform them of their food choices.
frosties and cocoa puffs sales just went up 5% because all those ill informed sheep will think ‘well at least im not eating eggs’
If only journalists werent in it for the profit. we might get a headline that doesnt cause massive conclusions to be drawn.
By definition, being alive causes death.
The important thing about any scientific study is that, if it contradicts what you already believe, make fun of it. And then criticize science in general and the study in question for being poorly designed, even though you don’t know much about study design and have never conducted one yourself.
[quote]sumgai wrote:
By definition, being alive causes death.[/quote]
References?
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.
Yet again, more junk science. So much of what gets passed off as “scientific truth” is absolute horseshit. Eggs (especially those from cage-free chickens w/o GH, antibiotics, etc) can be an powerful addition to a healthy diet. The same thing could be said of pasture-fed beef as well which incidentally tastes SO much better than the marority of the stuff labeled as “beef” in the grocery stores nowadays.
[quote]dfreezy wrote:
DtrainUSMC wrote:
Seriously, where do these “doctors” get licensed? No wonder our health care system sucks. A professional health study was just debunked by a bunch of dudes on a bodybuilding forum.
Nothing was ‘debunked’. The actual journal article is simply stating that the researchers found this relationship by analyzing data in a particular way. Like most epidemiology studies though there are too many confounding factors to draw a strong conclusion, which the authors acknowledge. Epidemiology studies can make pretty much any two factors seem correlated if you analyze the way you want.
I think the authors’ intent wasn’t to stir up controversy but to instead share an observation they found that may or may not be true- that’s pretty much the case with any scientific journal article.[/quote]
I hear what your saying but in this particular study, the factors that really are the “deciding factors” such as sedentary lifestyle, shitty eating habits (too much refined sugars in the diet, trans fats, imbalance of o3:o6 ratio, etc, lack of fruits and veggies in the diet, smoking, drinking, etc…) have to be figured into the equation before you could make such a great leap of faith to support the notion that eggs are bad for your health when their is plenty of available research and real world evidence to suggest the exact opposite.
In fact, I reguarly include the consumption of cage free raw eggs into my diet and havent had one problem yet (if you consider, extra energy and great health a problem!)
[quote]andersons wrote:
The important thing about any scientific study is that, if it contradicts what you already believe, make fun of it. And then criticize science in general and the study in question for being poorly designed, even though you don’t know much about study design and have never conducted one yourself.
[/quote]
Wow, are you really defending this article? Forget the stupid headline, the study itself would get you an F in a middle school science fair. Any high school grad should be able to see the flaws in this study.
Why do we waste money on such studies. It reminds of other pointless studies like consuming more than two servings of vegetables has indeed been linked to a healthier body. Hmm. Really? Well, ain’t that something.
Honestly, why are such blatantly obvious studies performed? Is it merely to justify what’s been said or what? All I know is that I wish this money used to fund the study was going back into the economy to lower prices of food.
Amen to that.
[quote]Dirty_Bulk wrote:
andersons wrote:
The important thing about any scientific study is that, if it contradicts what you already believe, make fun of it. And then criticize science in general and the study in question for being poorly designed, even though you don’t know much about study design and have never conducted one yourself.
Wow, are you really defending this article? Forget the stupid headline, the study itself would get you an F in a middle school science fair. Any high school grad should be able to see the flaws in this study.[/quote]
Oh, so what are the flaws?
Come on. Designing and analyzing studies is a profession. It takes years to be proficient at it. Not one of the critics in this thread sound like they have the first clue about study design OR analysis. Not one legitimate criticism has been mentioned. In fact, the prevailing criticism just shows how ignorant the critics are.
It is irrelevant that the subjects who ate the most eggs were fatter or less likely to exercise. All those other factors are measured and ARE NOT INCLUDED in the 23% effect of eggs as an independent factor.
The critics in this thread ASSUME that eggs interact with those other factors (age, exercise) and therefore, do not apply to them. The data, however, would show if eggs do indeed interact with other factors. Scientists are WELL AWARE of the possibility of interactions and they very well know how to look for them.
A poster on the first page pointed this out but was ignored.
Basically, if you do not understand multifactorial regression, you really have no business criticizing studies.
Here’s a 20-year study with more than 20,000 participants, conducted by scientists at Harvard, “debunked” by a bunch of egg-eating weight lifters on an internet forum. Uh-huh.
JB is pretty upset about this whole thing as well:
May I also add that this was an incredibly well written article on JB’s part.
-dizzle