Eggs Cause Death!

Nutrition
42

[quote]andersons wrote:
Oh, so what are the flaws?[/quote]

It’s not really the study, it’s the conclusions drawn from the data. The article even says that they noticed a correlation between the most frequent egg eaters and unhealthy, mortality-increasing behaviors. Any high school biology student could tell you that it is unreasonable to correlate the egg eating alone with death.

The study found whatever information it found. However, doctors quoted in the article made sweeping, unverifiable statements about mortality and egg eating.

43

[quote]Dirty_Bulk wrote:

The study found whatever information it found. However, doctors quoted in the article made sweeping, unverifiable statements about mortality and egg eating.[/quote]

That’s different than saying the study itself is crap – which is what most were saying on this thread.

On this site practically every day someone posts a link to some study and then a bunch of people bash it for being crap – because they don’t LIKE the results. This is ignorant and irrational.

The mortality risk that was found, 23%, is IMO fairly small. And it is a correlation, NOT a causation. There is no way of knowing eggs were the cause. However, if the eggs are not the cause, some other factor is, but NOT any of the factors measured in the study, such as age, fitness, or diabetic status – because an interaction would have been found.

44

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
sumgai wrote:
By definition, being alive causes death.

References?[/quote]

No one has gotten out of life, alive in the end…

NO ONE…

bummer…

45

[quote]andersons wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

Well then, tell us weight lifting morons HOW this study proves that 7 eggs a week increases death by 23%. Not 6, but 7. Because 6 yeilds NO increase in mortality.

And while you’re at it, please inform us how, in you words, “It is irrelevant that the subjects who ate the most eggs were fatter or less likely to exercise”. Because those factors seem pretty relevent to an increase in death.

Also, I think where some of us “critics” are coming from is the fact that the “news breaking” part of the study is the only thing reported. Yes, eggs were “linked” but not proven as the cause. But that is how this study is being spun. That’s the problem I have with it.

Oh, the part about it being a 20 year study by Harvard doctors doesn’t mean much to me. All that says to me is that they spent an ass-load of time and money studying people and their egg eating habits. All the more reason to report that eggs can kill you, cause what good was the study, then? I agree nothing was “de-bunked”, cause a study is a study. You find out what you find out. The issue here is how the data is being presented.

cueball

46

[quote]andersons wrote:
That’s different than saying the study itself is crap – which is what most were saying on this thread. [/quote]

Yeah, I bashed the study. What I should’ve said is that the study does not give us the data to draw honest conclusions about egg consumption.

I agree, but should we not in this particular case? No, I don’t like the their conclusion. Does that make it any less absurd?

47

[quote]cueball wrote:
Well then, tell us weight lifting morons HOW this study proves that 7 eggs a week increases death by 23%. Not 6, but 7. Because 6 yeilds NO increase in mortality.[/quote]

You’re misinterpreting the data. The scientists never say that an extra egg increases mortality rates 23%. What is said is that the group eating 7 or more eggs collectively had 23% higher mortality rates than the group who ate less than 6. There’s a big difference there.

[quote]cueball wrote:
Also, I think where some of us “critics” are coming from is the fact that the “news breaking” part of the study is the only thing reported. Yes, eggs were “linked” but not proven as the cause. But that is how this study is being spun. That’s the problem I have with it.[/quote]

The way the news article presents the study is misleading and isn’t how the researchers presented data in the actual literature. It is the reporters fault for taking statements mildly out of context which creates confusion here. Most often scientists choose their words very carefully as to not make a definitive statement. That is basically the point of epidemiology- to draw inferences and observe relationships, not attempt to state absolute truths.

48

[quote]cueball wrote:
andersons wrote:
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.

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.

Well then, tell us weight lifting morons HOW this study proves that 7 eggs a week increases death by 23%. Not 6, but 7. Because 6 yeilds NO increase in mortality.

And while you’re at it, please inform us how, in you words, “It is irrelevant that the subjects who ate the most eggs were fatter or less likely to exercise”. Because those factors seem pretty relevent to an increase in death.

Also, I think where some of us “critics” are coming from is the fact that the “news breaking” part of the study is the only thing reported. Yes, eggs were “linked” but not proven as the cause. But that is how this study is being spun. That’s the problem I have with it.

Oh, the part about it being a 20 year study by Harvard doctors doesn’t mean much to me. All that says to me is that they spent an ass-load of time and money studying people and their egg eating habits. All the more reason to report that eggs can kill you, cause what good was the study, then? I agree nothing was “de-bunked”, cause a study is a study. You find out what you find out. The issue here is how the data is being presented.

cueball[/quote]

Quit egging him on.

49

Anyone read John Berardi’s article about eggs and other “bad” foods on Precision nutrition? Great article and he’s so right. The gist of the article is that food is good or bad for depending on the physiological environment it is eaten in. If you are perfectly healthy eggs are fine.

50

[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Quit egging him on.
[/quote]

Egging, nice.

cueball