Asking of those who cut back on choline intake, any reversals? After my Dx ten years ago and all the reading, I went from excessive daily diet of eggs to none. Here, ten years later, I am finding a new focus on protein and eggs; not to mention other nutrients. I have been down the rabbit hole of market source and settled on the most expensive (hopefully) really organic grass (not grain) fed true open pasture birds and their eggs.
Respectfully, my question is to those that cut back on Choline - those that took on board this possible link between excessive Choline and prostate cancer. I consumed massive amounts of Choline in eggs alone. Reducing/dropping egss (perhaps greatest source of Choline per volume) is the quickest way to lower intake.
Perhaps it did not occur to you I understand the benefit of Choline. Perhaps it did not occur to you I am not chasing longevity thru abstinence - there are many sources for Choline.
Egg in beer refers to the practice, literally or figuratively, of cracking a raw egg into a glass of beer. The term is used metaphorically, commonly as "what do you want, egg in your beer?" implying that the listener already has something good but is asking for undeservedly more.[1]
Literal
In England, where the consumption of the egg in beer is centuries old, a mix of beer, raw egg, honey and other herbs could be prescribed to the sick. Posset, famously consumed in Macbeth and The Merry Wives of Windsor, consists partly in eggs whipped with cream, sugar, and beer or wine. Syllabub is made by mixing egg whites cream and wine. The egg also clears out cloudier beers.[2]
According to the Elizabethan theories, out of the four fundamentals characters (sanguine, choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic), eggs are sanguine and beer is choleric.[2]
In 1915, industry journal The Mixer and Server noted a Seattle case where a judge decreed that an egg, once cracked into a glass of beer, qualified as a drink and was not in violation of ordinances against giving free food in bars.[3]
A 1939 article in Printing magazine notes that Pennsylvania State Brewers' Association had launched a public-relations campaign to "sell the idea that eggs and beer make a pleasing combination."[4] Other Pennsylvania sources refers to this as a "miner's breakfast".[5][6]
Since 1999, Giang Cafe (located in Hanoi, Vietnam) has served an egg beer consisting of beer mixed with whipped egg yolks—a variant on traditional Vietnamese egg coffee.[7]
Metaphorical
Look up egg in one's beer in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Sources differ as to the origin of the colloquialism, with some stating it dates to World War II[8] while others speculate that it dates to the 19th century.[9] However, a 1933 article in the Stevens Indicator, mentioning an employee who had not received a raise, notes: "What do you expect, Carl? Egg in your beer?"[10]
Flips
Mixing beer, an egg and a liquor is called a "flip". According to The Whistler's lead bartender in Chicago, Marina Holter, flips date back to as far as the 1690s. Some assume that the liquor kills the salmonella risks linked to raw eggs consumption.[11] It may also be a revisited version of the classic raw egg+alcohol consumed across ages and cultures (and referred to as "Fallujah omelets" in the series Orange Is the New Black).[2]
Products
In 2021, for Easter, Cadbury partnered with Goose Island to release a Creme Egg-flavored beer.[12
Not addressing your question directly but you might want to look at the ARIC study. They looked at the effect of choline on prostate cancer (I think the number of men was around 6400) and found no connection. I’d include the link but I haven’t figure out how to do that yet. Maybe try googling ARIC and prostate cancer and see if you can find it.
Appreciate the reply (and acknowledgment not a direct answer). As we know, studies and papers abound, including conflicting ones. I had read this and others but was not dissuaded - perhaps persuaded by my own confirmation bias.
This paper opens acknowledging conflict - "Two prior cohort studies suggested that choline, but not betaine intake is associated with an increased risk of advanced prostate cancer (PCa)." How does one choose?
Paper concludes with "...but do suggest that higher betaine intake may be associated with lower lethal PCa risk."
Asking rhetorically, has this study persuaded you (anyone) to increase betaine intake?
I am well aware I may have been grasping at straws when I shuttered my decades of nearly daily intake of 4-6 eggs, but it seemed a logical hypothesis as dietary changes were one of the factors I looked into following diagnosis.
What I do know is ten years and four treatments later, (four are within ambiguous SOC), my uPSA is holding very very low stable range, 0.02X-0,03X, past four plus years, no ADT, and otherwise NED. All my currently extensive bloodwork results hold within standard ranges, I still have no need for prescription drugs, and here at 67YO I am building muscle mass. Also, I am grateful to say, after four doublet immunotherapy treatments, my metastatic melanoma seems to be in retreat. Further imaging beginning Jan 2nd will be revealing.
No, I do not attribute any of my favorable circumstances to egg intake reduction, but as with many studies, "maybe" adding eggs back into my diet is contributing to my strengthening muscles and yesterday's age adjusted PB on bench.
Again, I do appreciate your effort and reply; likely more than you and any others will take my blusterous return
At the end of the day we all make a choice and hope we can literally live with it. I subscribe to the theory that if it isn’t broke, don’t “fix” it. You seem to be doing really well without eggs in your diet. Why change things? For myself, eggs are an occasional treat, Maybe one or two a month. In light of the study I quoted you might wonder why? Personally I have very little faith in most of these studies so try to take a middle of the road approach. Time will tell…..
Yep it seems my eggless diet for ten years has not hurt me, but I miss em and they are quick and easy protein and nutrients. I hear you on why change - perhaps why I decided to put up this post. I am a frequent (some would say over-the-top uPSA tester), keeping a close watch on all matters.
I concur on your view of these types of studies; and IMHO trials too. The changes in the STAMPEDE trial are not minor - I remain grateful I did not follow this protocol when it was first recommended to me over eight years ago. But, my view could change tomorrow.
Two prior cohort studies suggested that choline, but not betaine intake, is associated with an increased risk of advanced prostate cancer (PCa). Given that evidence remains limited, we evaluated whether intakes of choline and derivative betaine are associated with total and lethal PCa risk and PCa death in men with PCa.
Methods
We included 6,528 men (24.4% African American) without a cancer diagnosis at baseline (1987–1989) followed through 2012. Dietary intake was assessed using a food frequency questionnaire coupled with a nutrient database. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of total and lethal PCa risk overall and by race.
Results
Choline intake was not associated with total (n = 811) or lethal (n = 95) PCa risk overall or by race. Betaine intake was inversely associated with lethal (tertile 3 vs 1, HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35–1.00, p trend = 0.04), but not total PCa risk; patterns for lethal PCa were similar by race. Neither nutrient was associated with PCa death in men with PCa.
Conclusions
Choline intake was not associated with total or lethal PCa or with PCa death in men with PCa. Betaine intake was inversely associated with lethal, but not total PCa risk or with PCa death in men with PCa. Our results do not support the hypothesis that higher choline intake increases lethal PCa risk, but do suggest that higher betaine intake may be associated with lower lethal PCa risk. Further investigation with a larger number of lethal cases is needed.
pretty much every one that died of prostate cancer consumed water. I don’t think any study has conclusive proof that any food in moderation causes cancer or the removal of that food will stop cancer.
Conclusive seems evasive with this beast. Many studies support 0.2 post RP as an official determiner for 'recurrence'. I am biased to the studies citing >0.010 post RP as concerning. Given that I had six cancerous pelvic lymph nodes at 0.13, missed by PSMA PET, I continue to strive to look ahead of conclusive. But then, I drink tap water and avoid water in plastic water bottles. All the best!
The key word being "conclusive." It would be instructive to know what precise study(ies) finally led to the conclusion that smoking caused lung cancer. They could not have been double blind, randomized clinical trials. Did they show causation or correlation in actual living humans? I don't really know.
I think the main cause they found was smoking damaged the DNA and that caused cancer but like 85% of smokers don’t get cancer because of how their body repairs the DNA. If you compare a smoker’s lung to a non smoker’s lung it’s pretty disgusting and that alone should make people quit regardless of causing cancer. I am always wary of studies that cite mice and then they give the mice a ton of chemicals per body size that no normal human would ever consume and say it causes cancer. I just think your genetics plays a huge role on who gets cancer and other diseases.
I don't know but that's the first I've heard of that being the reason. Surely that came much later, whereas the Surgeon General's report came out in 1964. I'm not defending smoking or saying that there is no linkage, just wondering how that linkage fits in with today's standard about whether other consumption habits are, or are not, linked to particular health outcomes.
Over the years I’ve cut back on eggs and I am usually down to one a week now. If I scramble the egg, I add egg white to it. I sometimes will have only the egg white.
The study that you posted is over 12 years old now so is automatically suspect to me. Not sure if additional, and similar, studies have been done since but as you have mentioned, now eggs are not as bad for you as they once thought. As my MO has stated from the get go, eat what you want … in moderation. I mostly try to do that.
For decades I broke the moderation rule when it came to eating eggs; did same with oxalates - another topic with lots of studies but IMHO more definitive conclusions. I have not had another stone since greatly reducing my oxalate intake.
A 2019 study published in PubMed, quoted in this post by Izzysdad, presents results that do not support the hypothesis that higher choline intake increases lethal PCa risk. It is not clear to me that the study sufficiently settles the matter.
I appreciate that 'aging' studies lacking more recent validation are suspect; but I wonder then, as with contradictory findings, how do we choose wisely? uPSA testing and definition of BCR are two ongoing critical topics with a plethora of (contradicting) studies over years.
I read egg whites have no choline it's the tasty yolks. Yes I refrain from the yolks only eat the whites. Can not say if it helped me. Keep in mind meat also has choline and other foods. I raise my own chickens for eggs to boot. Duck eggs are awesome - major choline there
Yes, I immediately stopped eating eggs when I was diagnosed back in 2017. I read several studies including this one. There's no way to know if it's helped or not since I can't be my own control. It certainly hasn't hurt. My diet and exercise routine is much improved since I was diagnosed as well. Again, no way to know if it's helped or not. I'm definitely healthier.
I put this entire study into ChatGPT (paid version) to have it summarize the study. I then asked it questions including if there have been any studies since to refute the findings, and when the study was concluded. Responses are below. Take them for what they're worth to you:
When was this study done?
>>>The study was conducted as part of the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which began in 1986. Dietary intake data was collected through validated food-frequency questionnaires administered between 1986 and 2006, and follow-up continued through January 31, 2008 .
Are There Studies That Refute These Findings?
The document indicates that no previous studies specifically examined dietary choline intake in relation to lethal prostate cancer before this research. However, a nested case-control study among Swedish men reported that a doubling in plasma choline was associated with a 46% increased risk of prostate cancer (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.04, 2.05; P-trend = 0.03). This supports the hypothesis that high choline intake may increase the risk of advanced or aggressive prostate cancer .
The document does not mention any studies explicitly refuting these findings. However, it acknowledges certain limitations, such as potential unmeasured confounding factors and the inability to fully isolate choline’s effect from other nutrients present in choline-rich foods (e.g., eggs, red meat, dairy). The authors recommend future studies to replicate these findings and explore the biological mechanisms involved .<<<
I very much appreciate your effort and well thought out reply - I concur throughout. And I agree in a very broad perspective regarding all the information, experiences and decisions we have/face; we should take all for what they are worth to us.
As Izzysdad observed and shared, as I am doing very well, why change. Maybe my desire to eat eggs again is simply an easy button.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
the best move I made......
Are eggs bad for PCa, round 2
In year 7 the ups and downs are down again
Eating regime and Zytiga
How long have I got
