Log in
Healthy Eating
36,968 members6,007 posts

Eggs, CVD and all-cause mortality risk

The following paper concludes, "Conclusions and Relevance 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. These results should be considered in the development of dietary guidelines and updates."

jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...

I look forward to having it debunked.

27 Replies
oldestnewest

Isn't this study carried out using the similar technique as the egg study published last week? Although this one analyses 3 studies, those 3 studies collected their data in the same way. If I recall, last weeks one said eggs were good for us. It's interesting to see that 2 studies carried out using the same data collection technique show such different results (eggs are good for us and eggs are bad for us).

Mind you, it's hard to know whether those eggs are consumed as a daily Egg McMuffin or as a frittata, loaded with veg.

4 likes
Reply

No debunking... what's the point. Just enjoy your eggs and be happy.

3 likes
Reply

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the details of this study.

Hope you're having an enjoyable day so far.

Zest :-)

1 like
Reply

Hi,

I guess all association studies break down because correlation does not imply causation, but you might find this of interest, since with a much larger sample size tge number of deaths per person year in the nil egg consumption group is approximately double that in the moderate or frequent consumption groups: heart.bmj.com/content/104/2...

Reply

This study you cite has been severely criticised. As well as being observational (something you flag up) it also does not deal with the bigger issue of confounding issues, eg smoking, other dietary habits. The strength of this study is the population size, 1/2 million. But after that it rapidly goes downhill.

As healthnewsreview.org/2018/0... says this article you cite "This is not an argument against the daily consumption of eggs; it’s a plea not to delude ourselves into thinking eggs are some kind of magic medicine for preventing heart attacks and strokes."

The BMJ made an apology for the coverage, saying “Thank you for picking this up and we take your comments on board. We do put a great deal of effort into getting our press releases right. But occasionally, one slips through the net, as seems to have happened here, for which we take full responsibility. Our media and editorial teams have reflected on the issues raised here and, as a result, we are now undertaking a formal review of our checking and signing off processes for journal press releases.”

Sadly once the BMJ put this study out there and gave it credibility that automatically gave it coverage across major news outlets and they are not known for their retractions!

The fact is there are good and bad practices in asking people about dietary habits. One good thing is it has to be done because it is a very cost effective way to gain insights into nutritional health. Yes, one study does not create cause and effect. These studies can provide great insight into correlations. But when you get a stack of good studies indicating correlation time and time again that must tell you something.

Let me now refer to what I consider a good study that supports the starting point of this thread. My wife and myself took part in the Epic Oxford study. Every year we filled in a comprehensive booklet about our dietary habits. I remember opening the booklet and being daunted by the size! The survey starting in 1980, participants have been followed up after the survey for life outcomes up until 2016. I believe the survey was able to get a real insight into our dietary habits, over many years. Not only did study work as a survey but they also collected blood & plasma samples of a third of the participants when the survey itself came to an end. After the study participants were followed up for those who developed cancer or died in the years that followed via NHS Digital. This follow-up has meant 18 further publications over the years up to 2016. Just one of the conclusions of which was "plasma total cholesterol was strongly positively associated with the Keys score (Thorogood et al, 1990)." And what contains a lot of cholesterol? Read more at epic-oxford.org/oxford-vege...

Reply

Scary headline but bad science. One time only food questionnaire at the time of enrollment. Has your diet changed over 17 years? Mine has.

There's a good article on this study and ones like it on DietDoctor.

2 likes
Reply

I apologise if I lost track of the arguments thu the posts - but if the gist is that cholesterol is "bad" someone needs to do some more recent research

2 likes
Reply

Here’s the DietDoctor article mentioned by NSNG, for anyone interested.

dietdoctor.com/eggs-are-bad...

I’ve eaten eggs all my life, and my cholesterol levels are fine. There is some evidence that eating eggs on top of a SAD diet, so having poor quality gut bacteria, is linked to health problems. There’s a PubMed report on this somewhere.

2 likes
Reply

It's almost comical to see one report after another, with one report saying eggs are good, while soon after one says not good. Just what the heck is going on?? I just can't wrap my head around the views being taken with these studies. How can one scientific study be wrong, while another is right?? For me, I love eggs, nothing beats the protein profile of them, along with several other nutrients found in them. As for the cholesterol, I thought that one of the more recent studies said that it didn't raise blood cholesterol levels as bad as they thought?? Now, it's different again. Don't worry, soon there will be another "scientific" study saying that they will be ok again.

2 likes
Reply

If two studies can be carried out using the same methodology, and come up with completely different results, then there is an issue with the methodology. But I find it very hard to trust the information we're given because of that.

If we give people so much conflicting information, they'll start to ignore all of it, and just eat what they like anyway.

Reply

Exactly! With many studies being conducted as of late going in both directions at the same time, well then, it just seems like total nonsense, almost like they really don't really know themselves, and I for one am growing weary of the seemingly back and forth of it all with eggs! I don't know of any other food that has been studied back and forth like this.

Reply

As others say, eggs are pretty high cholesterol compared to other foods, so probably the debate is less about eggs, and more about whether dietary cholesterol is bad for us?

Reply

For 75% of people, eating eggs has minimal effects on cholesterol levels. Even US dietary guidelines have recognised this.

Unfortunately human biochemistry is very complicated and there seem to be a lot of poor studies and even worse media coverage on nutrition generally.

I’m carrying on eating eggs as usual, along with the occasional rasher of bacon.

Reply

Many studies are rigged to show minimal effect of eggs. If you eat 5 eggs, then what difference is a sixth going to make?

Think of a smoking analogy. If someone smokes 20 a day and then increases that to 25 the increased risk of cancer from smoking is minimal. It is the first 20 that cause the most damage, not the last 5.

The same is almost true with eggs. However there is an important difference between eggs and smoking. With smoking generally one either smokes or one doesn't. However if one day you don't eat eggs then you will eat something else, because you don't want to go hungry. So if you design a study so that participants replace eggs with other foods high in saturated fats and cholesterol then just removing the eggs is not going to show a significant change.

This is how egg studies have been rigged, and continue to be rigged. They do this time and time again. The US egg industry was taken to court and lost for putting out bogus research of this design type. But they have extremely deep pockets and one case in a court of law has not stopped them running other studies of a similar nature.

Reply

I’ve never come across a study that fed people 5 or 6 eggs!

Modern research has found that, for most people, if you eat cholesterol containing foods, your body will compensate by producing less cholesterol in your liver.

Many of the studies I have read on the negative effects of eggs appear to have been funded by the producers of statins.

Reply

The statins industry is as corrupt as it gets, that's for sure.

You can get a cholesterol testing kit for home use. Might be interesting to see what results you would get by avoiding cholesterol foods for say a few days and then adding them back. Lots of self tests could be run. Eg just eat 5 eggs and see the resulting change in cholesterol.

Reply

Having had cholesterol tests over several years, I’ve found that my levels have remained fairly consistent irrespective of what cholesterol containing foods I’ve been eating or not eating.

Eating 5 eggs at one go (don’t actually think I could manage it!) would no doubt raise cholesterol levels for a short time. Homeostasis would then ensure that levels would return to the optimum level for my body. I’m not aiming for a very low level, I have no reason to do so.

Reply

I thought it might be of interest, but I've been reading a post by someone who paid to read this full study, and apparently he total number of eggs consumed, included eggs bound up as ingredients in cake, ice cream and general junk food. I don't think the study can be taken very seriously if that's the case.

1 like
Reply

Well, not to cause any more controversy with this, but, now I just read something about increased TMAO levels, very interesting, maybe some will want to do a search on this??

Reply

Sorry, I'm not sure what TMAO is?

Reply

Hi Cooper27, if you have a way to do a search on TMAO, it might prove interesting. With all the on-going information out there with eggs and such, I came across this info, and honestly, now I don't know what to believe anymore, seems that research is being conducted on something on TMAO that is produced in the gut because of high levels of choline. Very compelling info, I must say. Maybe another discussion could be started with this just to see if anyone else is aware with this other info now??

Reply

Here’s one article.

chriskresser.com/choline-an...

Reply

Hi Penel, just now quickly read the report, seems reassuring, but, other studies being done are a bit more critical, there are quite a few. One of the things that seem to be similar with most of the reports is the consumption with fish, being more of a problem than eggs, and fish is supposed to be good for you. I eat a lot of tuna, so, here again, I give up!!

Reply

There are some complicated papers on the subject if you look on the PubMed site.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...

Whether or not TMAO is harmful to anyone seems to depend on the health and variety of your gut bacteria, it’s not a straightforward yes/no. The best advice seems to be to make sure you are eating a variety of good quality food.

Reply

Hi Penel. Just read the report you sent a link to, a bit long, but here again, bottom line seems to be to cut back on foods with choline and possibly carnitine, but as you mention, to just eat a variety of good foods, may very well not be a "blanket" to overcome this, there is more going on here than to just sticking to eating "good foods".

Reply

There may be certain health conditions that necessitate cutting back, but I’m not sure that healthy individuals need to be too worried. But I do like the advice that if you want to reduce TMAO, you could eat grapes.

Reply

Hi Penel. Yes, correct for the resveratrol that is mentioned. Just don't know how much to have a favorable impact. It's a "double-edge" sword, choline is necessary along with carnitine for good health, yet there are drawbacks to them also.

Reply

You may also like...