Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Sign in to follow this  
FoodMan

Eating more than 7 eggs can kill you

Recommended Posts

According to this fascinating study :hmmm: , eating more than an egg a day can kill you! I say these folks have way too much time on their hands.

IMHO, the only line that makes sense here is this one "But, remember: eggs are like all other foods -- they are neither 'good' nor 'bad,' and they can be part of an overall heart-healthy diet," Eckel wrote in a commentary."


E. Nassar
Houston, TX

My Blog
contact: enassar(AT)gmail(DOT)com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last sentence was the most interesting:

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.

So was it the eggs or their generally unhealthy lifestyle that's to blame? These studies are so problematic precisely for that reason. I hate to think of all the people who are going to reduce their egg intake after reading this article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:cool: I'm always find these "studies" to be suspect. After all, couldn't you argue that since the study followed them for 20 years, being 20 years older contributed to an increased chance of death? And how would you like to have to keep track of how many eggs you ate for 20 years? The stress alone would kill me.

And another thing. Has anyone EVER met someone who has actually been in a study? Or met anyone who met anyone who was in a study? And yet, depending on the year eggs are great, or bad, or very bad, or only ok with Starbucks coffee.

So my credo is, only read about the studies that tell you how good things like wine, chocolate, eggs and bacon are for you. Reading the bad studies can lead to depression, repression and end your life prematurely. :raz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the breakdown would be if they had chosen to focus on any other item one might consume. The incidence of death among respondents who ate toast for breakfast 7 days a week. Eggs were good for you then they were bad, then good and now bad again. I think this might be a case of a study in search of additional funding. This I really like:

"Egg consumption was not associated with (heart attack) or stroke," the researchers wrote.

"But the men who ate seven eggs a week or more were 23 percent more likely to have died during the 20-year period.

Diabetic men who ate any eggs at all were twice as likely to die in the 20 years.

The article states that eggs are high in cholesterol, which in the medical community is associated with higher risk of heart attack and stroke. Yet, egg consumption was not a corollary to the incidence of early death. Is there a salmonella epidemic nobody's told us about? Are they just so intent on getting their daily egg that they step in front of the bus, not on to it? :wink:

Perhaps they were just not taking care of themselves, which is especially deadly for diabetics. QED

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

Oh, I almost missed it "ate more vegetables" I bet it was the brussel sprouts that did them in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Men who ate the most eggs also were older

I usually eat eggs for breakfast and I am definitely getting older: this study is full of insights.


josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone read the original study? My problem with studies reported in newspapers (which seems like the place that many people of my acquantance get their "statistics") don't report anything like what variables were controlled for or what that "greater risk" actually amounted to or what number of men actually ate 7 or more eggs per week (sample size, p-value, whatever). Nevermind how inaccurate reporting on exactly what you eat every day for 20 years by a group of physicians (who might not, for a whole host of reasons, even be representative of the general population) is likely to be...

Perhaps eating more than 7 eggs a week is correlated with overeating in general (since it means that those are people who a likely to be having an actual breakfast). Perhaps eating more than 7 eggs a week is correlated with getting less sleep (since you have to get up earlier to eat a full breakfast and still get to work on time). Perhaps eating more than 7 eggs a week is correlated with socioeconomic status or ethnicity (don't know why this would be so, but it could be) or living in a rural area or some other factor that contributes to "premature" death but isn't identified in the study...

And while I'm on my soapbox about studies published in newspapers and then quoted in other newspapers... The article is quoted as reporting that "egg consumption was not associated with (heart attack) or stroke" and yet the newspaper article details the "link" between eggs and heart attack and stroke, giving the impression that the reason more people died was heart attack and stroke, the poster-children of the "anti-egg" movement (which may not exist anywhere but in my mind, but is important for my argument). If egg consumption was not associated with heart attack and stroke, but was associated with risk of death, doesn't it stand to reason that the cause of death was something other than heart attack and stroke? Like getting hit by a bus? That's is, people who eat a lot of eggs become risk-takers and step off curbs without looking in both directions, getting hit by buses with increased frequency than their egg-abstaining brethren who maintain their high degree of self-preservation.

Finally, of course men who ate more eggs ate less breakfast cereal... While you can certainly eat eggs at other times than breakfast, in this country that's when you're most likely to eat them and if you're having eggs, bacon, and toast, you're probably not having a bowl of cereal along with it. Stupid statistics.


Feast then thy heart, for what the heart has had, the hand of no heir shall ever hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I better call my husband and let him know we are very unhealthy and that we going to die ..

we both eat at least that many eggs a week


why am I always at the bottom and why is everything so high? 

why must there be so little me and so much sky?

Piglet 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did anyone read the original study?  My problem with studies reported in newspapers (which seems like the place that many people of my acquantance get their "statistics") don't report anything like what variables were controlled for or what that "greater risk" actually amounted to or what number of men actually ate 7 or more eggs per week (sample size, p-value, whatever).  Nevermind how inaccurate reporting on exactly what you eat every day for 20 years by a group of physicians (who might not, for a whole host of reasons, even be representative of the general population) is likely to be...

I too have noticed such weirdnesses when newspaper/newswire journalists attempt to summarize scientific journal articles. In fact, one of my freelance jobs boils down to collecting science news items like this, tracking down the original journal article, researching the science behind the study, and then writing a new article that actually gets the science right. You would not believe how many times I discover the newswire journalist obviously had no freakin' idea what the hell the journal article was talking about, and wound up writing a total bull-fertilizer piece to the tune of "Scientists made a groundbreaking discovery that framistat deficiency disease, which is caused by a deficiency of framistat, can be treated by the administration of bioengineered framistat, which the researchers derived from the framistat cells of certain framistat-rich framistat glands..." :wacko::rolleyes::laugh:

Anyway--so I went to check the sources of this article, only to discover that the full text of the original journal article is only available if you're a subscriber or if you shell out $$ for one-time access. But the (admittedly not-very-informative) abstract is accessible without a fee, as is this much-more-informative editorial summary. The latter, in fact, does raise a number of questions about funky data issues, such as:

Unfortunately, data for LDL cholesterol and many other important covariates that relate to CVD risk were not available in the sample in their study. The study also suffers from the lack of detailed dietary information that may confound the interpretation, such as patterns of dietary intake of saturated and trans fats, fruit and vegetables, whole grains and other fiber, and fish. In the male physicians without diabetes, the trend analysis was weak, and significance was achieved only at consumption patterns of >1 egg/d (hazard ratio: 1.22). At this level of intake above the average ({approx}200 mg) for {approx}2000 kcal/d, a maximum increase in total cholesterol would be 40 mg/dL (11). Of course, this value is likely an overestimate, and it fails to take into consideration the subject's overall lifestyle, including dietary composition.

And it goes on ... but the gist of it, IMO, is that this study does have a bunch of problems and raises more questions than it answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord. If you live anywhere within 1,000 miles of either a city or an industrial zone you probably have an "increased chance" of dying in a 30-year-period than a wealthy hermit who resides in a steel-encased bubble atop Mount McKinley.

My wife tries to eat fewer refined carbs nowadays, so she likes when I get up in the morning and poach her a couple of eggs sometimes. If this routine occurs 3.5 times in a given week, can I be sued for spousal abuse? Am I killing her?

I love the "more vegetables" part. So I guess we should stop eating those, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not having read the actual study, but I think generally the issue with such reports in newspapers and such is that the writers are not numerate enough to summarize the data carefully.

Me, I had a grandma who ate like a dozen eggs for a month at a time 14 times (during confinement) and she lived to a healthy, hearty 80-something.


May

Totally More-ish: The New and Improved Foodblog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just ate a 10 egg-white omelette (leftovers from an ice-cream recipe). I guess I'm out of luck :biggrin:


Martin Mallet

<i>Poor but not starving student</i>

www.malletoyster.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a scientist. I have been quoted by journalists in the past. Now I refuse to talk to them. Most just take what you say and twist it around so they can sensationalize it. Whether they understand it or not. Which they usually don’t. There are a few top-notch science journalists. Not many.

I also have been in a study. I still am in fact. I am a “control” in a long-term study of the immunological effects of silicone implants on women. I promised the researchers that I would never get breast implants, or any other type of silicone implants. I knew I wouldn’t. Why would someone who rarely even combs her hair bother to get a boob job? They are comparing my immune function with that of women who do go plastic. I send them blood every five years or so.

I didn’t read this particular study but will say that this type of research is extremely difficult to do, and to analyze. But people try anyway, because we do wonder…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it concerns food, I only listen to the good reports and ignore the negative ones - sometimes ignorance is bliss. Excuse me while I go eat a dozen eggs... :raz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...