NYCityGirl
02-06-2005, 06:10 PM
Hi all,
Can eating eggs everyday, or rather 5 times a week cause high cholesterol? I know eggs raises both good and bad cholesterol, but I was wondering what the ultimate effect would be over all.
Sometimes I will eat 2 scrambled eggs a day.
Thanks in advance!!
Can eating eggs everyday, or rather 5 times a week cause high cholesterol? I know eggs raises both good and bad cholesterol, but I was wondering what the ultimate effect would be over all.
Sometimes I will eat 2 scrambled eggs a day.
Thanks in advance!!
Sponsor
ARIZONA73
02-06-2005, 07:17 PM
For the overwhelming majority of people, eggs will have a negligible impact on cholesterol levels. The effect, if any, will most likely result in an increase in HDL, the good cholesterol. Eggs are very rich in lecithin, a fat-busting emulsifier, and they are indeed one of the perfect foods.
I'm really surprised that this myth about eggs has still not entirely been put to rest once and for all. It all started over 60 years ago when the Cereal Institute sponsored a study in an attempt to show that feeding eggs to animals and humans would raise their serum cholesterol level. The only problem was that they used dried egg yolk powder, not fried or poached eggs, as eggs are usually eaten. Dried egg yolk powder is an oxidized form that is toxic to the blood vessels. So, all of those early studies are completely invalid. But it's amazing that the myth persists to this day. So, I wouldn't worry about eating eggs. In fact, I eat two scrambled eggs three times a week myself. :)
I'm really surprised that this myth about eggs has still not entirely been put to rest once and for all. It all started over 60 years ago when the Cereal Institute sponsored a study in an attempt to show that feeding eggs to animals and humans would raise their serum cholesterol level. The only problem was that they used dried egg yolk powder, not fried or poached eggs, as eggs are usually eaten. Dried egg yolk powder is an oxidized form that is toxic to the blood vessels. So, all of those early studies are completely invalid. But it's amazing that the myth persists to this day. So, I wouldn't worry about eating eggs. In fact, I eat two scrambled eggs three times a week myself. :)
jtu91952
02-06-2005, 11:56 PM
I haven't eaten an egg in over five yrs. My gp told me to stay away from eggs due to my high cholesterol. Before that i used to eat one scrambled egg each morning and never had a cholesterol problem. My cholesterol problem started when i was put on hctz.
One i lower my cholesterol to where it was b4 the diuretic i'll start back with at least one egg wkly. I miss them and they'll quick to prepare.
One i lower my cholesterol to where it was b4 the diuretic i'll start back with at least one egg wkly. I miss them and they'll quick to prepare.
rahod
02-07-2005, 12:07 AM
For the overwhelming majority of people, eggs will have a negligible impact on cholesterol levels. The effect, if any, will most likely result in an increase in HDL, the good cholesterol. Eggs are very rich in lecithin, a fat-busting emulsifier, and they are indeed one of the perfect foods.
I'm really surprised that this myth about eggs has still not entirely been put to rest once and for all. It all started over 60 years ago when the Cereal Institute sponsored a study in an attempt to show that feeding eggs to animals and humans would raise their serum cholesterol level. The only problem was that they used dried egg yolk powder, not fried or poached eggs, as eggs are usually eaten. Dried egg yolk powder is an oxidized form that is toxic to the blood vessels. So, all of those early studies are completely invalid. But it's amazing that the myth persists to this day. So, I wouldn't worry about eating eggs. In fact, I eat two scrambled eggs three times a week myself. :)
What about HARD BOILED?? I eat those daily.
I'm really surprised that this myth about eggs has still not entirely been put to rest once and for all. It all started over 60 years ago when the Cereal Institute sponsored a study in an attempt to show that feeding eggs to animals and humans would raise their serum cholesterol level. The only problem was that they used dried egg yolk powder, not fried or poached eggs, as eggs are usually eaten. Dried egg yolk powder is an oxidized form that is toxic to the blood vessels. So, all of those early studies are completely invalid. But it's amazing that the myth persists to this day. So, I wouldn't worry about eating eggs. In fact, I eat two scrambled eggs three times a week myself. :)
What about HARD BOILED?? I eat those daily.
Uff-Da!
02-07-2005, 02:12 AM
There is no doubt that eggs are not "the bad guy" as was formerly believed. There really doesn't seem to be any relationship between CVD and dietary cholesterol for the general population. I've been reading some of the research, and I think at this point it still is a bit unclear if some individuals ARE affected by dietary cholesterol. Since I have a family history of CVD plus had high cholesterol, I have reason to be concerned about this. But my favorite breakfast is two scrambled eggs smothered in about half a cup of hot salsa. I could eat that every day. Soooooo, I've decided to eat my eggs and BLOCK much of the dietary cholesterol. Before eating eggs or shrimp, I take one or more phytosterol pills, one pill per egg. Phytosterols have been shown to lower serum cholesterol, but I see no sense in taking them regularly, as most of my meals have little or no cholesterol. I've only been eating two eggs a day for a few weeks now, so I won't know the results of my little experiment until my next blood test, which is several months away.
Uff-Da!
02-07-2005, 02:51 AM
I just came across some references to research by H. Gylling and others published in 1997. Apparently 85% of those studied were "nonresponders," whose blood cholesterol stayed the same regardless of dietary intake of cholesterol. But that would leave 15% who would be affected by it.
Lenin
02-07-2005, 09:28 AM
My personal feeling, absent any conclusive, quantified studies, is that there is an effect although it's a small one. If it's something of the order of 5 points LDL I don't think it's worth all the dieting required to eliminate it.
Bring on the eggs...if my guess is wrong, the Lipitor will get it.:D Mornings without eggs would be aggravating.
I'll look round and see what I can dig up in the literature on the size of the effect.
edit: I'm going to add 2 thoughts that have been nagging the last hour.
1. The AHA and the USDA are STILL advocating a daily limit of 300 mg. choleserol (with 200 for those with any heart problems)...that's ONE egg.
2. Under the "follow the dollar" school of thought, the beef, poultry and dairy industries are perhaps the strongest food lobbyists in the U.S. where dollars speak LOUDLY indeed. I'm sure a LOT of force was brought to bear to limit any proposed warnings or regulations on cholesterol in eggs, butterfat, and grain fed cattle so maybe cholesterol ISN'T quite so innocuous and perhaps the earlier warnings were more valid than the now common belief.
After all when you dump 3 eggs into the stomach with nearly a GRAM of cholesterol in them, the cholesterol has to go SOMEWHERE! And to get there it has to go throught the bloodstream.
Bring on the eggs...if my guess is wrong, the Lipitor will get it.:D Mornings without eggs would be aggravating.
I'll look round and see what I can dig up in the literature on the size of the effect.
edit: I'm going to add 2 thoughts that have been nagging the last hour.
1. The AHA and the USDA are STILL advocating a daily limit of 300 mg. choleserol (with 200 for those with any heart problems)...that's ONE egg.
2. Under the "follow the dollar" school of thought, the beef, poultry and dairy industries are perhaps the strongest food lobbyists in the U.S. where dollars speak LOUDLY indeed. I'm sure a LOT of force was brought to bear to limit any proposed warnings or regulations on cholesterol in eggs, butterfat, and grain fed cattle so maybe cholesterol ISN'T quite so innocuous and perhaps the earlier warnings were more valid than the now common belief.
After all when you dump 3 eggs into the stomach with nearly a GRAM of cholesterol in them, the cholesterol has to go SOMEWHERE! And to get there it has to go throught the bloodstream.
donsabi
02-07-2005, 09:40 AM
My best cholesterol profile was when I was on a low-carb diet. I was eating eggs for breakfast and had hard boil eggs as a protein snack all day long. I was also losing weight. I was eating 2-3 dozen eggs a week.
My advice; eat the eggs and stay away from anything that says low-fat. Look at the list of ingredients on a package, if it says hydrogenated oil on it put it back!
Secondly, in 1900 heart disease was unheard of. Look up the diets from that time and you will find eggs at the top of the list.
My advice; eat the eggs and stay away from anything that says low-fat. Look at the list of ingredients on a package, if it says hydrogenated oil on it put it back!
Secondly, in 1900 heart disease was unheard of. Look up the diets from that time and you will find eggs at the top of the list.
Lenin
02-07-2005, 10:34 AM
Donsabi,
I dispute that
Secondly, in 1900 heart disease was unheard of. Look up the diets from that time and you will find eggs at the top of the list.
The line is dropped over and over but I've never seen any evidence of it's validity.
Remember that in 1900, if you died in your sleep at 55, you died of "natural causes" and basically those "natural causes" encompassed everything except accidents and gunshot wounds...probably MOST were heart attacks.
Just because they had no angiograms, MRI's, PET scans, or stress tests doesn't mean the disease process wasn't going strong....after all, these 1900 adults aren't walking around anymore, they're ALL dead and looking back at 105 year old data that shows 90% of the people died of natural causes reveals little.
The first description of angina pectoris available in history was given in the 17th century by Edward Hyde (1609-1674), a nonmedical person, in his biography, Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon. The case described is an in-detail history of his father's ailment, which eventually resulted in his sudden death. Although the word Angina Pectoris was not used in this manuscript, the description is very suggestive of it. The first detailed account of the angina pectoris given by a medical person was by Dr. William Heberden (1710-1801) in the 18th century. He used the term Angina Pectoris (Pectoris Dolor) for the first time. Both of these initial historical descriptions of angina pectoris are portrayed.
I dispute that
Secondly, in 1900 heart disease was unheard of. Look up the diets from that time and you will find eggs at the top of the list.
The line is dropped over and over but I've never seen any evidence of it's validity.
Remember that in 1900, if you died in your sleep at 55, you died of "natural causes" and basically those "natural causes" encompassed everything except accidents and gunshot wounds...probably MOST were heart attacks.
Just because they had no angiograms, MRI's, PET scans, or stress tests doesn't mean the disease process wasn't going strong....after all, these 1900 adults aren't walking around anymore, they're ALL dead and looking back at 105 year old data that shows 90% of the people died of natural causes reveals little.
The first description of angina pectoris available in history was given in the 17th century by Edward Hyde (1609-1674), a nonmedical person, in his biography, Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon. The case described is an in-detail history of his father's ailment, which eventually resulted in his sudden death. Although the word Angina Pectoris was not used in this manuscript, the description is very suggestive of it. The first detailed account of the angina pectoris given by a medical person was by Dr. William Heberden (1710-1801) in the 18th century. He used the term Angina Pectoris (Pectoris Dolor) for the first time. Both of these initial historical descriptions of angina pectoris are portrayed.
ARIZONA73
02-07-2005, 10:40 AM
Lenin,
Don't forget that it was the Cereal Institute which sponsored the flawed study (who eats powdered oxidized egg yolks?) 60 years ago. The Cereal Institute was certainly in a position to benefit financially from this scam. They no doubt remain a powerful force today as well. Just take a look at how many breakfast cereals there are. I've never seen so many breakfast cereals (many of which are junk) in all my life.
Don't forget that it was the Cereal Institute which sponsored the flawed study (who eats powdered oxidized egg yolks?) 60 years ago. The Cereal Institute was certainly in a position to benefit financially from this scam. They no doubt remain a powerful force today as well. Just take a look at how many breakfast cereals there are. I've never seen so many breakfast cereals (many of which are junk) in all my life.
Lenin
02-07-2005, 10:47 AM
ARIZONA,
Remember though, that the cereal industry would have split motives. Probably their LARGEST source of income is cattle and chicken feed. Their monetary incentive in dietary cholesterol control would not be nearly so clear as the cholesterol producers.
For all those Cocoa Puffs, Cheerios, and SmartStarts there's an AWFULLY lot more meat, eggs, milk, and cheese sold.
Of course, there's the sugar lobby to consider:D:D:D.
Remember though, that the cereal industry would have split motives. Probably their LARGEST source of income is cattle and chicken feed. Their monetary incentive in dietary cholesterol control would not be nearly so clear as the cholesterol producers.
For all those Cocoa Puffs, Cheerios, and SmartStarts there's an AWFULLY lot more meat, eggs, milk, and cheese sold.
Of course, there's the sugar lobby to consider:D:D:D.
Lenin
02-07-2005, 11:10 AM
OK,
I found something good in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition written by a Donald McNamara of the Egg Institute (one might expect a teeny bias):
For over 25 years eggs have been the icon for the fat, cholesterol and caloric excesses in the American diet, and the message to limit eggs to lower heart disease risk has been widely circulated. The "dietary cholesterol equals blood cholesterol" view is a standard of dietary recommendations, yet few consider whether the evidence justifies such restrictions. Over 50 years of cholesterol-feeding studies show that dietary cholesterol does have a small effect on plasma cholesterol concentrations. The 167 cholesterol feeding studies in over 3,500 subjects in the literature indicate that a 100 mg change in dietary cholesterol changes plasma total cholesterol by 2.2 mg/dL.
So even the Egg Institute admits that a 3 extra large egg breakfast would raise an average person's total cholesterol by 20 points; not earthshattering but certainly significant. Later he talks about LDL and HDL being increased by similar amounts (GOOD!)
Looking over all the charts of cholesterol content I've come to one conclusion, if you eat egg YOLKS you cannot stick to a 300 mg. limit; without eggs it's easy as pie <no yolks in the crust!:D> Eggs are the only COMMON food that is very high in cholesterol.
(We'll ignore brains, liver, squid, and caviar, but I guess we can't ignore SHRIMP:()
And "monkeying around" with another study:
Within the 30 and 36% energy as fat groups, when cynomolgus monkeys were fed both the medium (0.03 mg/kJ) and high (0.05 mg/kJ) cholesterol diets they had significantly higher serum total and LDL cholesterol concentrations than when they consumed the low (0.01 mg/kJ) cholesterol diets. Additionally, at both dietary fat levels, when monkeys were fed the high cholesterol diet, they had significantly greater serum total and LDL cholesterol concentrations than when they consumed the medium cholesterol diets. In monkeys fed 30% energy as fat, HDL cholesterol concentrations were 32% greater (P < 0.05) when they consumed the medium compared with the low cholesterol diets. HDL cholesterol concentrations declined 22% (P < 0.05) when dietary cholesterol increased to the highest concentration. Although the trend was similar in the 36% energy as fat group, HDL cholesterol concentrations were only 8% greater when monkeys consumed the medium cholesterol diet compared with the low cholesterol diet (P > 0.05). However, HDL cholesterol concentrations again declined by 32% (P < 0.05) as dietary cholesterol increased to the highest concentration. At 30% energy as fat, serum apo B concentrations when monkeys were fed the medium and high cholesterol diets were 56 and 100% greater (P < 0.05), respectively, compared with levels when they consumed the low cholesterol diets. Similarly, at the 36% fat level, serum apo B concentrations when monkeys were fed both the medium and high cholesterol diets were significantly greater than when they consumed the low cholesterol diet. Additionally, at both dietary fat concentrations, when monkeys were fed the high cholesterol diet, they had significantly elevated serum apo B concentrations compared with when they consumed the medium cholesterol diets. Although the changes in apo A-I concentration in response to dietary cholesterol paralleled those of HDL cholesterol, none of the changes within each dietary fat concentration were significant. Serum triglyceride concentrations were low in all monkeys at both dietary fat concentrations and there were no significant differences. All monkeys maintained relatively constant body weights for the duration of the study.
If I've done my converting correctly, that HIGH dietary cholesterol diet of .05 mg. per Kj equals 420 mg. cholesterol in a diet of 2000 calories, so a large egg eater would probably be in the SUPER HIGH cholesterol category!
I found something good in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition written by a Donald McNamara of the Egg Institute (one might expect a teeny bias):
For over 25 years eggs have been the icon for the fat, cholesterol and caloric excesses in the American diet, and the message to limit eggs to lower heart disease risk has been widely circulated. The "dietary cholesterol equals blood cholesterol" view is a standard of dietary recommendations, yet few consider whether the evidence justifies such restrictions. Over 50 years of cholesterol-feeding studies show that dietary cholesterol does have a small effect on plasma cholesterol concentrations. The 167 cholesterol feeding studies in over 3,500 subjects in the literature indicate that a 100 mg change in dietary cholesterol changes plasma total cholesterol by 2.2 mg/dL.
So even the Egg Institute admits that a 3 extra large egg breakfast would raise an average person's total cholesterol by 20 points; not earthshattering but certainly significant. Later he talks about LDL and HDL being increased by similar amounts (GOOD!)
Looking over all the charts of cholesterol content I've come to one conclusion, if you eat egg YOLKS you cannot stick to a 300 mg. limit; without eggs it's easy as pie <no yolks in the crust!:D> Eggs are the only COMMON food that is very high in cholesterol.
(We'll ignore brains, liver, squid, and caviar, but I guess we can't ignore SHRIMP:()
And "monkeying around" with another study:
Within the 30 and 36% energy as fat groups, when cynomolgus monkeys were fed both the medium (0.03 mg/kJ) and high (0.05 mg/kJ) cholesterol diets they had significantly higher serum total and LDL cholesterol concentrations than when they consumed the low (0.01 mg/kJ) cholesterol diets. Additionally, at both dietary fat levels, when monkeys were fed the high cholesterol diet, they had significantly greater serum total and LDL cholesterol concentrations than when they consumed the medium cholesterol diets. In monkeys fed 30% energy as fat, HDL cholesterol concentrations were 32% greater (P < 0.05) when they consumed the medium compared with the low cholesterol diets. HDL cholesterol concentrations declined 22% (P < 0.05) when dietary cholesterol increased to the highest concentration. Although the trend was similar in the 36% energy as fat group, HDL cholesterol concentrations were only 8% greater when monkeys consumed the medium cholesterol diet compared with the low cholesterol diet (P > 0.05). However, HDL cholesterol concentrations again declined by 32% (P < 0.05) as dietary cholesterol increased to the highest concentration. At 30% energy as fat, serum apo B concentrations when monkeys were fed the medium and high cholesterol diets were 56 and 100% greater (P < 0.05), respectively, compared with levels when they consumed the low cholesterol diets. Similarly, at the 36% fat level, serum apo B concentrations when monkeys were fed both the medium and high cholesterol diets were significantly greater than when they consumed the low cholesterol diet. Additionally, at both dietary fat concentrations, when monkeys were fed the high cholesterol diet, they had significantly elevated serum apo B concentrations compared with when they consumed the medium cholesterol diets. Although the changes in apo A-I concentration in response to dietary cholesterol paralleled those of HDL cholesterol, none of the changes within each dietary fat concentration were significant. Serum triglyceride concentrations were low in all monkeys at both dietary fat concentrations and there were no significant differences. All monkeys maintained relatively constant body weights for the duration of the study.
If I've done my converting correctly, that HIGH dietary cholesterol diet of .05 mg. per Kj equals 420 mg. cholesterol in a diet of 2000 calories, so a large egg eater would probably be in the SUPER HIGH cholesterol category!
ZippyDawg
02-07-2005, 01:05 PM
I'm really surprised that this myth about eggs has still not entirely been put to rest once and for all. It all started over 60 years ago when the Cereal Institute sponsored a study in an attempt to show that feeding eggs to animals and humans would raise their serum cholesterol level. The only problem was that they used dried egg yolk powder, not fried or poached eggs, as eggs are usually eaten. Dried egg yolk powder is an oxidized form that is toxic to the blood vessels. So, all of those early studies are completely invalid. But it's amazing that the myth persists to this day. So, I wouldn't worry about eating eggs. In fact, I eat two scrambled eggs three times a week myself. :)
Not only were the original studies done with powdered eggs they used rabbits as the test animals. Unfortunately rabbits are vegetarians and do not have the capacity to process dietary cholesterol. The results of the study were completely bogus and unfortunately the myth that eggs are “bad” still persists today.
Whole eggs are probably the most nutritious food that you can eat and in my experience have no effect on serum cholesterol levels. I eat eggs several times each week. The only time my cholesterol/lipid levels were elevated was when I was on a low-fat, egg restricted “heart healthy” diet as recommended by the American Heart Association.
It is best to completely cook the white portion and to leave the yolk as uncooked as possible. Everything I’ve read about eggs states that heat destroys the yolks nutritional value so making scrambled eggs is probably not the best choice.
Not only were the original studies done with powdered eggs they used rabbits as the test animals. Unfortunately rabbits are vegetarians and do not have the capacity to process dietary cholesterol. The results of the study were completely bogus and unfortunately the myth that eggs are “bad” still persists today.
Whole eggs are probably the most nutritious food that you can eat and in my experience have no effect on serum cholesterol levels. I eat eggs several times each week. The only time my cholesterol/lipid levels were elevated was when I was on a low-fat, egg restricted “heart healthy” diet as recommended by the American Heart Association.
It is best to completely cook the white portion and to leave the yolk as uncooked as possible. Everything I’ve read about eggs states that heat destroys the yolks nutritional value so making scrambled eggs is probably not the best choice.
Magpiezoe
02-11-2005, 02:52 PM
It's not the eggs that are the problem. It's the overall daily diet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't eggs have LECITHIN in them? 1 egg has less total fat and sat. fat in it than 1 serving of red meat. That means that if you are using an egg as a substitute for meat, then you should be ok. You just need to watch your total fat and sat. fat intake for the whole day. Total fat should be 30% or less and sat. fat should be no more than 10% of what you eat in one day. Another thing to watch out for is trans. fat. So what else are you having during the day?
Cloverberry52
02-11-2005, 03:34 PM
there's very little problem with eggs. The cereal people started that rumor about them raising cholesterol in the 30's because they felt they weren't selling enough cereal. A couple of eggs a day shouldn't affect the normal person.
ARIZONA73
02-11-2005, 09:26 PM
donsabi,
Yes, that's a very interesting article, and I have no doubt that there is a considerable amount of truth to it. One hundred years ago people didn't have to worry so much about the foods they ate, since it was all made from natural ingredients. But nowadays, forget it! Now we have to scrutinize everything in the supermarkets, carefully examining each and every label for traces of these artificial poisons. I think if we removed all the junk from the shelves, we'd end up with supermarkets about one third the size, and it would make all of our lives a lot easier as well. And it would be much easier to find what we're looking for. Wouldn't that be great? Oh, and one other thing: We'd be a whole lot healthier as a result! :)
Yes, that's a very interesting article, and I have no doubt that there is a considerable amount of truth to it. One hundred years ago people didn't have to worry so much about the foods they ate, since it was all made from natural ingredients. But nowadays, forget it! Now we have to scrutinize everything in the supermarkets, carefully examining each and every label for traces of these artificial poisons. I think if we removed all the junk from the shelves, we'd end up with supermarkets about one third the size, and it would make all of our lives a lot easier as well. And it would be much easier to find what we're looking for. Wouldn't that be great? Oh, and one other thing: We'd be a whole lot healthier as a result! :)
pcovers
02-12-2005, 03:41 PM
The University of Illinois Extension relates the following:
Thirteen patients at the Highland Hospital in Oakland, California were fed the equivalent in egg yolks of that found in 15 eggs per day for a 3 week period. The serum cholesterol did not increase significantly in any except two bedridden, obese patients. Four of the 7 ambulatory patients in the study actually showed a slight decrease in serum cholesterol.
There were many other references to the lack of correlation between ingested cholesterol and serum cholesterol. I find the cholesterol and heart healthy paradoxes interesting and amusing.
Thirteen patients at the Highland Hospital in Oakland, California were fed the equivalent in egg yolks of that found in 15 eggs per day for a 3 week period. The serum cholesterol did not increase significantly in any except two bedridden, obese patients. Four of the 7 ambulatory patients in the study actually showed a slight decrease in serum cholesterol.
There were many other references to the lack of correlation between ingested cholesterol and serum cholesterol. I find the cholesterol and heart healthy paradoxes interesting and amusing.
Lenin
02-15-2005, 06:51 PM
pcovers,
C'mon, can you possibly cite a WORSE study?
I mean 13 people and they discount the effect on 2 people because they were OBESE?
Bizarre at best!
Do the testers know the meaning of double blind and sample size.
It's one step removed from "My Aunt Fanny ate a dozen eggs a day and lived to be 150!":D
Most impressive was that WHOLE 3 week testing period...I suppose it's better than testing after ONE HUGE OMELET!
C'mon, can you possibly cite a WORSE study?
I mean 13 people and they discount the effect on 2 people because they were OBESE?
Bizarre at best!
Do the testers know the meaning of double blind and sample size.
It's one step removed from "My Aunt Fanny ate a dozen eggs a day and lived to be 150!":D
Most impressive was that WHOLE 3 week testing period...I suppose it's better than testing after ONE HUGE OMELET!
pcovers
02-15-2005, 10:55 PM
pcovers,
C'mon, can you possibly cite a WORSE study?
I could have posted the study I read about a women that ate a dozen eggs a day and lived to be 150.
I have no problem puting stock in the results of an experiment that feeds a dozen folks the equivilent of 15 eggs a day. There is no pretense or politics in it. That egg packers lobby is still a pretty small operation.
C'mon, can you possibly cite a WORSE study?
I could have posted the study I read about a women that ate a dozen eggs a day and lived to be 150.
I have no problem puting stock in the results of an experiment that feeds a dozen folks the equivilent of 15 eggs a day. There is no pretense or politics in it. That egg packers lobby is still a pretty small operation.