-Gila Region Community News, Calendar, Forum-

Reader Supported Silver City News & SW New Mexico, Grant County NM, Gila NF
* Login   * Register

* FAQ    * Search

All times are UTC - 7 hours

News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 

Silver City Food Coop



We Are Reader Supported
Your recurring contribution goes to support the Forum, Calendar, and Email List, which exists to further local, sustainable, place-based community.
MONTHLY RECURRING GIFT
    Bill Me Now For: $

ONE-TIME GIFT
Bill Me Now For: $

You may also mail a check or cash to
Moses Clark
PO Box 1792
Silver City, N.M. 88062


Get your ad here








Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author ------ Message
 Author: Layla
PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:45 am 
"When people in general are asked, “Are eggs adversely affecting your cholesterol levels?” The majority of the people, without giving any great thought, will respond in the affirmative. This trend in thinking seems to be a popular misconception not supported by the evidence."

The infamous “food scare” associated with the egg goes all the way back to the 1960s. Somewhere in the clever minds of the researchers, it was decided to feed eggs to rabbits and document the results. The cataloged results of clever people feeding an animal protein to a vegetarian rabbit were easy to record – the rabbits died. Overlooking the obvious, the mantra of this research became ‘the eggs caused cholesterol – that caused cardiovascular disease,’ and the rest as they say, “is history.” Dr. William. Alex McIntosh, PhD, of the Department of Rural Sociology, Texas A&M University


Dr. Donald J. McNamara, PhD, of the Egg Nutrition Center, in Washington, DC in his study of more than 100,000 adults" found that people who eat more than an egg a day are at no greater risk than those eating fewer than one egg a week. An egg a day is fine for most people and can actually be good for them.Japan has the highest rate of egg consumption in the world and one of the lowest rates of heart disease."



Clare M. Hasler Ph.D received her B.S. in Human Nutrition from Michigan State University, and an M.S. in Nutrition Science from The Pennsylvania State University. In 1990, she was awarded a dual Ph.D. in Environmental Toxicology and Human Nutrition from Michigan State University. From 1990-1992, Dr. Hasler was a postdoctoral fellow in the Laboratory of Cellular Carcinogenesis and Tumor Promotion at the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. She received her MBA from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in May 2003.

From 1992 to 2000, Dr. Hasler served as the founding director of the Functional Foods for Health (FFH) Program—a joint effort between the Chicago (UIC) and Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) campuses of the University of Illinois. Dr. Hasler is an internationally recognized expert on the topic of functional foods and nutraceuticals.

She notes that "eggs have not traditionally been regarded as a functional food, primarily due to concerns about their adverse effects on serum cholesterol levels." However, "it is now known that there is little if any connection between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol levels…" she states.

In addition, Dr. Hasler notes that "…eggs are an excellent dietary source of many essential (e.g., protein, choline) and non-essential (e.g., lutein/zeaxanthin) components which may promote optimal health."



A research team from the University of Surrey headed by Dr Bruce Griffin fed two eggs per day to overweight but otherwise healthy volunteers for 12 weeks while they simultaneously followed a reduced calorie diet prescribed by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) – who normally restrict egg intake to 3-4 per week. A control group followed the same BHF diet but cut out eggs altogether.

Both groups lost between 3 to 4kg (7- 9lbs) in weight and saw a fall in the average level of blood cholesterol.

Research leader Dr Bruce Griffin stated: "When blood cholesterol was measured at both six weeks and twelve weeks, both groups showed either no change or a reduction, particularly in their LDL (bad) cholesterol levels, despite the egg group increasing their dietary cholesterol intake to around four times that of the control."

This research provides further evidence to support the now established scientific understanding that saturated fat in the diet (most often found in pastry, processed meats, biscuits and cakes) is more responsible for raising blood cholesterol than cholesterol-rich foods, such as eggs.Dr Griffin continued: "There is no convincing evidence to link an increased intake of dietary cholesterol or eggs with coronary heart disease through raised blood cholesterol. Indeed, eggs make a nutritional contribution to a healthy, calorie-restricted diet. We have shown that when two eggs a day are eaten by people who are actively losing weight on a calorie-restricted diet, blood cholesterol can still be reduced."



"Common misconceptions keep many people, especially those worried about heart disease, from eating eggs. The July issue of the Harvard Heart Letter unscrambles the dietary facts and myths about the egg."

Myth: All that cholesterol goes straight to your bloodstream and then into your arteries. Not so. For most people, only a small amount of the cholesterol in food passes into the blood. Saturated and trans fats have much bigger effects on blood cholesterol levels.

Myth: Eating eggs is bad for your heart. The only large study to look at the impact of egg consumption on heart disease—not on cholesterol levels or other intermediaries—found no connection between the two. In people with diabetes, though, egg-a-day eaters were a bit more likely to have developed heart disease than those who rarely ate eggs.



Ohman M, Akerfeldt T, Nilsson I, Rosen C, Hansson LO, Carlsson M, Larsson A.Their research Biochemical effects of consumption of eggs containing omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.
"When we consider these findings together, we can see that there are two key messages:

Eggs in general don’t seem to have a negative effect on any of the blood measures surveyed. That means no increase in bad cholesterol or decrease in good cholesterol.
Omega-3 eggs, however, seem to have a beneficial effect since they improve key blood proteins that are indicators of cardiovascular disease and decrease blood glucose."




Peter M Brindle, General practitioner and Wellcome research fellow Jonathan Emberson, Fiona Lampe, Mary Walker, Peter Whincup, Tom Fahey and Shah Ebrahim
University of Bristol, BS8 2PR

Based on their research:

"The external validity of the Framingham equation has been widely assessed and the findings of the recent validation studies from Europe are consistent1-4. Framingham overpredicts risk in these populations and the degree of overprediction depends upon the background risk of the population to which the function is being applied. It is now indisputable that in terms of cardiovascular risk prediction at least, one size does not fit all."



I have been reading for years that eggs didn't have an negative impact on cholesterol and thought everyone else agreed. I didn't realize until recently that the majority of Americans still believe eggs are bad for your cholesterol.Because they have gotten it wrong so many times, I always question dietary authorities like the USDA and the various medical organizations. We pick and choose our beliefs, that's what make us individuals, but for those who believe egg cholesterol isn't bad for your heart here is some of the research.
Layla


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: judithelise
PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:28 pm 
Here is an interesting view on how the original Framingham data was misrepresented:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/card ... m-follies/

It does make you wonder what or who to trust. I can see how lay people might be misinformed but what about our public health officials and policy makers who are supposed to know better?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:19 pm 
I was going to repost my last contribution from the backyard chicken thread here but now that just seems repetitive. We seem to agree that eggs are a healthy food for many people ( though its worth remembering that diabetics appear to be an exception to that, since eggs did increase their cardiovascular disease risk).

Layla, I don't really agree with the claims of Dr. Griffen that their research, which focused only on eggs, can be extrapolated to mean that all cholesterol rich foods would not be a problem or that saturated fats are worse than cholesterol. Those conclusions were not directly measured by his study and can't be assumed, especially given that his study was conducted with participants who were eating a reduced calorie diet and losing weight at the same time they were eating the eggs and having their cholesterol measured. I think subsequent studies with saturated fats in general, as mentioned in the links Judy provided have also called that claim into question.

And further studies such as the STARS study I mentioned in my post on the other thread provide evidence that aggressively lowering cholesterol in the diet had beneficial effects with respect to plaque regression and symptom reduction as well as lowering LDL in patients with existing heart disease.

So, for me at least, dietary cholesterol is still likely to be a factor in serum cholesterol and overall cardiovascular disease risk, as is saturated fat. However, it certainly isn't the only factor and may not be as much of an issue as once thought when moderate amounts are consumed as part of a wholefood diet in conjunction with a healthy lifestyle

Jill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: AM Coffee
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:32 pm 
In Layla’s opening post she writes,
Quote:
“Dr. Donald J. McNamara, PhD, of the Egg Nutrition Center, in Washington, DC in his study of more than 100,000 adults found that people who eat more than an egg a day are at no greater risk than those eating fewer than one egg a week. An egg a day is fine for most people and can actually be good for them. Japan has the highest rate of egg consumption in the world and one of the lowest rates of heart disease.”

For someone looking to justify their consumption of eggs this citation appearing on the Mainstream Health section of the Gila Forum would seem like just the ticket. What Layla suggests here is that people should feel just fine about eating several eggs each day. The problem is, that’s not exactly what Dr. McNamara found, or said, and more importantly, left out are some critical parts of what he did say. Here’s a bit more from his conclusions.

“In a healthy Western population, there is insufficient evidence to restrict egg intake as part of a healthy diet. However, prudent advice is that the inclusion of eggs in the context of a diet low in saturated fat and containing known cardio-protective components is not associated with increased risk. Further research is required to fully assess the effects of egg consumption in those with coronary heart disease, hyperlipidemias (especially combined hyperlipidemias), or type 2 diabetes. As diet-induced changes in total cholesterol and lipoproteins vary considerably between individuals, the Egg Nutrition Advisory Group recommends individual discussion of the recommendations regarding egg intake with their health care professional.”

This excerpt on Dr. McNamara’s findings, suggests something a bit different from the notion that people should feel just fine about eating several eggs every day. Rather, as Executive Director of the Egg Nutrition Center, he’s saying it’s barely ok to eat eggs. More importantly, to the extent anyone should eat several them each day, that person should otherwise be consuming a highly controlled diet, understand that all bets are off if they face any risk for CHD, elevated blood fat/cholesterol or diabetes, they should know exactly where their cholesterol and lipoprotein levels are, discuss their egg consumption with their doctor, and realize that the full consequences of long term egg consumption in their particular case will still remain unpredictable. As Layla points out however, to bump up one's safety margin just a bit more though, they should go live in Japan, where diet, lifestyle, and culture are very different from where we live in the US. How different? As a rough measure of a healthy diet, a healthy lifestyle, and a healthy population, let’s consider the barometer of obesity.

On this page, http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html the CDC posts a very nice interactive map depicting the trend of obesity in America over the last 20 years. You should look at it. It’s not just disgraceful, it’s terrifying. The accompanying text states, “In 2010, no state had a prevalence of obesity less than 20%. Thirty-six states had a prevalence of 25% or more; 12 of these states had a prevalence of 30% or more.” By contrast (and though dramatically on the rise) Japan’s obesity rate is at 3.2%.

I propose to you considerate readers, if we also factor in conditions other than just obesity, the majority of us Americans are in fact unhealthy, and should stay away from eggs, along with any other food that’s high in cholesterol. And until our country as a whole regains its health, we should be promoting low cholesterol foods, the lower the better.

Now those of you following the “backyard chicken” thread know how wound up I’ve become over this whole egg issue and so may have started out looking at my post here with some skepticism anyway, if not downright contempt. And so if you and I are already at those odds it probably doesn’t matter too much what I say, so I may as well toss this out in continuation of the discussion from that side of the forum.

It is true that our bodies produce cholesterol, so one might conclude that eating it doesn’t really matter too much. If you’re just looking for another justification for eating eggs, well there you go. And if you’re looking for another reason to rip my head off, I’m about to give you one. Interpretations are always good for that and I’m about to express one of mine.

The literature will tell you that our liver produces some 75% of our cholesterol. Our livers absorb and store it from our blood and produce it when our blood cholesterol is too low. In this role, our liver isn’t really just a producer of cholesterol, it’s a regulator of it. So long as the amount of cholesterol circulating around in our blood remains within the bounds of our liver’s ability to regulate it, we’re good. That being the case, we could look to the average latent human blood cholesterol level, as controlled by our liver, and say, well, that’s the level of blood cholesterol Nature intended for us humans. Nature gave us this system of ours and Nature gave us a liver which included its function as cholesterol regulator. So, when left to its own devices, to what level does the liver actually regulate our blood cholesterol?

One way to find that answer would be to first eliminate all other sources of cholesterol from a given test subject/group, let the body and liver stabilize, and then measure the amount of cholesterol found remaining in the blood. Another approach, would be to measure the blood cholesterol level found in humans who are generally healthy, physically active, and normally exist on a very low cholesterol diet in the first place. When that’s done, it’s found that the natural average latent human blood cholesterol level is down around 100. This little bit of reality is in serious conflict with what western society and medicine call normal, or even healthy. In our part of the universe, a cholesterol level anywhere near this value is considered downright unhealthy. On the other hand, in that group of people whose cholesterol levels are down around 100, there will be found no deaths from coronary heart disease. A nice study was done in China on this very topic back in the 70's.

You can decide for yourself what this all means. To me, it means that none of us considered to be healthy and eating a healthy diet, maintain our cholesterol level anywhere near that actually regulated by our liver. Or to say it another way, all of us maintain cholesterol levels in excess of what nature intended. Ok, so maybe not “all” of us, there may be a few Americans who actually live within the bounds that Nature planned, but I submit to you, there are very few of us. What’s more, as time goes on, those few Americans are becoming fewer and fewer. We, as a nation and populace, over eat, we are over weight, we are under exercised, and we are on a very dangerous track, the result of which is that fully 40% of us are dropping dead thanks to coronary heart disease. That’s not my opinion, that’s not my interpretation, that’s a tragic fact. To me, that fact suggests something is terribly wrong, and when I ask what it could be, I start with what we know.

We know that coronary heart disease is firmly linked to arterial plaque, arterial plaque is linked to blood cholesterol, blood cholesterol is linked to dietary cholesterol, and dietary cholesterol is linked to what we put in our mouths. So, to me, that’s where the problem starts. By and large, foods as high in cholesterol as eggs should not be put in our mouths, at least not the yokes, and certainly not in quantity. You may believe otherwise, and perhaps, given your particular diet, lifestyle and health, it may be otherwise. If so, congratulations, you are among the very few Americans in your particular category.

For those of you far better acquainted with this whole topic than I am, I anxiously await your criticism and wisdom.

Jill, the link posted on the backyard chicken page that was intended to point to this thread actually maps back to the backyard chicken page. At least that’s what happened from my machine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: judithelise
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:06 pm 
http://www.jacn.org/content/19/suppl_5/540S.full

http://www.jacn.org/content/19/suppl_5/549S.long

http://www.ovosbrasil.com.br/download/c ... ulares.pdf

http://www.ajcn.org/content/36/4/617.full.pdf

http://www.sapoultry.co.za/pdf/MedSciMonit.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7304001391


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:02 am 
AM, glad to see that eggs might possibly be good "for some people".
Perhaps though, instead of limiting this excellent source of nutrition to a small group, the goal should be
to bring everyone up to the same high standard of activity & health.
By saying eggs are bad except in rare instances, you're demonizing eggs, instead of educating
about the benefits of a healthy diet.

"Doritos, Big Macs and soda while you watch TV, but don't eat eggs!"

Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: seaweed
PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:20 am 
Hi folks. I've been lurking because this topic interests me and can't resist chiming in.

From my research, it sure looks like the Framingham study (interpretation) camp is waning and other explanations for the dynamics of how we get fat, heart disease, which foods we really need and which we don't want are coming forward. I'm seeing that modern dietary theory is suspect and needs to be adjusted/updated.

First, my argumentive side can't resist commenting on AM's eloquent arguments.

Quote:
We know that coronary heart disease is firmly linked to arterial plaque, arterial plaque is linked to blood cholesterol, blood cholesterol is linked to dietary cholesterol.... foods as high in cholesterol as eggs should not be put in our mouths, at least not the yokes, and certainly not in quantity.

You've done a good job of defending your conclusion that eggs are bad. One of the more brilliant aspects of your argument is how you've turned proof on it's head. If eggs are not proven to be bad for our health or associated with bad health, well, at least there's no proof that they're good. So even if nobody's proven your guilt in the murder, nor have they proven your innocence, therefore, you should be at least put on probation, right? Good one ! Anyway, the key to the potential fallacy of the whole theory you're basing your certainties on lies in your conlclusive statements quoted above; he word "LINKED" As anyone who understands the scientific method knows, "correlation does not equal causality"

This doc, I just found randomly from google refers to that correlation and makes some good points for the alternative views developing.
http://www.spacedoc.com/heart_failure_cholesterol
Actually, there is a wealth of what looks to me like good independent science on that site. I'm going to dig deeper.
Here's a good set of articles on how studies/ statistics fool people:
http://www.spacedoc.com/drug_studies_do_not_lie_1

He's by no means a lone voice, there are many more professionals who are refuting the fat/cholesterol=heart attack (lipid hypothesis theories. Many links have already been posted and there are so many more out there. Note that the USDA has now changed it's whole approach to diet and you might notice some serious backpedaling if you read between the lines of what they're NOT saying about the changes in the recommendations. But, as the Dr. Graveline notes: "forty years of mind control is hard to delete"

Hey, check out this video excerpt for an amusing take on what how we happened to become fatter and sicker since our goverment started recommending what to eat...
comedy-documentary "Fat Head."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4
this clip addresses the new view on the mechanism of obesity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE&feature=related


Personally, I'm starting to pay more attention to the "paleo" approach to diet and excercise. One of many sites that are building a new kind of dietary wisdom:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/

Anyway, time for a nice healthy breakfast of local organic sausage and eggs with spinach - hold the toast!

Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: judithelise
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:34 am 
Probably 20 years ago now I saw an interesting graph that showed the per capita consumption of animal fats (or was it butter?) and the rise of heart disease in the US for the last 100 years. They were in almost perfect inverse proportion. I wondered how this could be if saturated fat was such a big player in heart disease. I started hearing not long after about trans-fatty acids and put two and two together. More recently I learned about Omega6/Omega3 ratios and how that has changed over the years mostly due to the increase in the use of vegetable oils and processed foods. I tried looking online for that graph and couldn’t find it but I did find an interesting “Illustrated history of heart disease” and I am posting a link below. Although I am not advocating the author’s preferred diet I do find the history very interesting and thought-provoking. If nothing else it certainly raises questions about the way dietary recommendations are formulated and presented to the public. No wonder people like Elizabeth are choosing to use their intuition in making food choices instead of listening to the “experts”.
http://www.dietheartpublishing.com/diet-heart-timeline


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: jef
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:46 pm 
Here's another source of information regarding eggs;
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... _DNL_art_1

The most recent science seems to point toward carbohydrates in the form of processed food, sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup, rather than any animal sources, including eggs, as reasons for our obesity & disease.

Again, I stress the importance of food from animals that are not drugged with hormones & antibiotics, nor fed GMO grains in feed lots nor battery-raised poultry.

If this all seems contrary to you, remember that a generation ago, formula for babies, as opposed to breast-feeding, was considered the most scientific, healthiest advice.
Recently, a cardiac specialist, commenting on the robust good health of my heart said, "Just keep doing what ever your grandmother did".

I intend to do just that.
Elizabeth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: lockley33
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:32 am 
jef wrote:
Here's another source of information regarding eggs;
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... _DNL_art_1buy viagra online

The most recent science seems to point toward carbohydrates in the form of processed food, sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup, rather than any animal sources, including eggs, as reasons for our obesity & disease.

Again, I stress the importance of food from animals that are not drugged with hormones & antibiotics, nor fed GMO grains in feed lots nor battery-raised poultry.

If this all seems contrary to you, remember that a generation ago, formula for babies, as opposed to breast-feeding, was considered the most scientific, healthiest advice.
Recently, a cardiac specialist, commenting on the robust good health of my heart said, "Just keep doing what ever your grandmother did".

I intend to do just that.
Elizabeth


This is really valuable information, I should be more careful when it comes to eat eggs..
Thanks for the useful article...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group