Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Eggs = Cholesterol = Heart Disease According to a New Study

  1. #11

    Default

    . . . and it is in the Times this morning too. So I commented first thing!!

    So this is another meta analysis based on food questionnaires. That is why it cannot show causation. The truths discoverable by such studies are dependent on the validity of the initial data. Food questionnaire studies are of horribly doubtful value because people forget what they ate by the time they complete the question sheet or because they lie to say what they think they ought to have eaten. My suggestion is to follow the money. Who paid for this study?
    Gilli - DLTBGYD

  2. #12
    Club Plus Member FlorenceW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Isle of Man
    Posts
    1,569

    Default

    Great response a Gilli. The study wouldn’t have put me off my Ham & Cheese Omlette which was my delicious breakfast.
    My body needs nourishment not punishment - I will not treat my body like a dustbin.

  3. #13

    Default

    Had scrambled egg again for breakfast. Egg marketing board take note!!

    This time with some smoked trout and grated cheese and a squeeze of lemon and black pepper.
    Gilli - DLTBGYD

  4. #14
    Club Member grumbleweed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    a city in the West Country
    Posts
    10,797

    Default

    I had egg mayo yesterday...and the day before. A cheesy omelette tonight because I forgot to take the belly pork out of the freezer.
    Currently enjoying the comments in the Times link. The article was written by another journalist/health editor with no background in science. Sheeeesh!

    From one of the comments...
    // Chris Smyth I understand is thought of as a first rate health editor however his educational background is quoted as: "Originally from London, Chris read history at Lincoln College, Oxford. After a break teaching English in the French town of Dreux, he moved to Trinity Hall, Cambridge for an MPhil in political thought. He stayed on for a PhD in eighteenth-century intellectual history, which looked at the intersection between science, religion and culture in the aftermath of the scientific revolution and wars of religion." Chris - can I suggest a good course in Statistics followed by a second on how to best communicate them to the public? //
    Last edited by grumbleweed; 16th March 2019 at 02:07 PM.
    Dear Stomach,you are bored,not hungry. So shut up.

  5. #15
    Club Member Hugh Mannity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    82

    Default

    I just had a nice omelette for lunch.

    Here's CNN's take on it: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/15/healt...udy/index.html

    A link to the JAMA article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2728487

    And the post I sent to a friend who was concerned:
    OK... Immediate takeaways from the CNN article and the abstract of the Journal article. The study was a meta analysis - they took data from 6 different studies and combined it. The studies were observational and based on self-reported diet data (see quote below):

    " Individual participant data were pooled from 6 prospective US cohorts using data collected between March 25, 1985, and August 31, 2016. Self-reported diet data were harmonized using a standardized protocol."

    The participants were around 50 years old at the time they started the study (in 1985) so you can bet that (a) a fair number already had early heart disease and (b) a lot of them were (or had been smokers).

    The increase in risk was very small 3.2%, so really not something you need to worry about.

    Also: how did they establish egg consumption? Did they include baked goods? Mayo? Other recipes where eggs are an ingredient?

    The thing about meta analyses is they often combine disparate datasets which were not designed to test the hypothesis they're trying to prove.

    Observational studies, especially those which rely on self-reported diet questionnaires can't prove anything beyond an association at best. Self-reporting diet (and alcohol consumption) is notoriously inaccurate and usually done fairly infrequently (some long term studies do them every 3 or 5 years). With the best will in the world, it's impossible to answer accurately "how many times in the past 6 months did you eat eggs?" with check boxes for daily, 2x week, 1x week, rarely, never. I don't know about you, but some weeks I'll eat eggs every day, sometimes I'll eat a couple at the weekend. Also asking about eggs, doesn't give you any data about egg consumption where the eggs are part of a recipe (because people won't necessarily think of them that way -- someone who has a sandwich with mayo on it every day might well say they never eat eggs.)

    Then there's the observer bias: A lot of researchers are biased either because of their personal beliefs (7th Day Adventists are all vegetarian/vegan, and there are a lot of them in nutrition research), or because they get grant money from sources who have vested interests in particular outcomes...

    TL;DR Ignore all the studies, just eat real food (in moderate quantities), get good quality sleep, a reasonable amount of exercise.

  6. #16
    Club Member Hugh Mannity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    82

    Default


    Here's all the evidence you need that this is Junk Science at it's finest.

    ONE food frequency questionnaire covering a "year or month" (not a lot of difference there) then 17 years of followup with no further questionnaires. Do you still eat the same way that you did 17 years ago? I know I don't.

    Estimating dietary intake
    Diet data were collected using food frequency questionnaires or by taking a diet history. Each participant was asked a long list of what they’d eaten for the previous year or month. The data were collected during a single visit.The study had up to 31 years of follow up (median: 17.5 years), during which 5,400 cardiovascular events and 6,132 all-cause deaths were diagnosed.

    A major limitation of the study is participants’ long-term eating patterns weren’t assessed.

    “We have one snapshot of what their eating pattern looked like,” Allen said. “But we think they represent an estimate of a person’s dietary intake. Still, people may have changed their diet, and we can’t account for that.”

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO