3

votes

New Study and Response: Are egg yolks as bad as smoking?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created August 14, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Possible Duplicate:
Egg yolk consumption increases atherosclerosis risk and plaque build up?

Hi, I???m Bill Barrington, a PhD student at NC State studying Genetics and Diet. Recently, I came across an article that might be of interest entitled ???Egg Yolks as Bad as Smoking???? on ScienceDaily.com. I???ve broken down the study and written a response as to why this is poor science at my blog:

http://understandnutrition.blogspot.com/

Check out the article at ScienceDaily:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120813155640.htm

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on August 15, 2012
at 10:33 AM

very nice response!

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on August 15, 2012
at 08:52 AM

To OP: not only this site, that's proper etiquette on the internet. But yeah, the rules are different for the inner clique as JayJay pointed out.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 15, 2012
at 12:10 AM

^ No bad science is science that draws conclusions without fully testing its hypothesis (or even properly forming a hypothesis in the first place). The best examples is a correlation study, like the one presented. Correlation of two things, does neither of the two things science is supposed to do 1) Make a hypothesis 2) test it fully. Correlation studies are useful for nothing more that preliminary initial research.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 14, 2012
at 10:11 PM

Unless your a fav... Then questions about your new book perama-linked with "what do you think about.......? Isn't it gand!" ;)

6bce08b072e3cea49b292658b9d5d197

(1144)

on August 14, 2012
at 09:25 PM

Nicely stated. One "up" vote for you my friend. http://www.jbprimal.com

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 14, 2012
at 08:37 PM

Actually, this study and article has already been discussed in some depth here: http://paleohacks.com/questions/142607/egg-yolk-consumption-increases-atherosclerosis-risk-and-plaque-build-up#axzz23X04Lddi

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 14, 2012
at 08:31 PM

Very nice response, but this isn't a question and may be closed. Perhaps you could make it a question by saying something like "what do you think of this study?" or "do you think this epidemiology proves that egg yolks are evil and we should throw them away and go back to eating wheat bran and egg whites?"

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

8 Answers

13
0b4326a4949718451a8571b82558dc10

on August 14, 2012
at 09:08 PM

I have something that's worse than smoking; BS scientific studies....without them Obesity rates would be much lower

6bce08b072e3cea49b292658b9d5d197

(1144)

on August 14, 2012
at 09:25 PM

Nicely stated. One "up" vote for you my friend. http://www.jbprimal.com

1
7278560e76901ded4081022b54c6e165

on August 15, 2012
at 01:13 PM

I can find studies for every food out there saying it's bad for you

1
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 15, 2012
at 09:45 AM

This is an observational study that has relied on a very limited set of questions for data collection. Data on putative confounders such as exercise, waist circumference, and dietary intake of saturated fat and sources of cholesterol other than eggs has not been collected to allow for statistical adjustment.

In fact there is no detail on diet at all other than the amount of eggs consumed with yolk.

Importantly, the authors state:

"Notably egg consumption has resulted in divergent effects on serum cholesterol. In some studies raising serum cholesterol and in other studies being without effect. In addition, similarly to saturated fat, dietary cholesterol has also been shown to raise HDL-C. Part of the explanation for the differences in lipid responses may relate to genetic differences, such as in the apo-E4 polymorphism with carriers of apoE4 showing higher fasting LDL-C levels and differences in the ABCG 5/8 sterol transporter where ABCG 5 polymorphism increases sterol absorption. This situation is further complicated by the fact that cholesterol feeding may reduce the efficiency of cholesterol absorption and depress hepatic cholesterol biosynthesis so confounding a clear dose response."

Using evidence based methodology this study - on its own - would not be considered for making recommendations on patient treatment.

1
E2996561988a93959f61d7f00470c000

on August 15, 2012
at 12:01 AM

Well the challenge with the study in the Science Daily article is that it doesn't take into account the "confounding" factors - the other things that could throw a wrench into results.

The cholesterol in the eggs may not be a problem as long as:

  1. You are eating foods that serve to lower VLDL bad cholesterol.
  2. You are not constantly suffering low level to high level inflammation due to allergies and a damaged gut, excessive chemical intake (i.e. nitrities).

As studies into ancient man have indicated (which are discussed in Robb Wolf's Paleo Solution and many other texts), they've studied dead people from the past and even people with plaque didn't really suffer heart disease or heart attacks because they weren't eating inflammation causing foods like grains, etc.

When you get the inflammation, it magnifies VLDL bad cholesterol which then joins with palmitic acid (saturated fat), which leads to plaque and then combined with calcium, clogs arteries further leading to high blood pressure and rupture.

So if the body is already inflamed, adding more cholesterol from another source may throw more fuel on the fire.

Of course things like omega-3 or even switching to grass fed saturated fats serve to counter this end result.

The above #1 and #2 are part of the confounding factors.

1
64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on August 14, 2012
at 08:27 PM

Your analysis is very good, thanks for saving me some reading before I have to start defending eggs! I also enjoyed reading some of your other posts.

As an FYI, this site generally discourages people from posting questions that involve self-promotion, trying to get traffic to their own blogs, etc. I don't think you meant to do that, but it's something I'm sure might come up.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on August 14, 2012
at 10:11 PM

Unless your a fav... Then questions about your new book perama-linked with "what do you think about.......? Isn't it gand!" ;)

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on August 15, 2012
at 08:52 AM

To OP: not only this site, that's proper etiquette on the internet. But yeah, the rules are different for the inner clique as JayJay pointed out.

0
E539901eaf04d362d88951ff45207e0f

on August 14, 2012
at 10:28 PM

If science says something you don't want to hear it is 'bad science'

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 15, 2012
at 12:10 AM

^ No bad science is science that draws conclusions without fully testing its hypothesis (or even properly forming a hypothesis in the first place). The best examples is a correlation study, like the one presented. Correlation of two things, does neither of the two things science is supposed to do 1) Make a hypothesis 2) test it fully. Correlation studies are useful for nothing more that preliminary initial research.

0
2336245491a87ee15d4fb8f8f8283909

(1173)

on August 14, 2012
at 10:18 PM

You nailed it. Science Daily should be renamed "BS Daily" (BS stands for bad science). ;)

0
A3a4696c919e916ec971691559e9c942

(2043)

on August 14, 2012
at 08:31 PM

only if they are unfiltered.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!