Eggs vs. Cigarettes in Atherosclerosis

Eggs vs. Cigarettes in Atherosclerosis
3.68 (73.68%) 19 votes

A similar exponential increase in carotid artery plaque buildup was found for smokers and egg eaters.

Comenta
Comparte

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

As I noted last year, the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study found that the daily consumption of the amount of cholesterol found in just a single egg appeared to cut a woman’s life short as much as smoking 25,000 cigarettes—five cigarettes a day, for fifteen years. Following up on that research, a study in the journal Atherosclerosis found that just three eggs or more a week was associated with a significant increase in artery-clogging plaque buildup in people’s carotid arteries, going to their brain—a strong predictor of stroke, heart attack, and death.  

In fact, they found a similar exponential increase in arterial plaque buildup for smokers and egg-eaters. Those that ate the most eggs had as much as two-thirds the risk of those that smoked the most—the equivalent of a pack-a-day habit for 40 years or more.

This did not go over easy with the egg industry. As revealed in a series of internal memos about this group of researchers, retrieved through the Freedom of Information Act, the American Egg Board discussed the “wisdom of making industry responses when the public knows there is a vested interest….”

So, the Executive Director of the Egg Board’s “Egg Nutrition Center,” proposed they contact “some of our ‘friends’ in the science community” to have an “objective, external source author the response.” “If you do so,” he wrote to one of their “friends” at Yale, “we’ll certainly compensate you….” But, the prominent Yale physician refused to “participate in an overtly antagonistic letter,” given his friendship with one of the co-authors of the review.

If you can’t find someone with credentials to counter the science, why not just make one up? How’s this for a bizarre twist? An email was circulated to discredit the researchers by a Dr. Dr.—MD/PHD—and, why not throw in an MBA while you’re at it, who claimed the prestigious “researchers” didn’t “know a thing about nutrition.”

Only when the principal investigator of the egg study replied to the allegations did we learn that the Dr. Dr. doesn’t exist. His email was hacked. The poor guy was like, “I was on vacation; I don’t know what you’re talking about,” and, apparently, the culprit was never found.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to malias, Samuel M. Livingston and Vectorportal via flickr

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

As I noted last year, the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study found that the daily consumption of the amount of cholesterol found in just a single egg appeared to cut a woman’s life short as much as smoking 25,000 cigarettes—five cigarettes a day, for fifteen years. Following up on that research, a study in the journal Atherosclerosis found that just three eggs or more a week was associated with a significant increase in artery-clogging plaque buildup in people’s carotid arteries, going to their brain—a strong predictor of stroke, heart attack, and death.  

In fact, they found a similar exponential increase in arterial plaque buildup for smokers and egg-eaters. Those that ate the most eggs had as much as two-thirds the risk of those that smoked the most—the equivalent of a pack-a-day habit for 40 years or more.

This did not go over easy with the egg industry. As revealed in a series of internal memos about this group of researchers, retrieved through the Freedom of Information Act, the American Egg Board discussed the “wisdom of making industry responses when the public knows there is a vested interest….”

So, the Executive Director of the Egg Board’s “Egg Nutrition Center,” proposed they contact “some of our ‘friends’ in the science community” to have an “objective, external source author the response.” “If you do so,” he wrote to one of their “friends” at Yale, “we’ll certainly compensate you….” But, the prominent Yale physician refused to “participate in an overtly antagonistic letter,” given his friendship with one of the co-authors of the review.

If you can’t find someone with credentials to counter the science, why not just make one up? How’s this for a bizarre twist? An email was circulated to discredit the researchers by a Dr. Dr.—MD/PHD—and, why not throw in an MBA while you’re at it, who claimed the prestigious “researchers” didn’t “know a thing about nutrition.”

Only when the principal investigator of the egg study replied to the allegations did we learn that the Dr. Dr. doesn’t exist. His email was hacked. The poor guy was like, “I was on vacation; I don’t know what you’re talking about,” and, apparently, the culprit was never found.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to malias, Samuel M. Livingston and Vectorportal via flickr

Nota del Doctor

This is the same prestigious research team that wrote the landmark review on which I based my videos Egg Cholesterol in the Diet, and Avoiding Cholesterol Is a No Brainer.

The 25,000 cigarette study is detailed in What Women Should Eat to Live Longer, and it’s the opener to my 2012 year-in-review video, Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, in which I explore the role diet can play in preventing, treating, and reversing our top 15 killers.

More on eggs in Carcinogenic Retrovirus Found in EggsEgg Industry Blind SpotTotal Recall; and Chicken, Eggs, and Inflammation.

Lots more Freedom of Information Act internal memo videos on their way—I’ve got stacks of boxes still to comb through!

For more context, read my associated blog posts: Eggs, Cigarettes, and AtherosclerosisWhy Are Eggs Linked to Cancer Progression?; and Egg Industry Caught Making False Claims.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

Deja una respuesta

Tu correo electrónico no se publicará Los campos obligatorios están marcados *

Pin It en Pinterest

Share This