Who Says Eggs Aren’t Healthy or Safe?

Who Says Eggs Aren’t Healthy or Safe?
4.37 (87.44%) 43 votes

Freedom of Information Act documents reveal that the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned the egg industry that saying eggs are nutritious or safe may violate rules against false and misleading advertising.

Discuss
Republish

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.

The American Egg Board is a promotional marketing board appointed by the U.S. government, whose “mission is to increase demand for egg and egg products on behalf of U.S. egg producers.” Now, if an individual egg company wants to run an ad campaign, they can say whatever they want. But, if an egg corporation wants to dip into the ten million dollars the American Egg Board sets aside for advertising, because the board is overseen by the federal government, corporations are not allowed to lie with those funds. What a concept! Which leads to quite revealing exchanges between the egg corporations that want to use that money, and the USDA—on what egg companies can and cannot say about eggs.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, I was able to get my hands on some of those emails. Of course, a lot of what I got looked like this: “Please note a number of items” about our “Salmonella Crisis…Module…any questions[?]” Or, even better, entire sheets of paper that literally just said this [“Please consider the environment before printing this email”]. That was the whole sheet of paper. Our tax dollars, hard at work.

But check this out. This is some egg company trying to put out a brochure on “healthy snacking” for kids. But because of existing laws against false and misleading advertising, the head of USDA’s Poultry Research and Promotion program reminds them that “you can’t couch eggs [or] egg products as being ‘healthy’ or ‘nutritious.'” See, the words “[nutritious and healthy carry certain connotations” (you know, that a food is actually good for you). But, “because eggs have the amount of cholesterol they do” (plus all the saturated fat), the words healthy and nutritious “are problematic” when it comes to eggs. This is the USDA saying this! However, the USDA helpfully suggests, you can say eggs are “nutrient-dense.”

Wait a second. Why can you say eggs are nutrient-dense, but not nutritious? Because there’s no legal definition of nutrient-dense. You can say Twinkies and Coca Cola are nutrient-dense, but legally, you can’t say something is nutritious unless it’s actually nutritious.

So, for example, the egg industry wanted to run this ad calling eggs a “Nutritional POWERHOUSE [that] aids in weight [loss].” The USDA had to remind the industry you can’t “portray eggs as a diet food, because of the fat and cholesterol content.” In fact, “they have nearly twice the calories of anything that can be called low-calorie.”

“‘Nutritional powerhouse’ can’t be used, either.” Fine, the industry said. They’ll “move…to PLAN B, and headline the ad “Egg-ceptional Nutrition.” Nope, because again, given the saturated fat and cholesterol, you can’t legally call eggs nutritious. So, the ad ended up: “Find true satisfaction.” And, instead of weight loss, they had to go with “Can reduce hunger.” USDA congratulated them on their “clever[ness].” Yes, a food that, when eaten, can reduce hunger—what a concept.

You can’t even call eggs a food “relatively low in calories.” Can’t say “eggs are low in saturated fat”—they’re not. Can’t say they’re “relatively low in…fat.” Can’t even call them a rich source of protein—because they’re not.

It’s illegal to advertise that eggs “pack a…nutritional wallop.” “Can’t [truthfully] say that.” Or, have a “high nutritional content.” You can’t say eggs are “nutritious” at all. Can’t say “nutritious;” cannot say eggs are “nutritious.” (Sometimes you have to tell the industry a few times.) Eggs have so much cholesterol, you can’t even say they “contribute[s] nutritionally.” Can’t say eggs are “healthful,” certainly can’t say they’re “healthy.” Have you seen how much cholesterol there is in those things? Can’t say “healthy.” Can’t even say eggs “contribute healthful components.”

Since you can’t say eggs are a “healthy…start to the day,” the USDA suggests “satisfying start.” Can’t call eggs a “healthful ingredient,” but you can call eggs a “recognizable ingredient.” Can’t truthfully say eggs are “good for you.” Can’t say they’re “good for you.” By law, the egg industry “need[s] to steer clear of words like ‘healthy’ or…’nutritious.’”

For a food to be labeled “healthy” under FDA rules, it has to be low in saturated fat. Eggs fail that test—and less than 90mg of cholesterol per serving. Even half an egg fails that criteria. For the same reason you can’t tout “an ice cream” for healthy bones, you can’t say eggs are healthy—because they exceed the limit for cholesterol.

Egg corporations aren’t even allowed to say things like “Eggs are an important part of a well- balanced, healthy diet” on an egg carton, because it would be “considered misleading,” according to the USDA’s National Egg Supervisor—”since eggs contain significant amounts of fat and cholesterol,” and, therefore, contribute to the leading killer in the United States, heart disease.

The industry can’t afford to tell the truth about eggs, or even the hens that lay them. The industry crams five to ten birds in cages the size of a file cabinet their whole lives, but when providing footage to the media, the American Egg Board instructs, “Do not show multiple birds in cages—they look too crowded and open us up to activist criticism.” In other words, do not show the truth.

Not only is the industry barred from saying eggs are healthy; they can’t even refer to eggs as “safe.” “[A]ll references to safety must be removed,” because more than a hundred thousand Americans are salmonella-poisoned every year from eggs.

The egg board response to this eggborne epidemic is that salmonella is “a naturally occurring bacteria.” The egg industry didn’t think that should necessarily be the key message, fearing, “It may be counterproductive by implying there is no avoiding Salmonella in eggs aside from avoiding eggs all together.”

That’s why the American Egg Board can’t even mention anything but eggs cooked hard and dry. No “soft-boiled,” no “over easy,” no “sunny side up,” because of salmonella.

The American Egg Board’s own research showed that “The sunny-side-up [cooking] method should be considered unsafe.” And, because of “avian influenza,” as well, not just salmonella. In light of bird flu viruses, eggs must be cooked “firm.” The “VP [of[ Marketing” for the Egg Board complained to the USDA, saying they’d, you know, “really like to not have to dictate that yolks are firm.”

You know, what about some “Washington Post article” saying runny yolks may be safe for everyone, except “pregnant women, infants, the elderly [or] those with chronic disease”? Turns out that was a “misquote”—they can’t be considered safe for anyone.

Instead of safe, you can call eggs “fresh,” the USDA Marketing Service helpfully suggests. But you can’t call eggs “safe,” you cannot say eggs are “safe to eat,” can’t say they’re “safe,” can’t even mention “safety,” can’t say they’re “healthful.” All “[r]eferences to healthfulness must be deleted,” as well.

Wait a second. Eggs can’t really be called healthy? Eggs can’t even really be called safe? Says who? Says the United States Department of Agriculture.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to psgreen01 and akeg 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.

The American Egg Board is a promotional marketing board appointed by the U.S. government, whose “mission is to increase demand for egg and egg products on behalf of U.S. egg producers.” Now, if an individual egg company wants to run an ad campaign, they can say whatever they want. But, if an egg corporation wants to dip into the ten million dollars the American Egg Board sets aside for advertising, because the board is overseen by the federal government, corporations are not allowed to lie with those funds. What a concept! Which leads to quite revealing exchanges between the egg corporations that want to use that money, and the USDA—on what egg companies can and cannot say about eggs.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, I was able to get my hands on some of those emails. Of course, a lot of what I got looked like this: “Please note a number of items” about our “Salmonella Crisis…Module…any questions[?]” Or, even better, entire sheets of paper that literally just said this [“Please consider the environment before printing this email”]. That was the whole sheet of paper. Our tax dollars, hard at work.

But check this out. This is some egg company trying to put out a brochure on “healthy snacking” for kids. But because of existing laws against false and misleading advertising, the head of USDA’s Poultry Research and Promotion program reminds them that “you can’t couch eggs [or] egg products as being ‘healthy’ or ‘nutritious.'” See, the words “[nutritious and healthy carry certain connotations” (you know, that a food is actually good for you). But, “because eggs have the amount of cholesterol they do” (plus all the saturated fat), the words healthy and nutritious “are problematic” when it comes to eggs. This is the USDA saying this! However, the USDA helpfully suggests, you can say eggs are “nutrient-dense.”

Wait a second. Why can you say eggs are nutrient-dense, but not nutritious? Because there’s no legal definition of nutrient-dense. You can say Twinkies and Coca Cola are nutrient-dense, but legally, you can’t say something is nutritious unless it’s actually nutritious.

So, for example, the egg industry wanted to run this ad calling eggs a “Nutritional POWERHOUSE [that] aids in weight [loss].” The USDA had to remind the industry you can’t “portray eggs as a diet food, because of the fat and cholesterol content.” In fact, “they have nearly twice the calories of anything that can be called low-calorie.”

“‘Nutritional powerhouse’ can’t be used, either.” Fine, the industry said. They’ll “move…to PLAN B, and headline the ad “Egg-ceptional Nutrition.” Nope, because again, given the saturated fat and cholesterol, you can’t legally call eggs nutritious. So, the ad ended up: “Find true satisfaction.” And, instead of weight loss, they had to go with “Can reduce hunger.” USDA congratulated them on their “clever[ness].” Yes, a food that, when eaten, can reduce hunger—what a concept.

You can’t even call eggs a food “relatively low in calories.” Can’t say “eggs are low in saturated fat”—they’re not. Can’t say they’re “relatively low in…fat.” Can’t even call them a rich source of protein—because they’re not.

It’s illegal to advertise that eggs “pack a…nutritional wallop.” “Can’t [truthfully] say that.” Or, have a “high nutritional content.” You can’t say eggs are “nutritious” at all. Can’t say “nutritious;” cannot say eggs are “nutritious.” (Sometimes you have to tell the industry a few times.) Eggs have so much cholesterol, you can’t even say they “contribute[s] nutritionally.” Can’t say eggs are “healthful,” certainly can’t say they’re “healthy.” Have you seen how much cholesterol there is in those things? Can’t say “healthy.” Can’t even say eggs “contribute healthful components.”

Since you can’t say eggs are a “healthy…start to the day,” the USDA suggests “satisfying start.” Can’t call eggs a “healthful ingredient,” but you can call eggs a “recognizable ingredient.” Can’t truthfully say eggs are “good for you.” Can’t say they’re “good for you.” By law, the egg industry “need[s] to steer clear of words like ‘healthy’ or…’nutritious.’”

For a food to be labeled “healthy” under FDA rules, it has to be low in saturated fat. Eggs fail that test—and less than 90mg of cholesterol per serving. Even half an egg fails that criteria. For the same reason you can’t tout “an ice cream” for healthy bones, you can’t say eggs are healthy—because they exceed the limit for cholesterol.

Egg corporations aren’t even allowed to say things like “Eggs are an important part of a well- balanced, healthy diet” on an egg carton, because it would be “considered misleading,” according to the USDA’s National Egg Supervisor—”since eggs contain significant amounts of fat and cholesterol,” and, therefore, contribute to the leading killer in the United States, heart disease.

The industry can’t afford to tell the truth about eggs, or even the hens that lay them. The industry crams five to ten birds in cages the size of a file cabinet their whole lives, but when providing footage to the media, the American Egg Board instructs, “Do not show multiple birds in cages—they look too crowded and open us up to activist criticism.” In other words, do not show the truth.

Not only is the industry barred from saying eggs are healthy; they can’t even refer to eggs as “safe.” “[A]ll references to safety must be removed,” because more than a hundred thousand Americans are salmonella-poisoned every year from eggs.

The egg board response to this eggborne epidemic is that salmonella is “a naturally occurring bacteria.” The egg industry didn’t think that should necessarily be the key message, fearing, “It may be counterproductive by implying there is no avoiding Salmonella in eggs aside from avoiding eggs all together.”

That’s why the American Egg Board can’t even mention anything but eggs cooked hard and dry. No “soft-boiled,” no “over easy,” no “sunny side up,” because of salmonella.

The American Egg Board’s own research showed that “The sunny-side-up [cooking] method should be considered unsafe.” And, because of “avian influenza,” as well, not just salmonella. In light of bird flu viruses, eggs must be cooked “firm.” The “VP [of[ Marketing” for the Egg Board complained to the USDA, saying they’d, you know, “really like to not have to dictate that yolks are firm.”

You know, what about some “Washington Post article” saying runny yolks may be safe for everyone, except “pregnant women, infants, the elderly [or] those with chronic disease”? Turns out that was a “misquote”—they can’t be considered safe for anyone.

Instead of safe, you can call eggs “fresh,” the USDA Marketing Service helpfully suggests. But you can’t call eggs “safe,” you cannot say eggs are “safe to eat,” can’t say they’re “safe,” can’t even mention “safety,” can’t say they’re “healthful.” All “[r]eferences to healthfulness must be deleted,” as well.

Wait a second. Eggs can’t really be called healthy? Eggs can’t even really be called safe? Says who? Says the United States Department of Agriculture.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to psgreen01 and akeg via flickr

Doctor's Note

For more peeks behind the egg industry curtain, see:

For more context, check out my associated blog post: Egg Industry Caught Making False Claims.

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

259 responses to “Who Says Eggs Aren’t Healthy or Safe?

Commenting Etiquette

The intention of the comment section under each video and blog post is to allow all members to share their stories, questions, and feedback with others in a welcoming, engaging, and respectful environment. Off-topic comments are permitted, in hopes more experienced users may be able to point them to more relevant videos that may answer their questions. Vigorous debate of science is welcome so long as participants can disagree respectfully. Advertising products or services is not permitted.

To make NutritionFacts.org a place where people feel comfortable posting without feeling attacked, we have no tolerance for ad hominem attacks or comments that are racist, misogynist, homophobic, vulgar, or otherwise inappropriate. Please help us to foster a community of mutual respect. Enforcement of these rules is done to the best of our ability on a case-by-case basis.

  1. Very interesting…I actually researched the definition of nutrient-dense for a nutrition-sensitive agriculture paper I researched for the UNSCN and I found that although the American Dietary Guidelines are using this definition it is not defined. A few professors have been working on definitions but no international body until this point have endorsed a definition. Here is what I found:

    Nutrient-dense foods are high in nutrient content when compared to the total energy/calorie content and are opposite to energy-dense foods (also called “empty
    calorie” food).[1] [2][3]
    To measure nutrient-density of foods one can take the nutrient composition of a food item⎯the nutrient content (in grams) divided by the total energy and calorie intakes (per 2,000 kcal of the edible portion of food).[4]
    [5] [6] Nutrient-dense foods and beverages are low in solid fats, and minimize or exclude added calories from solid fats,
    sugars, refined starches, and sodium. Nutrient-dense foods include fruits and vegetables, traditional local crops (including neglected and underutilized species and wild foods), seafood, eggs, beans and peas, unsalted nuts and seeds, fish and animal-source foods (dairy products: eggs, fat-free and low-fat milk and milk products, and lean meats and poultry)—when prepared without solid fats or added sugars.[7] [8]
    Nutrient-dense foods and beverages provide vitamins, minerals, and other substances that have positive health effects, with relatively few calories.[9]
    In epidemiologic studies, nutrient density often means diet composition, as indexed by the percentage of energy from carbohydrate, protein, and fat.[10]
    Nutrient density is the ratio of the nutrient composition of a given food to
    the nutrient requirements of the human body.

    [1] Nutrition Division/Meeting Programming and Documentation Service,
    FAO, 2013.

    [2] The World Bank uses the term “high-nutrient content food. ” Source:
    Improving Nutrition Through Multisectoral Approaches Agriculture and Rural
    Development. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/
    International Development Association or The World Bank. January 2013.

    [3] Nutrition Division/Meeting Programming and Documentation Service,
    FAO, 2013.

    [4] Willett WC. Nutritional epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford
    University Press, 1998.

    [5] Rambeloson-Jariseta et al., 2012; Naska et al., 2007; Nelson et
    al., 1985; Sekula et al., 2005

    [6] Towards Overcoming the Food Consumption Information Gap:
    Strengthening Household Consumption and Expenditures Surveys for Food and
    Nutrition Policymaking. John L. Fiedler. HarvestPlus, International Food Policy
    Research Institute (IFPRI).
    September 2012.

    [7] U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and
    Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th Edition,
    Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 2010. Available at: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/PolicyDoc/PolicyDoc.pdf

    [8] Current and Planned Research on Agriculture for Improved Nutrition:
    A Mapping and a Gap Analysis. A report for DFID. Leverhulme Centre for
    Integrative Research on Agriculture and Health (LCIRAH) and Centre for
    Sustainable International Development, University of Aberdeen. Lead authors: Corinna Hawkes, Rachel
    Turner, Jeff Waage. August 2012.
    Available at: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/misc_susag/LCIRAH_mapping_and_gap_analysis_21Aug12.pdf

    [9] Dietary Guidelines for Americans. U.S. Department of Health and
    Human Services U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2005. Available at: http://www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines

    [10] Willett WC. Nutritional epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford
    University Press, 1998.




    1
  2. So, checked out the American Egg board website and found this page:

    http://www.incredibleegg.org/health-and-nutrition/cracking-the-cholesterol-myth

    They say – “More than 40 Years of Research Supports the Role of Eggs in a Healthy Diet”. Based on this exchange, how can they say this?

    I do note they say, “Studies demonstrate that healthy adults can enjoy an egg a day without increasing their risk for heart disease, particularly if individuals opt for low cholesterol foods throughout the day.”

    LOL – you can have an egg but you better give up all animal products after that till the next day :)

    R




    3
    1. “LOL – you can have an egg but you better give up all animal products after that till the next day :)”

      And maybe that’s not such a bad idea.. ;-)




      2
    2. Hi rs. To respond to your question, how can the American Egg Board say that over 40 yrs of research supports the role of eggs in a healthy diet? Here’s how: First, notice they’re not saying ‘supports the healthy role of eggs in the diet…’ The adjective, ‘healthy,’ describes the diet, not the eggs. It is true that if you’re eating an otherwise healthy diet you can get away with eating small components that aren’t so healthy (e.g. eggs).

      So what “role” might eggs play in an otherwise healthy diet? Some ideas: Eggs might be convenient; they might add flavor diversity to a meal and color to a plate; they can act as binding agents in baked goods. These roles have nothing to do with promoting good health, and all these roles can be fulfilled more safely by plant-based foods, but they are ‘roles,’ nevertheless.

      Notice that the American Egg Board’s statement cannot be contested as false. They’ve found a way to be technically truthful, while causing many readers, including you, to think they’re saying something they’re not. This skill is a technique of successful advertising, and we should all become aware of it. We, the public, can benefit by learning to read carefully and think critically about what others, be they industries agencies or individuals, are actually saying as opposed to what they want us to think they’re saying.




      7
      1. yes but it’s an error to say it supports a healthy diet when it actually detracts from it. A glass of fresh OJ would suport a healthy diet. Eggs would detract. The sentence is still in error completely, no matter how one dances with it gramatically,




        1
        1. Hi Ruby, You have not quoted their sentence accurately, but are assuming the sentence says something it actually does not say; please read it again. The Egg Board does not say that egg “supports a healthy diet.” It says, “research supports the role of eggs in a healthy diet.” You are imagining this to mean “research supports the (healthy and supportive) role of eggs in a healthy diet. But the sentence could also (more accurately) mean, “research supports the (cultural) role of eggs in an (otherwise) healthy diet. My point stands.




          3
          1. Katherine
            you speak like a spinner of obfuscation and I will leave you to your
            yawning mental gymnastic and word insertions to support a sentecnce
            which in itself, with your description, is essentially nonsensicle,
            at best. Inserting words to convey what irratinality ‘could be’
            inserted as purported meaning is bizarre mental gymnastics Katherine.
            I’ll leave your lawyering councel of the writer alone and just
            suggest the floor would be wiped with your stance in any court with a
            modicum of prudence. But to parry just a bit here, I’ll say this;
            surely research does not support the role of eggs in a healthy diet.
            On the other hand, perhaps culture does. And surely big business
            does. But the sentece does not say culture supports that role, and
            surely, since you like insertions, “big business” could also be
            inserted. But it says research, Katherine RESEARCH supports egg’s
            role in a healthy diet. To suggest culture supports this role would
            perhaps be more honest, because you’re probably right that the writer
            hoped this bizarre and foundationless argument could be used as
            defence. While culture and big business may surely support the role
            of eggs in a healthy diet, research, most assurely, does not suport
            egg’s role in a heathy diet. Conversely, as I said, it detracts from
            it. It’s thus a lie. I’ll leave you where you stand councelor. Adieu.




            1
            1. Hi Ruby, I’m on your side, not the egg industry’s; apologies if I offended you. The egg industry used language in a crafty way, to mislead without technically lying. My reply on this public forum was mostly for readers who’d be interested in seeing how they did this. Again, no offense intended.




              5
              1. Greetings fellow vegan. ;) No insult taken nor intended and no feathers ruffled on more than on rational debate terms and as such perhaps competative but all in good sport. I like a good debate. Gets the fires going. I’ll just say your comment sounded a lot like rational defence, not shining a light on intensional obfuscation of misinformation, which I still stand is exactly what that sentence was and should have been seen as such. I also don’t see how arguing their shinanigans helps clarify anything worth clarifying, and instead seems to help their cause by dignifying the bull by addressing it as if it is anything but bull. And I stand by my argument as well that the grammar you pointed out as making the statement by any stretch a truth, rather than a lie, also holds no water, to my sensibilities, despite that it was such an obscure construction of a sentence it slipped through the cracks of attention to that fact. That’s why it did, not because it is in any way gramatically correct, much less so because of the insertion of random adjectives . .but we can agree to disagree and steep in the pool of consciousness it brings up like tea and see what smells it conjures in time. . .Cheery toodles and oodles of respect despite differences.. ;)




                3
              2. Katherine’s carefully crafted and qualified EGG wisdom makes MUCH sense. Of course one must UNDERSTAND it before such flatulent laborious tedious “criticism” of what she did NOT say or imply? PLEASE ! ! WHEW ! !




                0
          2. “Incredible” literally means “unbelievable” so they are technically correct in saying what they do! Of course, they rely on people assuming the slang meaning of “incredible” is intended… ie amazing or very.




            0
        2. Ruby orange – or any fruit juice is far too concentrated sugar to be considered healthy. Sugar is far more harmful than fat. An ORANGE would qualify but not just it’s juice!




          3
          1. Allow me to retract that incorrect statement about sugar vs. fat…..either in excess would not support a healthy diet. More correctly, sugar, especially since the completely misguided and harmful low fat craze, has become a major contributor to disease.




            2
          2. Dr. Delicious, I had just written the same response before I read yours. Everyone needs to watch the documentary “Fed Up”, I gave up all sugar except fruit after that .




            4
      2. Katherine: Your post about the wording of the egg board about the role of eggs is so well done! You explain calmly and clearly. Thanks for taking the time.




        3
      3. Greetings dear Katherine, fellow vegan. I know you got this in your email box today but. . . . since this backs up the foundation of my entire comment to you, I had to put it here to make the veracity of my point crystal as verified in the info contained in the link. No nose rubbing intended – we are indeed on the same side – we both win on this one. I hope you can now see as well, my contensions shared on this topic, are varified from this link: http://nutritionfacts.org/2014/03/06/egg-industry-caught-making-false-claims/

        Namaste my new friend and truth seeker/scrounger. ;))




        2
      4. I think you shoud look closer at the studies suggesting eggs are not healthy – I think you will find they were paid for by Kelloggs. When you consider the effect of vast amounts of lobbying cash thrown into the mix from the processed food industry, you start to realise that most of what we have been told is healthy or unhealthy for the last 40 years has been complete lies.

        Eggs are the very symbol of life, and they contain everything needed to grow an embryo into a chick, and to believe otherwise means you have been successfully indoctrinated into the world of large profits and sick people.




        1
        1. Hi DWS, I side with what you’re saying in general about the powerful hand of industry and profit motives that have guided our health (mis)education.* I also agree with you that eggs are a powerful symbol of life, and they contain everything needed to grow an embryo into a chick. But what do either of these things have to do with determining whether or not eggs are a healthy food for human beings? Every species has its own ideal diet; we feed eggs to dogs, but not to rabbits or horses. The question you are raising is whether or not human physiology is designed to thrive on eggs. The evidence I have come to trust says no, human beings are not designed to thrive on eggs (or any other common animal protein and animal fat sources in the modern western diet). Eggs are perfect for developing chicks, just as cow’s milk is perfect for growing baby calves. We are a different species and have our own ideal requirements… which appear to be plant-based.

          *That’s one reason I salute Dr. Greger and nutritionfacts.org— they do such an excellent job of examining the studies (funding sources, study designs, and paper trails of correspondence through the Freedom of Information Act) so the rest of us don’t have to! (Thanks again, Dr. Greger!!)




          2
          1. Yes, every species has different dietary requirements, because they have evolved different digestive systems to suit different environments, but at the cellular level we are all remarkably similar, all made from eukaryotic cells. That is why a very basic food. such as an egg; evolved to feed an embryo before it has a digestive system, is highly nutritious to a great many other species. Dietary “science” has been hijacked by the processed food industry for a very long time, so you can’t just accept what you are told by authority because they all have their own agendas – you have to actually understand the biology.

            If humans were “supposed” to be vegatarians, then we would have a much larger gut for fermentation, like cows do, and vegetarians and vegans would not be deficient in B12, B6 etc.

            You should look into ancient paleontology – you will be suprised to know that humans were far healthier when we were hunter-gatherers – eating mostly meat. Human health declined significantly once we started farming around 10,000 years ago.

            http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers/




            1
            1. We certainly did NOT eat “mostly” meat. If you see, predators only eat once a week or so. Eating meat was never a daily thing. It was an intermitent feasting. In between we are picking nuts and berries and beans and grass and greens and leaves etc.. Just like Asians and many other healthy cultures, they eat flesh sparingly and as flavoring to bigger vegetable based meals. back then we probably feasted on the kill then went back to grazing. I do agree with the B12 issue, and have had my own run ins with the cost of being a true vegan. I thus tend to want some kind of flesh about monthly. I can feel my B12 hanker, then I just go get something and my nerves go tranquil, for about a month. Sometimes i eat flesh twice in a month but more than that and I notice a heavy sluggishness and a bit of fog. less than that and I get tired and listless and very unmotivated, as well as anxious. . . at which point a small piece of deep sea fish does the trick like a drug.




              1
        1. Thanks for your question Dennis.

          At NF, we have a summary of the effect of eggs on human health – in each video you can see the research attached to the sources. As you will find, there are plenty of concerns in regards to egg consumption .

          The latest a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies also found that “the risk of all-cause mortality increased by 10% with increasing intake of eggs up to 60 g/d” (see here).

          Hope this answer helps.




          0
  3. My husband eats lots of eggs….and I have to cook them…but they always smell so bad …and I literally can’t stand the smell..I’m going to show him this article..




    0
    1. Hello ‘Egg head,’ Why do you say you “have to cook” your husband’s eggs? I suggest you don’t have to at all.

      My own journey to food education took this path: as I grew more educated about food and its relationship to health I reached a point where I gave up animal foods entirely because it had become so clear to me, both scientifically and empirically, that this group of foods was unhealthy. I pointed out to my husband that his food choices were his own and he was free to prepare and consume whatever he chose to, but I would no longer be buying, cooking, or preparing foods that I believed were damaging his body as well as mine. Instead, I put time and energy into finding delicious new recipes for both of us to enjoy, while allowing him space to come on board (or not) in his own time in his own way.

      Truthfully, I don’t understand how people can keep serving their loved ones foods that they’re convinced promote chronic diseases and early death. I can’t. As I see it, it’s not about forcing others to change, nor about being unwilling to serve others; it’s about acting in accordance with your own beliefs and values… about choosing the road that leads to greatest benefit overall. If there’s merit in this road, others will discover it in time and be grateful that you became their role model. Change has to start somewhere. You know the phrase, “Be the change you want to see.” So let’s go for it!




      1
      1. So instead of grabbing him some bacon while your already at the shop you refuse and make him go all the way down there himself. This just seems ridiculous.




        0
        1. Hi Cunny, would you consider it ridiculous if someone refused to purchase cigarettes for their husband even though they were ‘already at the shop’? Bacon and cigarettes contain the same class of carcinogenic compound (nitrosamines).

          If Katherine’s husband were to go to the trouble of going to the store on his own to purchase cigarettes (or bacon), then that is his decision. She is not responsible for his action and is not forcing him to do anything. Blaming her for him “having to go to the store”, for something as trivial as bacon, actually seems ridiculous to me.




          0
          1. I know you didn’t ask me but I would say that yes, I would find it ridiculous if my significant other refused to purchase an item for me while he or she was already at the store. That is just flat out rude and thoughtless (if not intentionally spiteful). Preparing that item is another matter entirely, but forcing your significant other to make an entirely separate trip to the store for an item that they want just because YOU don’t want to buy it is the behavior of a self-righteous jackass. That definitely isn’t the kind of change I’d like to see in anyone.




            0
            1. Well, different strokes for different folks I guess. While I never bugged him to quit, I never bought chewing tobacco for my significant other. From my perspective I’m thinking about our future together, our kids, our grandkids, and all the plans we have. I just wouldn’t contribute to my partner poisoning himself (specifically with carcinogens) and cutting either his lifespan or healthspan prematurely short. I don’t think of it as being self-righteous, I think of it as caring for someone you love. One could even say that the other person voluntarily consuming carcinogens on a regular basis is acting in a selfish manner. And again, I was never forcing him to go to the store, spend hundreds of dollars a month on literal poisonous garbage, and chew it. Those were his choices. I am happy to say he quit on his own accord. I still swell with pride a little just typing that, as it was one of the hardest things he’s ever done. But his quitting, along with his chewing, was entirely his choice, his actions, his doing. I’m in the same boat as Katherine, I do the meal planning, the shopping, and cook delicious and nourishing food for him every day of the week. I of course cater to his tastes and preferences, he really likes mexican food for example. If that makes me a jackass in your mind, so be it. We’re healthy and happy.




              0
            1. So sorry about your mom. And for your dad, and for your whole family. These diseases are so devastating, and yet so common and almost expected in our culture.




              0
            2. I hear that. And see how this person feels and what they are saying? You buying the gun/egg/meat may well be seen by others as an aid to death and disease. Out of LOVE refrain. It to me shows a depth of love – while the attitude of militancy and anger with it is not done from a sweet heart, this refraining seems to be wholly heart centered. That’s my 2 cents.




              0
        2. This is a test of your conviction about, “What is bacon?” and “Should I eat bacon?” If you are personally convinced eating bacon creates a higher risk of damaging your health (sooner or later) than not eating it, than you also believe it would add to your husband’s risk factors. You know this and it is your defense for the inconvenience. A potential bonus is that over time he will eat less bacon because he’ll have to remember to buy it all the time when he’s been used to you buying it for him. But that’s not why you cannot bring home the bacon; by itself it would be manipulative. You don’t need that as a justification for wanting to shield him from harm. How can he argue with the integrity of this manifestation of your love?




          0
        3. You want to aid an abed his life draining away? YOU take the responsibility. I’d not do it either, not out of militancy, but I’d no sooner help someone I loved hang himself either. Sounds like you would as long as it could be painted in a different light – it’s called denial.




          0
      2. Katherine,
        I couldn’t agree more! When I began to understand the truth and travesty behind the Western diet I cleaned out my cupboards and refrigerator and threw out anything toxic or made from an animal. My eyes were opened and I became compassionate towards all living creatures and educated myself about the ingredients in processed foods. I told my husband that he didn’t have to follow me but if he wanted to continue eating flesh and processed foods that he would have to make these things for himself. Long story short. ….eventually his eyes were opened and he has been a vegan for six years now.




        0
    2. My heart doctor told me to eat the eggs they keep the hdl up and the bad down , said they are having new thanking to ward eggs. am not blocks any were , and have eat eggs for many years




      0
      1. jones, medical doctors only get about 4 hours of nutrition education in school and what they do get is from the pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries that provide all the materials. The last person I would trust with my nutrition is an MD unless I knew they were eating a healthy plant-based diet themselves. This may sound cynical but heart doctors make about $50,000+ for each bypass surgery they do and the more they do in a day, they more they get paid.




        0
    1. How old are you ten? The USDA has been putting out misinformation for as many decades as I have been able to read. Both the FDA and USDA see their primary purpose in life as supporting industry. Only during the 70s while Carter was president was there anyone looking out for the consumer at USDA.




      0
      1. Richard, we try to keep this a safe environment for everyone to voice their thoughts. We welcome vigorous debate of the science, but to make NutritionFacts.org a place where people feel comfortable posting without feeling attacked, we have no tolerance for ad hominem attacks or comments that are racist/misogynist/homophobic/vulgar or otherwise inappropriate. We’ve gotten more sensitive to this after a physician who graciously donated his time to answer people’s questions stopped contributing because of the acrid atmosphere. So please, for everyone’s benefit, help us foster a community of mutual respect.




        0
      2. I agree you should amend this comment to say your peace respectfully. It seems rather rude and unnecessarily pejorative Sir Richard. Can you not make a point and deliver it without violence? The inabilty shows your lack of intelligence. I’ll delete this when you do. ;)




        0
  4. A guy on Dr. Oz’s show says that eggs are the best food on earth and all those Canadians who say otherwise are paid shills of the medical profession. In his video on YouTube, he goes on for 10 minutes about this and then clarifies that eggs have to be eaten raw, that cooked eggs cause heart disease. My jaw dropped. Where do they find these people!?




    0
      1. He’s really just a tv version of those magazines you see in the checkout: “lose 28 lbs by christmas!” … when it happens to be ten days away…

        It’s a pity. He has such a following and such influence, he could really make a big difference for a lot of people, if he presented real nutritional information. But again, you’ve got to have something “new!” and “amazing!”. Telling people to eat their fruits and vegetables for an hour five days a week probably wouldn’t go over too well with the network powers that be. It’s got to be that one magic fruit from god knows where that costs twenty dollars a pound that you can eat a teaspoon of once a day that’ll make the pounds melt off.




        0
        1. It’s a national sensationalism. Capitalism does that. We live for money essentially. Ethics are being paid off in many cases. The truth has to be fought for. Period.




          0
        2. I lost 20 pounds in 10 days after purchasing and reading Neal Barnard’s book, “Foods That Fight Pain.” I had fractured my lumbar spine the first time, and had severe pain. The physician-neurosurgeon recommended to me wanted to inject corticoid steroids in my spine every couple of months to reduce the pain. Corticoid steroids have been found to be one of the links to osteoporosis, and every doctor I went to, injected me with it whenever something was inflamed.
          I obviously was not interested, and after reading the book decided it was worth a try. I tried his short term diet of eliminating certain foods for 3 weeks and lost a huge amount of weight. When I ate an egg in wheat bread again, all the pain returned and then some, so I went back to eating vegan for relief.
          After 5 months, I had lost 65 pounds and despite adding nuts and seeds to my diet, the weight has stayed off, and the pain and inflammation has mostly disappeared.
          Point is: changing from a meat/dairy/egg/fish consuming diet to healthy vegan is the easiest way for me to lose weight and keep it off. Now, 2 years later, I am still fracturing bones, but my bones are rebuilt faster because I eat calcium-magnesium rich — bone healthy–foods in cups rather than 1/2 cup servings and I select the vegetables and fruit I need for bone health rather than buying processed junky foods to destroy my health.
          My physicians and surgeons have told me that they never saw anyone build bone as fast as I after the initial fracture. While another looked at my blood work and was amazed at the results. My bad cholesterol was now way down from 300 to 100 and all my other test readings were right on…in the healthy normal range.
          Dr Oz is not glorifying this nutritional information. With many things, I’ve found some foods that really work well to help me regain my health. Of course, weight bearing exercise is also crucial.
          I’m using a “Pilates” strap for much of my exercise now, but am starting a Physical Therapy Pilates with a private instructor next week.




          0
        1. Dr. Oz says that eating pumpkin seeds, which contain tryptophan can help us stay asleep longer. http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/what-eat-deep-sleep?page=3

          Chia seeds are also a good source of tryptophan

          http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/chia-seed-contain-tryptophan-9756.html

          And Self Nutrition Data has listed myriad foods that contain varying amounts of tryptophan both animals products and plants! We don’t have to take it in supplements –pills. We don’t have to take drugs! We should do some basic research and buy real, whole foods, rather than processed unknowns in foods.
          http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000079000000000000000-1.html




          0
      2. Dr Oz interviews people with different views on this show, which provides more balance than preaching only one view point. For example, a Dr. David Perlmutter, an empowering and enlightened neurologist, and author of GrainBrain who has a tendency to recommend eating animal products, at least that’s what I thought I heard on PBS. But, his web site tells a slightly different story. http://www.drperlmutter.com/

        As for the videos with alternative views, Dr. OZ has been introducing whole foods, such as apples to reduce statin drugs, and other natural remedies and foods to reduce pharmaceuticals. Check out:
        Foods That Might Prevent Heart Disease Better Than Statins, Pt 1

        http://www.doctoroz.com/episode/thing-more-powerful-you-statins

        The statin makers are obviously not too happy about people learning about alternatives to reduce cholesterol. They want to ignored the bad side effects that have been documented with statins and keep selling them.

        http://www.examiner.com/article/dr-oz-reveals-cholesterol-lowering-diet




        0
        1. Giving airtime to dangerous people, like Perlmutter is ‘providing balance’?? It’s more like ensuring ratings.

          There’s no better way to guarantee dementia than by clogging up the arteries to the brain with atheromas filled with cholesterol and destroying brain cells a series of strokes and mini-strokes.

          He’s a disgrace to his chosen field of neurology as was Atkins to the field of cardiology. There are a few disease states for which a ketogenic or low-carbohydrate diet is a treatment, but those dietary treatments come with side effects. He has no business recommending such a regimen to the general public.

          You do know that PBS pledge specials are not vetted for scientific accuracy, right. With all due respect to Drs. Fuhrman and Barnard, they are glorified infomercials, self-financed by the producer, NOT by PBS or affiliate stations.

          Meanwhile, I’m sure Big Pharma is shaking in their boots that Dr. Oz told his viewers to eat an apple a day to avoid statins. It takes a primarily plant-based entire DIET to avoid statins, not a single dessert or snack swap.




          0
  5. (1) My understanding of cholesterol physiology is that most body cholesterol is manufactured by the body itself and that when we ingest cholesterol the body reduces its own manufacture of cholesterol to compensate. This means that the cholesterol content of a food is not a primary indicator of what happens to the body’s cholesterol levels. (2) There are credible scientific studies that question TOTAL cholesterol as a valid measurement of heart and vascular risk. The USDA and FDA concerns do not focus on the more reliable indicators, which are the oxidized, I repeat “OXIDIZED” LDL and VLDL components of cholesterol rather than TOTAL cholesterol. (3) If eggs should be eliminated from the human diet because of its cholesterol content then so should shrimp, liver of any kind, the double-cheeseburger, MOST restaurant beef or turkey or chicken dishes — but you won’t see the USDA or FDA condemning these as “unhealthy”. (4) And you won’t see the USDA or FDA any time soon banning GMO vegetable and animal products until THEIR safety is assured. HMMMM, I wonder why?




    0
      1. Normal healthy adults synthesize cholesterol at a rate of approximately 1g/day and consume approximately 0.3g/day. A relatively constant level of cholesterol in the blood (150–200 mg/dL) is maintained primarily by controlling the level of de novo synthesis.

        The level of cholesterol synthesis is regulated in part by the _dietary intake of cholesterol_. Cholesterol from both diet and synthesis is utilized in the formation of membranes and in the synthesis of the steroid hormones and bile acids. The greatest proportion of cholesterol is used in bile acid synthesis.

        source: http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/cholesterol.php




        0
        1. So what? The cholesterol in the egg is not the problem so why are you diverting attention away from the possible problems like animal protein and choline?




          0
          1. It’s funny how you didn’t mean to but you completely understated the problems with consuming eggs. :D People act like the health debate doesn’t have a larger context sometimes. We pay for all that death and pollution and maniac behavior that IS the egg industry. That is insanity. That is a slightly different problem than the health debate about eggs, as important I might say.




            0
    1. Crud, got cutoff – same source:

      Control of dietary intake is one of the easiest and least cost intensive means to achieve reductions in cholesterol.




      0
        1. Your comment is rather ignorant! Do you think animal protein and choline is not in the egg? It is already a known fact by people that know how to read that consuming cholesterol is not the problem whether it be in eggs or other food…Reducing intake does not have the significant impact on blood levels that your comment suggest…




          0
          1. Another point is that even the level of blood cholesterol from 160 to 250 is not a significant marker for heart disease. The only levels that reduced heart disease were below 150 which is usually only possible by people on a whole plant-based diet. So go ahead and eat oatmeal instead of eggs but it alone will not reduce your risk of heart disease!!!!




            0
          2. Cholesterol consumed influences cholesterol levels depending on how much cholesterol you already have at baseline.

            “Serum cholesterol concentration is clearly increased by added dietary cholesterol but the magnitude of predicted change is modulated by baseline dietary cholesterol. The greatest response is expected when baseline dietary cholesterol is near zero, while little, if any, measurable change would be expected once baseline dietary cholesterol was >400-500 mg/d. People desiring maximal reduction of serum cholesterol by dietary means may have to reduce their dietary cholesterol to minimal levels (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/55/6/1060.full.pdf




            0
            1. Toxins: I am keenly interested in your comment, but want to make sure I understand it correctly. If you have a moment, can you let me know if I got this right?:

              There are people who have been told (and thus believe) that there is no or little link between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol levels. They think that there is some definitive study that proves that the more cholesterol you eat, the less your body makes. And so dietary cholesterol is mostly a wash.

              I know the above logic isn’t fully true because I’ve seen so much evidence to the contrary. But I’ve often wondered what study people are citing and how that study might be interpreted.

              So, I’m thinking you came up with the study that people think is relevant to this point? (so cool!) And here’s what I *think* the above quote means/what the study says: people who typically eat a lot of foods with cholesterol and then participate in a study that adds even more cholesterol, do not see that much change in their blood cholesterol levels. However, people who typically eat very little foods with cholesterol, will see a lot of change in their blood cholesterol levels when they start eating more cholesterol-laden foods (animal foods).

              If I understood all that correctly, then I would take it further by saying: It would be a flaw in logic to extrapolate from the above study that dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol levels are not related. We know from a bazillion other studies that they are related and that those who do not eat cholesterol laden foods have the lowest cholesterol levels as a group. So, all we can say about the above study is that if someone has saturated their body with so much cholesterol, then eating yet more may not do them much additional harm.

              Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation to you?

              Thanks for your thoughts!




              0
          3. Ya’know, folks unwind thier mind on issues in layers. Are you incapable of making your points with less insulting vitriole sir?? Christmas sakes. Since you’re so in love with pejoratives I’ll say this, you sound like an asshole.




            0
    2. Congress writes the laws based on what lobbyists tell them. Sometimes Congress reads studies, but often studies that come from vested interests and they allow the FDA to walk with many hats. This often depends upon the people elected to Congress, to the White House, and their appointees.




      0
  6. Great summary. A tour de force. I wish we could help to put in place an “exit strategy” for the poultry industry. We are talking about peoples lives and livelihoods on both sides of this issue. Is there no way to make it attractive for producers to leave poultry and switch to some other business? Who says we can’t form a task force to find resources (Elon Musk? or some high powered business folks who have a vision for a healthy food industry) and formulate a plan. Our goal should not be to simply win an argument. We shouldn’t just “Krystallnacht” the parts of the industry that need fixing and hound them out of existence.

    1. Continue your great work here to reduce demand by education of the masses
    2. Engage the Egg people, draw out their rationality …away from the bunker mentality.
    3. Invest some of the USDA/FDA resources into transforming the bricks and mortar from battery houses into green houses. Or something sustainable that makes $$ for the producers.




    0
      1. I think the information for this video came straight from the results of Dr. Greger’s Freedom of Information Act request, so there aren’t any other sources.




        0
  7. Commenting on a number of comments below:

    The restrictions on the egg industry using the words “healthy” or “safe” represent the good that government can do. There are scores of conscientious bureaucrats preventing false advertising the egg industry wants. Otherwise we’d have taxpayer subsidized billboards for cardiovascular disease and food poisoning.

    I applaud our unsung government career officals, for upholding the regulations, when every monetary/career incentive suggests kowtowing to the animal agriculture interests.




    0
    1. “There are scores of conscientious bureaucrats preventing the false advertising the egg industry wants. ”

      conscientious bureaucrats or aspired dictators imposing their own values and standards on others by the use or force. Government is force!

      Tomorrow, the bureaucrats in charge may advocate the opposite view (which happens to be mine), which is that the egg is the healthiest food on the planet, and they will mandate a label that says: “healthiest food on the planet, eat a lot of eggs!”.




      0
    2. Maybe I have just become cynical, but I feel the government IS looking out for the industry over the consumer. By not allowing certain terms to be used, they are protecting them from lawsuits, thus protecting their profits.




      0
    1. High levels of the following would still be an issue: pro-inflammatory arachidonic acid, cancer-promoting methionine, IGF-1 promoting animal protein, and trans fats. There is also the issue of bioaccumulation of industrial/environmental pollutants anytime to go up a trophic level.




      0
    1. Your socks smell bad too so do you wear any? I do not think eggs smell bad so I am interested in the possible harm of animal protein and choline..;.




      0
      1. Oddest response I’ve had in a while. Firstly my socks smell perfectly fine :D. Secondly socks are a necessity in this cold weather and I’m not going to eat them.

        You seem to be opposed to the idea that many eggs are a safe thing to consume so I’m not sure why you had to reply to me in this way. Eggs never used to smell bad to me, but now they do. That’s the only point I was trying to make. If eggs don’t smell bad to you then great.




        0
        1. Once I took a whiff of someone’s bottle of dairy milk after having eaten plant-based for a while – I had read that it smelled gross on some “top ten reasons to give up dairy” list. I guess I’ve got a morbid sense of curiosity. Pee-ew! It smells just like what it is, old bodily fluids. People are weird.




          0
            1. Well I dislike some vegetables too (surely I must… though I can’t actually think of any), but I do think vegetables and bodily fluids fall in two different categories of discussion. My point was simply, after drinking something my whole life, I never noticed its odor until I had not consumed it for quite some time. Spinach, and other vegetables on the other hand have smelled the same to me my whole life, no matter how long I’ve gone without eating them. Plants, regardless of their particular smell, always smell like plants; bodily fluids always smell like bodily fluids.

              However I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to disparage breastmilk itself; breastfeeding moms know that it has a smell. Most bodily fluids do, it’s just part of life. I do think it is fascinating however, that most adults drink it without really noticing the smell. I don’t think there is anything weird about a cow producing breastmilk for her baby, or any other mammal’s lactation. It’s the difference in perception on the consumers’ part that I find fascinating (perhaps I should have used “fascinating” instead of “weird”).

              Soymilk on the other hand, especially when heated for a latte, smells like sugar cookies. This statement is supported by numerous studies performed on coworkers and baristas.




              0
              1. Maybe it was the particular variety or brand of milk you smelled. Maybe gene expression related to preference and perception changes with respect to exposure. Maybe pasteurization, or decomposition, contributed to the smell. Maybe it is consumer psychology, just like I thought my mom’s Chinese soy milk was weird.

                On that note… old soy juice will smell bad also! Unless it’s fermented with wheat, A. soya, and has a ton of salt added… Then you have something I could reasonably threaten my health with.

                On a tangent, you seem to follow this site a lot. Have you come across any studies documenting the changes in blood inflammatory markers and vasoconstriction following pastured/wild meat/fish consumption? I’ve been looking for those on PM on which to base my future diet decisions and haven’t found anything.




                0
  8. Useless video that does not address the possible problems with eggs besides salmonella. Animal protein in large amounts is detrimental to your health as well as choline in eggs could be putting you at risk. Of course, it is unlikely the necessary research will be done because the egg industry is only interested in sales, not your health. A policy of not more than two eggs a week is wise till more research findings are available.




    0
        1. laytonian: Most of us love the videos. But if audio is not your thing, you are in luck. Each video is followed by a “transcript” section. Expand that section and you can read the transcript instead of watching the video.

          The only videos where a transcript is not available are the year-end summary videos.




          0
  9. This is and has always been for me a very confusing topic. For those of us who are still eating carefully chosen meats, the info. on eggs is often times hard to decipher. You now have top neurosurgeons, Board Certified, who are saying that eggs supply one of the top, very top fats that are brains need to survive – Dr. Perlmutter in his book Grain Brain – highly recommends 3 eggs a day. And he isn’t the only doctor advising this. Eggs are also being taunted as being the number one food to stabilize blood sugar, insulin. Very, Very confusing. I wish there was a definitive answer whereby the WHOLE of the health industry could agree.




    0
    1. It is not confusing if you rely on legitimate research such as provided in this video and not fad diet books. A factor may be taunted as good but you must look at the whole product. No matter what is taunted as good in eggs or carefully chosen meats, they are still loaded with fat, animal protein and cholesterol.




      0
    2. “eggs supply one of the top, very top fats that are brains need to survive”

      Can I ask which fat he is making this claim about? One of the most distinguishing characteristics of eggs is their incredibly high arachidonic acid content compared to other foods. Arachidonic acid has been well studied in regards to its negative impact on neurological health, including being associated with depression and bipolar disorder.

      In regards to blood sugar, it is excess intramyocellular lipid content that impairs insulin function and inhibits its ability to move glucose from the bloodstream into the cell. Limiting carbohydrate in the diet to try to keep blood sugar steady is an exercise in minimizing a symptom (hyperglycemia), rather than addressing its cause. Have you ever wondered why billions of people following traditional Asian, African, or South/Central American diets never get diabetes even though their diets are based on rice, corn, potatoes, and other grains?

      Unfortunately when there are many studies that repeatedly point in the same direction, there isn’t a lot of media coverage on it. It’s just not exciting. But when say a poorly designed egg industry-funded study comes out that says something different, the media jumps all over it and presents it as shocking news, and as this huge debate that no one really knows the answer to, when really there is a very clear balance of evidence pointing in one direction, if one were to examine the entire body of evidence. But that wouldn’t provide shock and excitement to viewers/readers, and it also wouldn’t be telling them what they want to hear: “eggs are great!” “tons of extra fatty meat is great!” “butter sauteed in coconut oil wrapped in bacon is great!” “eat all you want! it’s good for you!”

      “I wish there was a definitive answer whereby the WHOLE of the health industry could agree”

      Good news, there is in most major areas of nutrition, an overwhelming consensus of what is good for you and what is bad for you. And a lot of it is probably in sync with what you’ve intuitively known your whole life. Limit animal products. Maximize plant foods.

      However you are lumping the egg industry/fad diet book industry/talk show industry/etc in with the rest of the scientific community, and there will never be a consensus between all of these entities.




      0
      1. The point of confusion I feel that many have with eggs is that “experts” will pin down single nutrients in eggs, such as lutein, and claim eggs are healthy because it contains lutein. Based on the nutrient data found on the USDA database, 10 grams of spinach has approximately 12 times more lutein then 10 grams of an egg. We cannot really consider eggs an appropriate source of this nutrient.

        https://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/SR25/nutrlist/sr25a338.pdf

        The way people view nutrition these days is quite reductionistic, and looking at the food as a whole is key to truly grasping the power of nutrition.

        I post this as a reply only to add to what you have said.




        0
        1. I almost went into the lutein thing, Toxins, but thought I was getting long-winded as it was. That always leaves me shaking my head. It’s like oh come on, just admit you like eating eggs! Don’t tell me it’s about the lutein! Sure, and I make sure to eat chocolate cupcakes every day, but only because of you know, all of the polyphenols and iron and magnesium. Chocolate cupcakes are a GREAT source of those ;)

          As far as I can tell, if the level of nutrient x in any particular animal food/oil/etc is greater than 0 mg, you can be sure to hear people saying that it’s a great source of that nutrient.




          0
          1. But then again, as you say it’s what people are told by various “experts” who don’t make the effort to evaluate a food as a “package deal”. Some doctor in yahoo news mentions lutein and eggs, lay people will pick up on it without ever actually looking at the numbers. After all, the experts told them so.

            I do think the “spin” is a big part of too, in terms of what information gets presented to people. It’s considered “news” to hear a doctor say eggs are good for you after all. On the other hand, a doctor claiming that spinach is good for you and contains nutrients, isn’t news.




            0
    3. Agree Laura – all the ‘experts’ give us their evidence which conflict on so many foods and we are truly just wanting to be happy and healthy!!




      0
    4. Current levels of omega 3 in eggs are highly inadequate and one must consume around 30 eggs to reach an acceptable level of omega 3 for the day. A male needs around 1.6 grams of omega 3 per day, a female needs around 1.1 grams a day. A large egg contains about .037 grams of omega 3. Omega 3 in the ALA form processes to EPA which is also processed to DHA. These fats are anti-inflammatory. Omega 6 processes down to arachadonic acid which is highly inflammatory. According to the National Cancer Institute, eggs are the number 2 top contributor of arachidonic acid in the American Diet.

      http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/diet/foodsources/fatty_acids/table4.html

      Based on this as well as the low omega 3 content of eggs, the benefits received from omega 3 are masked by the high quantity of preformed Arachidonic Acid. High intake of arachadonic acid is linked to autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, as well as a clear link with cancer development.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=20950616%5Buid%5D

      http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/1_156375095.pdf

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21139128




      0
    5. Perlmutter’s is a dangerous man. No better way to get dementia than by clogging up the blood flow to one’s brain with carotid atherosclerosis and strokes.

      His advice to eat lots of cholesterol for your brain health is pretty dumb since the brain makes its own cholesterol. Cholesterol is too large a molecule to pass through the blood-brain barrier.

      Gluten = evil
      Non-gluten grains and legumes OK once or twice a week.

      Sells supplements to undo the damage his diet does?




      0
  10. Same bat time, same bat channel. “Wholly, rotting, sulfur stench Batman! Did you eat those Deviled Eggs Alfred made?! They (the egg industry) said they’re good for you, and if smelling like a rotting carcass is good, you’re smelling like roses.”




    0
    1. At least the USDA is sticking to their guns with regards to the nutrition, safe and healthy labels. It’s good to see.
      Anyway can you ever get the sentences of the note you showed in the video that were blacked out, un-blacked out?
      Is it only the Freedom of information Act to a point? Are they allowed to freely destroy the infromation you requested?




      0
  11. I don’t miss eggs; I miss dairy. That is the hardest thing to do without when eating out at a restaurant; even the many self-advertised “vegetarian” dishes usually have cheese or cream in them.




    0
    1. Yep same here. I can’s say what heroin is like but I told myself it was like that…that i would always miss it. I have secret ice cream cone about 4 times a year. seems to get it me through. I dont eat the cone…just the pus. mmmm




      0
      1. Do you really miss the actual dairy ice cream, rather than ice cream in general (e.g. soy, coconut, etc)? I’ve had non-dairy ice cream a couple times and I thought it was plenty good, other than being less accessible and more expensive (which perhaps is a good thing anyway…) I can’t imagine still wanting dairy ice cream. Maybe the opioid peptides have a stronger effect in certain individuals?

        Also, not to be an enabler but I have always wanted an ice cream maker, but thought I wouldn’t use it enough to warrant it, but maybe for you it’d be a worthwhile investment. :) There are some pretty darn good looking vegan ice cream recipes out there!




        0
        1. Never thought of it. I googled up a really nice sounding non-dairy pumpkin recipe…you’re right, theres heaps of stuff out there. I don’t know, I’ll check with PIXELATED and see what she thinks. Could be just the ticket. thanks.




          0
          1. Also, for a quick fix – I know it’s not quite ice cream, but I LOVE putting frozen fruit in my little mini food processor with a couple splashes of soy milk. It’s like a sorbet but creamier. And with the sweeter fruits like sweet dark cherries or pineapple, you genuinely don’t need any sweeteners. I whip this up probably a few nights a week. Only takes a few minutes start to finish to dump the fruit in, whiz it up, dump in bowl, clean mini processor, before I’m sitting on the couch with my “ice cream”.




            0
            1. Adding a couple tablespoons of cocoa powder and some soaked dates and you have an incredibly tasty desert. It tastes like fruity chocolate ice cream.




              0
            2. You are an extremely well informed commenter in NF, hence I have a follow up question to your comment. How important is it from a health perspective that the soy prodcts including soy milk are organic? I have relatively little trouble finding organic soy milk but find it very difficult to find orgaic tofu which I find is as an excellent source of plant protein and replaces the Indian dairy based paeer in many Indian dishes. Would greatly appreciate your answer.




              0
              1. Hi gp65, thank you so much for your kind words and apologies for not seeing this until now. Organic/gmo issues are so incredibly complicated, I’m afraid I don’t think I could give you a complete answer without attempting to write a review article on it myself, but I can simply tell you my perspectives as a fellow health conscious consumer.

                First, I’m very surprised you can’t find organic tofu! In my local stores there are only organic or “non-gmo certified” options. But in any case, in my honest opinion, I buy organic when the price is right compared to conventional, and/or if it happens to be a superior product. E.g. for some reason the organic carrots in our store taste far better than the conventional ones. Whereas other products are a toss-up or in some cases the conventional ones may even taste better.

                To me the biggest issue towards health is eating plant-based, and eating mostly whole foods, and beyond that to a large degree many changes may warrant only diminishing returns, e.g. spinach or kale, nuts or no nuts, sweet or white potatoes, etc. I’m certain that sometimes more damage to health is done worrying about some of these topics instead of people simply eating whichever option simply brings them joy. Minimizing pesticide exposure is important of course a bit more of a serious topic, and a general pattern of eating organic may aid in that, but in the case of any individual food, it may not have any real relevance in terms of outcomes. If you eat non-organic tofu and I eat organic tofu once per week for a lifetime, and in general we both eat nutrient dense whole foods plant based diets, exercise regularly, enjoy close friendships and a sense of community, I personally find it hard to believe that a weekly non-organic tofu dish is going to knock years off your life or contribute to some devastating disease. And if we’re playing the odds anyway, you would have to consider the absence of several known medicinal compounds in soy that you might then be missing out on if you were to omit tofu from your diet, and the balance between the good and the (potentially) bad.

                There are of course also several ethical/environmental reasons to “choose organic”. But then there are many loopholes as well, wherein a label of “organic” does not necessarily mean what we hope or like to think it means. Sometimes a non organic labelled product from a small environmentally and labor conscious producer may be ethically superior than one from a less conscious producer that managed to be technically considered “organic” enough to achieve an official label.

                All I can tell you is that personally I wouldn’t worry about it. If all I could find were non-organic tofu, I would still make tofu stir fry. A) we love it in our household, and B) there are still many tremendously health-promoting compounds in the tofu, regardless of organic or non-organic status. And of course, as a science-minded person I look forward to developments in this area and will change my tune if convincing evidence appears. If you don’t feel tremendously worried about it, I say don’t worry about it; there are more important things for you to spend your worry on. But if you do, if you have any nagging discomfort when you eat your non-organic tofu, then don’t! Though if you can find organic soymilk and you really want organic tofu, you could consider making your own. As a bonus you’d be able to keep those chewy dried tofu skins (yuba) that form in the process. I don’t know how much of an ordeal that would be, but perhaps if you made a big enough batch and were able to freeze it for future use, it wouldn’t be too inconvenient.

                Anyway sorry I couldn’t help much beyond rambling. Whatever beans and veggies and other beautiful plant foods you choose to eat, enjoy them and all the best! :)




                0
                1. b00mer: re: “…you could consider making your own. As a bonus you’d be able to keep
                  those chewy dried tofu skins (yuba) that form in the process.”

                  Have you made your own tofu???? I’m really curious about the idea. Was it hard? Fun? Extra tasty? Do you get to pick between making firm or soft? I can do my own research on the topic, but I was curious what your experience is. And I’m intrigued by the idea of “chewy dried tofu skins”. Sounds interesting!




                  0
                  1. Nope, never made my own personally – for me it’s one of those things I’ve never had any interest in DIYing. On the one hand, it’s a relatively simple process, after all people have been making it for millenia, but it is time consuming, and I’d bet there’s a learning curve in getting it just right. Even without organic/non-gmo options, I’d probably still be buying mine from the store!

                    I’ve also never tried yuba, but have heard really good things about it. You can find it for sale online but I’ve been meaning (and forgetting….) for the longest time to check my local ethnic foods store.

                    oh ps I watched this video a while back (how I learned about yuba), it’s a look inside the Hodo Soy Beanery. Perhaps it’s not terribly fascinating to the average person but I enjoyed it :) In another video, the owner Minh Tsai discusses how the tofu we get in the store here in the U.S. is completely different from what most Asians eat in Asia, and that he thinks most Asians wouldn’t want to eat the stuff we have here. I enjoy the tofu I get off the room temperature shelf at the store enough, but learning about the “real” stuff definitely gave me a hankering for it. Hopefully either he expands his operation or I can get to either the Bay Area or Asia to try it someday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i35M3_9dQ4

                    If you go on any wild tofu making adventures yourself, let us know how it goes!




                    0
                    1. Thanks b00mer! Very interesting info. I’ll check that link out. And definitely, if the tofu adventure bug bites me, I’ll report back. :-)




                      0
        1. Well you know, they always check milk quality by measuring “somatic cell counts” which I guess is a nicer way of saying white blood cells which usually indicate presence of an infection = pus in the milk. Dr. G thunk that one through. So now we have limits on pus because they worry about our health. Mmm, french vanilla. I do love it though. Like black pudding too, even the white bits… but don’t ask and I won’t tell.




          0
          1. The presence of white cells in milk does not concern me. I would be more concerned about unpasteurized (raw) milk containing bacteria. My own body is filled with white cells, both alive and dead, and it is most likely the case that the white cells in milk are dead as the milk is pasteurized. Endotoxin and exotoxin as part of bacteria, as well as the natural virulence and pathogenicity of bacteria, fungi and viruses are what cause disease. An exception would be graft-versus-host disease but you can’t get that orally. Your intact immune system and mucosal barrier will mop up those foreign, dead, pus cells. Having said that, I am not interested to go to Dr Greger’s video to see what he said.




            0
        2. DGH: You may be interested in this article from Dr. Greger that talks about how much pus gets into milk. There’s a video of the day on the topic too.

          http://nutritionfacts.org/2011/09/08/how-much-pus-is-there-in-milk/

          I LOVE cashew (that I make myself) and coconut-based (that I buy) ice creams. Unlike cheese, this is one area that I never feel deprived over. Other than cheese, I found personally that most dairy products are easily replaced with something I like at least as well if not better.




          0
          1. The presence of white cells in milk does not concern me. I would be more concerned about unpasteurized (raw) milk containing bacteria. My own body is filled with white cells, both alive and dead, and it is most likely the case that the white cells in milk are dead as the milk is pasteurized. Endotoxin and exotoxin as part of bacteria, as well as the natural virulence and pathogenicity of bacteria, fungi and viruses are what cause disease. An exception would be graft-versus-host disease but you can’t get that orally. Your intact immune system and mucosal barrier will mop up those foreign, dead, pus cells. Having said that, I am not interested to go to Dr Greger’s video to see what he said.

            PS: It’s cheese, cream, sour cream substitution in restaurants that I was referring to. Most restaurants do not carry vegan alternatives, and many of these tend to be loaded with trans fats (I am not as worried about the other additives, e.g. titanium dioxide and carrageenan – trans fats are the big problem with vegan sour cream and vegan cheese).




            0
            1. re: “The presence of white cells in milk does not concern me.” because they don’t likely cause disease. That’s a fair enough argument. I personally have a problem with eating pus as I doubt it contributes to health (anti oxidants? vitamins? etc?) even if it doesn’t cause disease. But I think your argument at that level makes sense.

              However, the following part of your argument makes no sense to me: “My own body is filled with white cells, both alive and dead…” Our bodies are made up of plenty of substances that are not good for us to eat. I’m not arguing that pus is good or bad for us to eat. I’m just saying that just because there is a substance in our body (bones, muscles, fat, cholesterol, bile etc) does not make for a legit argument about whether it a healthy substance to consume in our diet. That’s just like the argument that protein pushers make – that we should eat animal flesh because it best mirrors our own flesh. The logical conclusion to that is that the healthiest diet is cannibalism.

              Just something to think about (my opinion) in terms of refining your argument should you make it again in the future.




              0
              1. Just to clarify, I meant that bovine (cow) white blood cells, taken pasteurized and into the gut of a human being, are unlikely to cause harm. Actually our intestines and blood streams, lungs and bladders and mouths are filled with white blood cells. As long as you don’t inject my bloodstream with HIV-infected leukocytes (white blood cells), I would be fine with pus as a contaminant of dairy, particularly since the pus is dead – pasteurized. It may affect the taste. I think there are much better reasons to avoid dairy than the presence of some quantity of dead, denatured white blood cells. I would be much more worried about the bacteria, viruses, fungi and protozoa that come together with those white cells…. since pus usually signifies an underlying infection (although not always – it can be present with any inflammation). I wasn’t arguing for eating human body components because they are somehow “natural”; that would be absurd!




                0
    2. It is the hardest thing to avoid at restaurants, but at the same time I think it’s the easiest thing to substitute for in recipes. The structural contributions to a recipe from eggs take a little more work to get around imo.




      0
  12. Does anyone know the lipid loadout of eggs? As in, what percents by mass stearic/myristic/palmitic? And what the threshold dosages for harm are in the latter two?




    0
  13. Brilliant! I’d like to see the freedom of info request information from the other meat industries, such as beef, pork, turkey and chicken. I bet their lobby groups are going through similar initiatives.
    One thing that caught my eye was that the egg industry just keeps turning down the use of the words nutrition, safe, and healthy. I wonder if the industry just keeps plugging those words in over and over, hoping at some point, a bureaucrat will make an error and give them the okay in writing to use the word.




    0
  14. Washingtonian, I see you’ve done a great deal of research on this topic, and for that, I commend you – and thank you for sharing. I would recommend to have a look at Dr. Joel Fuhrman’s book (Eat to Live, I think it is called), as he has a table showing the nutrient density of foods, and he describes how he calculated them (I’m not sure if he revealed the exact forumula, but I have a hunch he did). There were additions for antioxidants, vits, minerals, fibre and subtractions for fat, cholesterol, sugars, etc.




    0
    1. Herehere, Yes thanks for bring up Dr Furhman’s book! The book (actually it’s a two book set) is called Eat for Health. “Using a specific calorie amount instead of weight or serving size is a more accurate way of obtaining a pure “nutrient per calorie” score, a reflection of the health equation”. (Book 2 page 3). He does explain his methodology. To cut to the chase, go to page 84 to find the nutrient density of eggs. Spoiler alert … eggs score 28. The good stuff as you would expect are the green leafy veggies (like cooked Kale, raw watercress etc) coming in with a score of 1000.




      0
      1. Court Rules Against USDA’s Secrecy and Failure to Disclose Conflict of Interest in Setting Nutrition Policies

        “PCRM had argued that at least six of the 11 members of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which formulates the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, had financial ties to the meat, dairy, or egg industries that may have made it more likely that unhealthy foods would remain in the government’s diet plan.”

        http://pcrm.org/media/news/court-rules-against-usdas-secrecy-and-failure-to




        0
        1. He actually has several very good books: Eat To Live with over 1,000 peer reviewed scientific references to show he’s not just giving an opinion, but a summary of the facts. Eat For Health which breaks down the Eat To Live diet into a 4 step process for those who can’t jump in 100% right away. The End of Diabetes which does what it says, at least for Type 2. He has over 2,000 patients now that are no longer diabetics. The End of Heart Disease which also has hundreds of scientific references in it and is his latest.




          0
    2. I also like washingtonian and your reference of Fuhrman book on nutrient density of food. If there are anything which is saying that eggs are not healthy for health then that can be very serious matter and our govening bodies should make clear on this. I hope this will help us to come out of this confusion.

      Param
      Legal Steroids Website Owner.




      0
  15. I’m curious to know what the egg industry can say in Canada, where I live! I’ve sure been seeing a lot of advertisements for dairy products lately. Apparently, “it just makes sense” to drink milk.




    0
  16. Anyone who seeks information on nutrition and health topics, opens a site on the internet and finds an expert who speaks .Just like in here. But there are many other sites on the internet in which, other doctors and experts speak often about the SAME topic but take the exact opposite position.On the one hand you have(for instance here) Dr.Gregger, talking about eggs being very bad for your health and on the other hand you have an other doctorexpertscientist ,assurring you that eggs are GREAT for you. They are both doctors,experts, and they both refer to STUDIES to support what they say. WHAT on EARTH should you believe?

    You have 2 doctors,2 experts,1 topic and 2 contadictory positions.I don`t care who is who and obviously this is not a matter of preference “whom to believe“ ,like it is in the case of “which football team to support“ ,but the above simple fact may make it difficult to decide what to do. ( specifically about eggs,I`ve seen at least 3 doctors speaking in favor of eggs, on you tube .It`d be useful to listen to each other`s take on the arguements of the other. )
    Maybe we could play the game “fact or fiction“ or put the names of the contradicting experts on a graph .Kidding of course :D .
    I`d like to read any commentsanswers on how to handle this dilemma and information.Thanks.




    0
  17. OK. I need some clarification here – after seeing the many articles against egg consumption (something which I do enjoy). Dr. Greger, forgive me, but you do seem to make some very sweeping statements. One could almost think you had an agenda of some kind…

    Forgive me if I’m wrong here, but research I read seems to point in an entirely opposite direction, especially around saturated fat and cholesterol in relation to CHD. I can also admit to generally mistrusting USDA/FDA research as a pile of bureaucratic nonsense.

    I thought that recent focus for research had shifted to “oxidized LDL” as the primary culprit in Cardiovascular Heart Disease (CHD). I keep hearing you bang on about cholesterol, but I’ve yet to hear your opinion on research in this area (apologies if I missed it).

    Whilst high levels of LDL are generally predictive of unhealthy levels of oxidized LDL, it does not necessarily follow that foods that elevate LDL also increase oxidation. So, the question follows; what *does* lead to high levels of oxidation in LDL? The answer seems to be high levels of simple carbohydrate consumption (especially processed sugar). Trans-fats also play a role. Saturated fats (like those found in eggs) simply do not appear to do so. Processed sugar and simple carbs are way worse of an enemy to our heart than eggs will ever be.

    Whilst it is true that saturated fats raise cholesterol, we see that both LDL and HDL go up after consuming saturated fats. Since the HDL:LDL ratio is actually a better predictor of CHD (higher ratios meaning lower risk) [1], scientists have come to conclude in numerous studies [2] that saturated fats are not likely to be a primary cause of CHD [3]. In fact, the best *easy* measure of the level of oxidation is the Triglyceride:HDL ratio. If that is high, you can definitely be worried. However, the consumption of saturated fats tends to *lower* TRI:HDL ratios while simple carbs (esp. processed sugars) seem to raise it. So, while we are not quite ready to say that saturated fats are “heart healthy,” it is the emerging consensus that they play little role.

    Interestingly, a Japanese prospective study that followed 58,000 men for an average of 14 years found no association between saturated fat intake and heart disease, and an inverse association between saturated fat and stroke
    (i.e. those who ate more saturated fat had a lower risk of stroke) [4].

    I would be interested to hear your opinion on the above.

    [1]Demosthenes B. Panagiotakos, Christos Pitsavos, John Skoumas, Christina
    Chrysohoou, Marina Toutouza, Christodoulos I. Stefanadis, Pavlos K.
    Toutouzas, “The Importance of LDL/HDL Cholesterol Ratio as a Predictor for Coronary Heart Disease Events in Patients With Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolaemia: A 15-Year Follow-up (1987-2002).”
    (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/452983_4)

    [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy

    [3] Djoussé L, Gaziano JM., “Dietary cholesterol and coronary artery disease: a systematic review.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19852882)

    [4] Department of Public Health Medicine, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, and Institute of Community Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Japan., “Dietary intake of saturated fatty acids and mortality from cardiovascular disease in Japanese: the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer Risk (JACC) Study.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685950?dopt=AbstractPlus)




    0
  18. Here’s the facts. 4-6 eggs every day for my entire life. I’m 47. Total cholesterol 181, HDL 94, LDL 77, Triglicerides 54. Choke on those numbers. Oh, and my LDL particles are nice and big and fluffy. Anyone who claims eggs aren’t healthy is ignorant of the facts or just a biased vegan.




    0
    1. Clay: Thanks for sharing your numbers. This is a great example of why the details are important.

      My understanding is that in order to be heart-attack proof, you would need your total cholesterol to be under 150 and LDL to be under 70. The range you are in right now is not very safe. The goal is not to have a certain number for cholesterol, but to avoid heart attacks. Thus, many people in this group would look at your numbers and go, “Yikes! I hope he is able to fix his diet before it hurts him…”

      Of course, if you are happy with those numbers and happy to take the risk, then you are happy with those numbers. I wish you good health.




      0
    2. Clay, so glad your numbers are good and I am not choking on them. But because your body, so far and maybe for your lifetime, is able to handle high intakes of eggs doesn’t mean that this is the case for all. Also, it doesn’t mean that those that review data and come to a different conclusion from you are “ignorant of the facts” or are “just biased” vegans.

      Its about risk. For example, there are smokers that live long healthy lives but most often there is a price to pay-I have cared for those paying dearly. Do you smoke, do you care about second-hand smoke? Smoking is just a risk factor.




      0
    3. With all respect, a similar argument could be made for the health benefits of smoking – for SOME folks. I knew a guy who . . . . .(you finish it.) Greetings from an unbiased vegan. CHEERS.




      0
  19. The egg industry does not have the same influence on the politicians as the wheat, soy, and corn growers. Because if they did, they would have health warnings on every package of bread. Believe me, eggs are better for you than bagels and donuts.




    0
    1. Uncle Lar: I haven’t looked at this particular video, but I have seen some NutritionFacts videos which show how the egg industry comes up with experiment designs which make such studies invalid. There is another video coming up on NutritionFacts that covers this point again.

      You might also want to check out Plant Positive, who has a very indepth set of videos showing a great deal of scholarly work/research on this topic among others related to cholesterol denial-ism.
      http://plantpositive.com/
      (Videos are listed on the right. He also posts videos on YouTube.)




      0
  20. This is amazing. Eggs are probably the most nutritious food on the planet, it’s the big-industry-biased “science” that has the messgae backwards. It’s amazing that the US has survived this long! The rest of the world looks on with amazement.

    What is interesting is that a lot of this egg “research” was paid for by Kelloggs – any guesses why?




    0
  21. DWS had the most valid point and obviously the most educated reply to this topic. I eat over a dozen raw eggs every day, I have never had salmonella poisoning, my cholesterol is perfect, and my blood pressure is bang on. If you only watch one video or read one article you can’t talk as if you’re an expert. Everyone has different dietary needs and eggs are not for everyone. If you never exercise you might want to steer clear of eggs, your body doesn’t need the nutrition from eggs to rebuild, maintain, and grow tissue. Most every natural food source has its benefits and to think otherwise is to me ignorant. I’m not meaning to offend anyone, I’m just speaking from REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE on my own body. I don’t listen to the USDA for my nutrition and neither should you. Take a good look at the food pyramid, and you will see its completely wrong.




    0
  22. I may have overdosed on SO many comments. I see nothing that contradicts or debunks the FACTS (independently verifiable) that Dr. Greger presented. Tastes change. In the last century I would frequently eat four eggs for breakfast with bacon and other bad stuff. I’m lucky to be alive today. Check back with me early in the next century and see how my current vegan diet is working out.

    Cheers.




    0
  23. So now I’m getting fed up with all the misleading information about our foods. Well which is it? Are eggs healthy or not? I’m sick of the psychological crap they play all the time.




    0
  24. Funny how you guys argue back and forth. all the while forgetting that everyone has a different biodiversity and a different lifestyle.. My granddad ate 6 eggs, bacon, biscuits made with buttermilk and gravy every day for breakfast, salted pork (he cured his own meat) cornbread and anything and everything he wanted to eat… the first time a doctor laid hands on him he was in his nineties and he was healthy as a horse (minus the flu he was being seen for) cholesterol was way in the bottom of the range everything looked great… the moral is granddad worked everyday, didn’t sit and watch TV or tap on his smartphone… and he ate things that *_he_* grew .. not some GMO things or bought at the store things… not everyone has this predisposition some folks process foods differently… no need to argue, we are all the same but vastly different metabolically…




    0
    1. Similar anecdotal “arguments” could be made about smoking citing those who survive in spite of (not because of) their habit. The key SPECIFIC FACTS cited by Dr. Greger hold for most folks most of the time under most circumstances. PLEASE !




      0
  25. I am a healthy active adult. Blood pressure on the low side of normal, and cholesterol levels that many people wish they could have. I mostly eat fruits, veggies, nuts, fish and EGGS. I eat between 3-6 eggs a day, and I eat the yolk of every single one of them. Granted this is only anecdotal, it leads me to believe that eggs are more than capable of helping a healthy lifestyle.
    Putting your faith in the USDA is foolish. The approved feeding practices for livestock ring a bell? How about toxic pesticides?




    0
    1. “So how many eggs can you eat? That depends on a number of factors. The American Heart Association no longer includes limits on the number of egg yolks you can eat, but it recommends that you limit your cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams daily, or 200 milligrams if you have heart disease or if your LDL is greater than 100. You decide where that cholesterol comes from!”

      As shown in studies the optimal cholesterol intake is zero. Choosing to consume cholesterol-containing products regardless is a risk. One that is easily avoided by simply not eating eggs.

      I might be going out on a limb here, but your post makes me believe you are trying to find a justification to eat eggs. I don’t see any other reason you would keep looking for studies, especially if the product in question contains a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol.




      0
  26. Saying eggs are nutritious or safe may violate rules against false and misleading advertising. But poisoning the whole country with glyphosate is OK as long as you say it’s safe. What a bunch of liars.




    0
  27. I’m a runner, and I subscribe to Runner’s World, a publication which seems to LOVE eggs. They’re always touting omelette recipes, and claiming the nutrient dense yolks and protein high whites are great nutrition for runners. As a whole foods, plant based athlete who has watched Forks Over Knives and seen many videos on this site, I’m very dishearted. The January Runner’s World cited a study in the American Heart Journal in January that “suggests peven people with coronary heart disease can safely eat two eggs a day without negatively affecting their blood pressure, cholesterol, or body wait. Vive l’oeuf!” They then displayed recipes with ways to add eggs to any meal. What study are they referencing from the American Heart Journal, and could you address it? I would love to be able to share the truth with other runners, that eggs are not nutritious.




    0
  28. Eggs may serve to satisfy our hunger in the mornings, but there are so many more foods that may prove to be even more satisfying!!! Whole fruits and grains such as quinoa made with pomegranate and pear with lemon juice and almond milk!!! Yum!!! Sounds better to me!!!
    I love the Forks over Knives cookbook!!! It has a myriad of healthful satisfying recipes to replace a typical egg breakfast!!




    0
  29. Once again, the industry is all about the money. It’s not about nutrition for the people at all. They focus on those “health” or “nutrient” words so that mothers will buy the eggs and feed them to their children, or the health conscious adult will buy them as a support to their “nutritious” lifestyle. They slyly make people believe they are healthy with tricky wording, “incredible edible egg”. They are low carb, so they must be healthy, right? They have choline, so we need them, right? Wrong. One of the comments below, written by Washingtonian, is very interesting and very researched!! I loved reading that post as it was a great compliment to this video post as well as the following ones!!

    http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-choline-and-cancer/
    http://nutritionfacts.org/video/debunking-egg-industry-myths/
    http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-the-egg-board-designs-misleading-studies/
    http://nutritionfacts.org/video/antioxidant-power-of-plant-foods-versus-animal-foods/




    0
  30. I’m live in Australia and as a vegan i get hit with the Q&A all the time. It is tiresome at times. Recently there has been a new advertisement on TV for , eggs by the Australian Egg Corporation (AECL) and it claims many health benefits. I know my way around many of the known clever wordings to get around the truth but i looked into it as it was brought up (thrown in the vegans face) at work!

    The AECL website, http://eggs.org.au/, is very clever with its words. Basically each topic is about healthy diet not eggs. But “Eggs are a highly nutritious food” slips in a few times. They are fast to disclaim any responsibility in their Terms and Condition! So i poked around further at the use of ‘nutritious’ in Australia. Now free range etc is closely monitored. But nutritious is not. But according to the ‘Humane Choice of Australia’ page 13 of the egg labeling guide says it is ok to say nutritious. http://www.humanechoice.com.au/Resources/Documents/Egg-Labelling-Guide-March-2013.pdf

    So it is hard for me to show this clip to those non-believers as i cannot back it up. They just say.. “well that’s the USA”




    0
  31. THANK YOU DR GREGER!!:-D
    serves me right…ingesting eggs years ago…even cooked …there are still amounts of “AVIDIN”… self-diagnosed BIOTIN DEFICIENCY probably due to consumption of eggs years ago… guess i never recovered… started taking veg biotin supplements…and biotin deficiency symptoms like disappeared … i guess i never was able to get my biotin level fully back up….after my body was drained of it’s Biotin. slowly increasing my biotin supplement w/ a lot of hydration.




    0
  32. If I wanted to eat eggs anyway, it would be safer and healthier to eat only the egg whites (discarding the yoke) and well cooked?




    0
    1. GOOD QUESTION. But I thought evil of eggs was disposed of by Dr. Greger. His citations seemed comprehensive, detailed and authoritative.

      Science marches on. Or does it? Dammit.

      I hope Australian Government nutritional recommendations are not held hostage to Big Agra as they are by our USA USDA department.

      USA mass media likes to feature “safe” reports.
      Avoid criticisms of Standard American Diet. SAD.

      CHEERS.




      0
  33. I have eaten at least two eggs per day since I was six. Often four to six eggs per day. My cholesterol level is very good. Eggs contain lecithin which breaks down cholesterol.




    0
  34. What are your feelings on the flu vaccine. I haven’t gotten one for 5 years since going vegan because they are made with eggs. My new job at a community health center is forcing me to get one or I have to wear a mask during flu season working hours.




    0
  35. This information is horribly out of date. The US government no longer has any reservations about dietary cholesterol, (cholesterol found in foods you eat) and with good reason: The original scientists that found out about cholesterol stopped having any reservations about dietary cholesterol 15 years ago. What raises blood cholesterol is typically sugars, and this has been known for some time.

    The egg industry, if they wanted to, can now ignore everything the government told them in the past that is mentioned in this video.




    0
  36. Dr. Greger, this is a March 2016 presentation and you are using Feb., 2007 studies. Seems like you’re current presentation is outdated. Are you using this old data to cherry pick like some of the industries you challenge as cherry pickers to make a point?




    0
    1. Phil D.: I can understand why you think that 2007 is old and that using a study from 2007 involves cherry picking. The term ‘cherry picking’ is sadly misused so often, it is quickly losing it’s meaning. You will (hopefully) see why the term does not apply as we address your other issue.

      Thinking that a 2007 (or any year) study is ‘outdated’ in the sense of “time making it so” is a common misconception. The public in general thinks that the latest study automatically wipes out any study that came before it. This perception is encouraged by the media and has led people to believe that science is constantly “flip flopping” on issues, because every new study that comes out is touted as replacing all the science that came before it.

      But that is not how science works. All *valid* studies go into this pool we call “the body of evidence”. All new studies are just one more data point and they all have to be considered. Sometimes the body of evidence will change over time and we will have enough new and/or quality information that we can come to new conclusions. But that really has nothing to do with the date a study is done. A study done 50 years ago can be perfectly valid and relevant and representative of the body of evidence as a study done today as long as that study really is representative of the body of evidence.

      If all that sounds eggy, consider this: Suppose a study came out today showing that smoking was healthy. (There are actually over 100 studies showing that smoking is neutral or healthy. So, this is not a bizarre fantasy. This is quite possible and realistic.) Would that pro-smoking study mean that the thousands of studies that came before were all of a sudden invalid? That they were all outdated? That if someone quoted from those anti-smoking studies that they were cherry picking? No, quite the opposite. In fact, someone who used today’s study to show that smoking is healthy would be the person who is cherry picking.

      I would encourage you to learn about the body of evidence regarding eggs and cholesterol. You can learn a lot here on this site. You can also learn a lot on a site called Plant Positive: http://www.plantpositive.com. You can also learn a lot from sources such as: Dr. McDougall, PCRM, etc. The key is to pick sources for your information which do not cherry pick.




      0
  37. Lately I’ve been concerned with the lack of balanced reporting by Greger. This vlog about the eggs failing to meet the legal definition of many marketing claims is rather alarmist and biased. Let’s examine the term “healthy” (and related terms). Individual foods claiming to be healthy must meet the following requirements [21 CFS 101.65(d)(2)]:
    Total Fat: low fat Fat: low sat fat Sodium: equal or <480 mg/RACC and /l.s. Cholesterol: equal or <disclosure level Beneficial Nutrients: contains at least 10% of DV/RACC for Vitamin A, Vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, or fiber.

    If we held all foods including fruits and vegetable to this standard … let's take celery for an example:

    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2396/2

    Legally, celery is not "healthy". Shall we stop eating celery?




    0
  38. I have some friends that have their own chickens on their backyard. Because I love them I have tried to explain to them that eggs are not good for their health, and they do agree with me, but they think that only the yolk is what high in cholesterol and for therefore bad for you.
    I’d really appreciate it if someone could give me some information about the egg white. Thanks!




    0
    1. Vanessa: Your friends are laboring under an impression shared by many people. Below is some basic information about egg white risks. I don’t know if this would make any sense to your friends, but I hope it helps.

      —————-
      There are two problems with eggs, the yolk and the white. (To paraphrase Dr. Barnard.) Egg whites are likely a big problem health-wise, just like the yolks. It is true that egg whites do not have cholesterol. But egg whites are essentially all animal protein. Here’s what we know about animal protein in general and egg whites in particular:

      Dr. Barnard links potential kidney problems to animal protein (though I don’t have the details on that). And Dr. Greger talks about the problems of animal protein in general in his annual summary video, “Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet” http://nutritionfacts.org/video/food-as-medicine

      Here on NutritionFacts, you can get a great education on how animal protein is linked to the body’s over-production of a growth hormone called IGF-1. IGF-1 helps cancer to grow. To watch the series about IGF-1, click on the link below and then keep clicking the “next video” link on the button to the right until you get through the bodybuilding video. Then you will have seen the entire series.
      http://nutritionfacts.org/video/igf-1-as-one-stop-cancer-shop/

      Here’s another great tidbit from NutritionFacts on another mechanism linking egg whites to cancer as well as increased virus infections: “why would animal protein and fat increase cancer risk? Well, as I noted in Bowel Wars, if you eat egg whites, for example, between 5 and 35% of the protein isn’t digested, isn’t absorbed, and ends up in the colon, where it undergoes a process called putrefaction. When animal protein putrefies in the gut, it can lead to the production of the rotten egg gas, hydrogen sulfide, which, over and above its objectionable odor, can produce changes that increase cancer risk. Putrefying protein also produces ammonia.”
      To learn more details about the process, check out:
      http://nutritionfacts.org/video/putrefying-protein-and-toxifying-enzymes/

      Darryl at one point reminded me of the methionine issue, which I think I first learned from Rami and later from Dr. Greger. Egg whites have *the* highest concentration of methionine of any food:
      http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000084000000000000000.html?categories=1,18,9,0,13,14,5,4,42,16,17,15,6,3,2,11,7,19,21,12,10,8,22
      Dr. Greger did a nice video showing the link between methionine and cancer.
      http://nutritionfacts.org/video/starving-cancer-with-methionine-restriction/

      Darryl also pointed out that, “…high methionine diets increase coronary risk in humans. In its associations with cardiovascular disease and other disorders, homocysteine may be functioning partly as a marker for the major culprit, excess methionine.”
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939475305001092

      Dr. Greger recently posted some videos on how animal protein can raise insulin levels. The first of the following videos even specifically addresses egg whites.
      http://nutritionfacts.org/video/paleo-diets-may-negate-benefits-of-exercise/#comment-1978464793
      http://nutritionfacts.org/video/if-white-rice-is-linked-to-diabetes-what-about-china/

      In summary: there are at least three pathways potentially linking animal proteins, especially egg whites, to cancer: the IGF-1, methionine, and putrefaction. And there is some good evidence that egg white consumption contributes to heart disease and potential problems with T2 diabetes by raising insulin levels in a bad way. All of these reductionist-type studies lend support the bigger general population studies showing that the healthiest populations on earth are those which eat the least amount of animal protein.

      With all of the information we have about the harmful effects of animal protein in general and egg white in particular, I think it’s best to stay away from egg white. Why not get your protein from safe sources? IE: Sources which are known to have lots of positive health effects and will naturally give you a balanced amount of protein? (ie: whole plant foods)




      0
  39. Someone sent this to me today and I’m wondering if anyone could comment. I don’t know enough to be able to argue against this study promoting the consumption of eggs, in particular the cholesterol argument.

    Here’s one of the argument from this article:
    “One egg contains 180-186mg. of cholesterol while the liver can generate 1000-2000 mg of cholesterol every day. If your diet is rich in foods with high levels of cholesterol the liver can adapt the production and by eating eggs you won’t increase your cholesterol but just substitute one cholesterol with another”

    Source: http://www.healthyfoodteam.com/happens-eat-3-whole-eggs-every-day-youll-surprised-body/




    0
    1. srichardhfx: I think the post I recently did for someone else answers your question. (see below) Basically, knowing how much cholesterol the liver can generate is an irrelevant distraction to what we know about blood cholesterol levels and their relationship to disease. We also know that the amount of cholesterol in an egg will significantly increase blood cholesterol levels in people who have starting healthy levels.
      .
      What that article is talking about is that for people who already have too much cholesterol in their bodies, adding an egg does not do much. But a study like that is the equivalent of testing people who smoke two packs a day verses people who smoke two and half packs. At that point, the risks level out. But such a study tells us nothing about the relationship between smoking and health. The same thing is going on with the egg studies and misleading claims about our bodies having a ‘set point’ for cholesterol.
      .
      Why don’t you take a look at the following post and see if it helps. It includes links to NuritionFacts videos which go into detail in how studies promoting egg and meat and dairy use are fatally flawed. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/nutritionfacts/optimal_cholesterol_level/#comment-2762103058




      0
  40. I recently read in the UK on a leading UK heart charity’s website https://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-matters-magazine/nutrition/cooking-skills/eggs# that ‘Eggs can form part of a balanced diet, despite their perceived ‘bad’ reputation due to their cholesterol content.’ Having just watched the nutritionfacts.org video ‘Who Says Eggs Aren’t Healthy or Safe’ in which Dr Greger states egg corporations (in the US) aren’t even allowed to say thing like eggs are an important part of a well balanced healthy diet on an egg carton because it would be considered misleading since eggs contain significant amounts of fat and cholesterol and therefore contribute to the leading killer in the US (and the UK) – heart disease – I am now concerned that one of the largest independent funders of cardiovascular research in the UK actively promotes eating eggs on their site stating ‘It’s a myth that eggs are bad for your heart’. Is the British Heart Foundation in the UK, who has numerous high-profile supporters, including it’s patron since the charity was founded in 1961, His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, providing misleading advice with this statement about eggs? Many thanks for any help you can provide




    0
    1. jdeano: It is indeed frustrating when an organization we should be able to trust pushes questionable information. I don’t think there is a smoking gun here. Instead, I think there is a mountain of evidence, that when taken together, paints a clear picture about eggs contributing to disease risk, including heart disease.

      The point is, if I only point to one study, it is easy dismissed. I could point to two studies. Also easy to dismiss. I could go on and on and on and on, and it is too much for most people to take in and absorb and be able to come up with good conclusions. That’s why we have experts. So, other than pointing you to additional pages on this website and to the website PlantPositive.com, I don’t know how else we could help you. For an overview of the information on this site concerning eggs, check out: http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/eggs/ (FYI: That info tends to cover egg yolks more than whites, but whites a health problem too. Let me know if you want more info on that.)

      You can search PlantPositive’s site for videos which mention eggs, but the various series are worth taking a look at as a whole. The videos/talks explain how “cholesterol deniers” work and shows how they mislead people. PlantPositive does a great job of documenting all his claims, just like Dr. Greger. The difference is that PlantPositive has a very specific, narrow focus to his work. And he is able to go into great detail compared to this site on that one specific topic.

      I hope this helps. Maybe if you clarify more what you are looking for, someone else could jump in and be more helpful. Good luck.




      0
    2. jdeano: One more thought for you. NutritionFacts has some videos explaining how studies done on meat, diary and eggs are often misleading. Here is a list that may help you understand how these studies come to their invalid conclusions:

      How The Egg Board Designs Misleading Studies: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-the-egg-board-designs-misleading-studies/
      Eggs and cholesterol: Patently False And Misleading Claims: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-and-cholesterol-patently-false-and-misleading-claims/
      The Saturated Fat Studies Set Up To Fail: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/
      Bold Beef Study: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/bold-indeed-beef-lowers-cholesterol/

      These studies are clearly false, but they still got published. I can totally see how an organization being careless could see studies like these and get confused. It shouldn’t happen, but I could see how it could happen, especially if there is financial incentive. I can’t say whether money is a factor in the British Heart Foundation’s misleading claims or not. I just know that it’s possible, because money has demonstrably been behind a change of policy in some well known American institutions.




      0
  41. I sent the above video to my students in a weight loss class. One of them challenged me by sending me the Egg Board’s
    Eggs in School info. http://www.aeb.org/foodservice/schools/egg-nutrition/eggs-in-school-meals
    It has odd wording, which seems like they are somehow restrained, but clearly has a page Eggs in School Meals– Nutritious, Versatile and Affordable. Have the laws changed? I thought they could not use the term “nutritious.”




    0
  42. Hi Michael,

    This is a great movie… I’m currently developing my vegan youtube channel and I would be really grateful if I could use few captions from your video in one of my productions about eggs and also share the story how you actually got to this conclusion by going through all those letters.

    Big thanks!




    0
    1. Chris: It’s my understanding that you can use the information on this site as long as you give proper credit and you are not using it for commercial purposes/to make money. Does that answer the question?




      0
  43. Hello! I was wondering if you could share a link to the original documents/emails, as I am writing a thesis on conflicts of interest within the USDA, with focus on the issues between them and the American Egg Board. It would be really useful to be able to directly cite the documents you recovered through the FOIA. (Or does anyone know the title of these documents on the CIA library of FOIA?)




    0
  44. We need cholesterol for a healthy brain .We make more within the body than we will ever eat in our diets . Sadly successive governments have been advocating low fat diets to the detriment of the populations health —for 50 years or more . Look at a graph to show a parallet increase in cognitive disorders .




    0
    1. joan: You comment is missing the point. The point is that our bodies do indeed make all the cholesterol we need without having to consume foods which cause our body to make too much cholesterol. Animal products, which contain both cholesterol and large amounts of saturated fat, cause our bodies to produce too much cholesterol–which in turn causes heart disease among other problems. Look at it this way: We need water too in order to live. But too much water can kill us.

      While it is true that governments have been advocating the consumption of less fat, it is not true that people have been eating less fat. We don’t have to wait for people to start listening to good advice, however, to know what eating a low fat, whole plant food based diet would do for people’s health. We can study populations which are already eating this way. The answer is that the people who eat the most healthy diets are the people who live the longest and healthiest. The traditional Okinawans is one example and only 6% of their diet was from fat! (9% protein and 85% carbs.) Here is more information if you are interested: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-okinawa-diet-living-to-100/.




      0
  45. I really want to know is there any studies stating that eggs are good for the brain and memory? I have read that there is a certain component or ingredient in eggs that the brain needs and the only place to get this special brain enhancing component is by eating eggs. Not too excited about eating eggs, but I am concerned about good brain health. I am a vegan.




    0
      1. I was afraid you where going to ask me that question. I am almost sure it was choline. Also, I have read that eggs are composed of the perfect protein containing the right amount of nutrients that are most usable for the body. I am a very skinny guy trying to gain some muscle at a later stage in my life. I am trying to weigh all the positives and negative effects of eating eggs and certainly appreciate your input.
        Mark




        0
        1. Mark: Ah choline! That one comes up a lot. The issue is all twisted however. Choline is a reason to avoid eggs, not consume them. You can get plenty of choline eating a healthy diet of whole plant foods. However, eating choline from animal products such as eggs leads to a problem with something called TMAO (and perhaps cancer…). NutritionFacts has a couple videos on this topic, including one that just came out. Check it out: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-to-develop-a-healthy-gut-ecosystem/ and an older one: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/carnitine-choline-cancer-and-cholesterol-the-tmao-connection/

          The issue of protein is one of my favorites, because I have some great resources, and the science is 100% clear on this point. First, I *highly* recommend the following protein 101 article. It includes basic information about protein that most people are unaware of. It also helps to put the issue of protein in eggs into perspective: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/protein.html

          After that sinks in, we can consider what egg protein really is: it’s animal protein. Is it really perfect? I say it’s not perfect if it is highly linked to increased risk for cancer, diabetes and other diseases. Note that the protein in eggs is largely from the egg white. Below is the text that I share with people when they ask about egg whites.

          I hope this helps put the egg issue into perspective.

          ********************************

          There are two problems with eggs, the yolk and the white. (To paraphrase Dr. Barnard.) Egg whites are likely a big problem health-wise, just like the yolks. It is true that egg whites do not have cholesterol. But egg whites are essentially all animal protein. Here’s what we know about animal protein in general and egg whites in particular:
          .
          Dr. Barnard links potential kidney problems to animal protein (though I don’t have the details on that). And Dr. Greger talks about the problems of animal protein in general in his annual summary video, “Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet” http://nutritionfacts.org/video/food-as-medicine
          .
          Here on NutritionFacts, you can get a great education on how animal protein is linked to the body’s over-production of a growth hormone called IGF-1. IGF-1 helps cancer to grow. To watch the series about IGF-1, click on the link below and then keep clicking the “next video” link on the button to the right until you get through the bodybuilding video. Then you will have seen the entire series.
          http://nutritionfacts.org/video/igf-1-as-one-stop-cancer-shop/
          .
          Here’s another great tidbit from NutritionFacts on another mechanism linking egg whites to cancer as well as increased virus infections: “why would animal protein and fat increase cancer risk? Well, as I noted in Bowel Wars, if you eat egg whites, for example, between 5 and 35% of the protein isn’t digested, isn’t absorbed, and ends up in the colon, where it undergoes a process called putrefaction. When animal protein putrefies in the gut, it can lead to the production of the rotten egg gas, hydrogen sulfide, which, over and above its objectionable odor, can produce changes that increase cancer risk. Putrefying protein also produces ammonia.”
          To learn more details about the process, check out:
          http://nutritionfacts.org/video/putrefying-protein-and-toxifying-enzymes/
          .
          Darryl at one point reminded me of the methionine issue. Egg whites have *the* highest concentration of methionine of any food:
          http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000084000000000000000.html?categories=1,18,9,0,13,14,5,4,42,16,17,15,6,3,2,11,7,19,21,12,10,8,22
          Dr. Greger did a nice video showing the link between methionine and cancer.
          http://nutritionfacts.org/video/starving-cancer-with-methionine-restriction/
          .
          Darryl also pointed out that, “…high methionine diets increase coronary risk in humans. In its associations with cardiovascular disease and other disorders, homocysteine may be functioning partly as a marker for the major culprit, excess methionine.”
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939475305001092
          .
          Dr. Greger recently posted some videos on how animal protein can raise insulin levels. The first of the following videos even specifically addresses egg whites.
          http://nutritionfacts.org/video/paleo-diets-may-negate-benefits-of-exercise/#comment-1978464793
          http://nutritionfacts.org/video/if-white-rice-is-linked-to-diabetes-what-about-china/
          .
          In summary: there are at least three pathways potentially linking animal proteins, especially egg whites, to cancer: the IGF-1, methionine, and putrefaction. And there is some good evidence that egg white consumption contributes to heart disease and potential problems with T2 diabetes by raising insulin levels in a bad way. All of these reductionist-type studies lend support the bigger general population studies showing that the healthiest populations on earth are those which eat the least amount of animal protein.
          .
          With all of the information we have about the harmful effects of animal protein in general and egg white in particular, I think it’s best to stay away from egg white. Why not get your protein from safe sources? IE: Sources which are known to have lots of positive health effects and will naturally give you a balanced amount of protein? (ie: whole plant foods) Make sense?




          0
          1. Thea, You are so wonderful, Thank you. I am so Thankful I found Dr. Gregory’s website and greatly appreciate all the scientifically based information provided. I am going to stop eating eggs, and coconut oil. The information you have provided certainly has answered many of my questions and will be very helpful in my food guidelines in the future. Thanks a bunch.
            Have a great day.
            Mark.




            0
  46. Researchers included normal-weight and overweight women in the study,
    noting that weight problems are common with the disorder, known as PCOS, and a source of
    mental health problems that could affect sexual function.




    0
  47. Why do most vegans boast coconut oil benefits but make claims like “eating an egg is just as unhealthy as smoking a cigarette” due to saturated fat content if they’re both the same type of saturated fat and both equally high in it?




    0
    1. Thanks for your comment.

      NF has a great video on coconut oil (see here).

      Well, it depends on the level of knowledge of each person, regardless of the diet they follow. Here at NF, Dr Greger tries to present the evidence based information to clarify these statements.

      Hope this answer helps.




      0
    1. Haha, that is the most ridiculous research ever, these people followed a calorie restrictive diet, all people were overweight, thus if their weight has decreased towards healthier value it’s obvious that their cholesterol levels will decrease as well, and also please read through lines – “both groups showed either no change or a reduction”, there is no specific data, whose levels were decreased, how many people were involved, what other foods they were eating? It’s just a typical sponsored bogus-study to make lemmings think that eggs are healthy.




      0
  48. Hi everyone, looked everywhere on this site for information about Taurines. The reason I’m asking on the egg section is a friend eats 6 eggs per day stating it’s the only way to get taurines in his system. Doesn’t sound healthy to me. Thanks for any info. Great site.




    0
  49. Your egg videos talk specifically about whole eggs and egg yolks but i am curious on your thoughts of egg whites alone. Are egg whites also bad for your health? Or are they safe to eat in moderation.




    0
    1. Hey Caitlin, this is a great question, and I am happy to answer it. ANY animal protein – with or without cholesterol attached as in egg yolk or meats – yields a class of compounds called Advanced Glycation End products (AGEs) when cooked. AGEs are extremely proinflammatory, and their presence in the diet and in the body is strongly linked with most common/chronic diseases. Apart from this, having a high amount of essential amino acids in our diets activates the mTOR pathway, which is linked to many (if not most) degenerative diseases. ( see Byun K et al, Advanced glycation end-products produced systemically and by macrophages: A common contributor to inflammation and degenerative diseases, Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Feb 13).




      0
    1. Hi Ron,

      After looking into this, it turns out everything in this article comes from Freedom of Information Act documents, like industry emails, so that’s why there aren’t any sources on this one.




      0
    1. Hey Brenda, thanks for writing. It’s hard to believe that eggs are being touted on this site as foods that will DECREASE the risk for the very diseases we know they CONTRIBUTE to. Yes, they have certain nutrients, but the damage that they are capable of doing outweights those benefits.

      When a website cites a scientific article as evidence, it is proper to specifically cite the author’s names, the journal volume, date, and year, and the pages. This site does none of these. Their claim that “eggs slow down the aging process” is not only NOT borne out by research, it is in fact ‘junk’ science. If anything, eggs would ADD to the aging process. When you’re searching for health information, try to find sites that list the articles from which the info is coming. If you don’t have these, people can make up whatever they want. Some are actually paid by the food industry to do so!

      Thanks and keep well,




      1
  50. I would really like to see an update here. Literally tons of articles have come out in support of eggs in the last couple of years. After watching What the Health an RD friend of mine was really upset with the discussion of eggs on the video. In particular, equating them to cigarette smoke. Is an RCT forthcoming?




    0
    1. love the book ‘how not to die’ read twice. i have no use for the egg yoke but what is the risk/benefit of the egg white?

      never mind, i found the answer above




      0
    2. Thanks for your question Don.

      Egg whites still contain certain amino acids rich like leucine and methionine, which have been known to play key roles in the development of certain diseases (see here and here). Eggs are also associated with many types of cancer possibly due to cancer causing substances formed when it’s cooked (see here). Eggs being high in protein, could also overstimulate IGF-1 levels and further promote diseases.

      Putrefaction is also a process that takes place with egg consumption regardless of whether it has the yolks or not (see here).

      Given that there is nothing essential about egg whites, there is no benefit to its consumption, only harmful effects.

      Hope this answer helps.




      0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This