Egg
Eggs are laid by female animals of many different species, including birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and fish, and have been eaten by humans for thousands of years. Bird and reptile eggs consist of a protective eggshell, albumen (egg white), and vitellus (egg yolk), contained within various thin membranes. The most popular choice for egg consumption are chicken eggs. Other popular choices for egg consumption are duck, quail, roe, and caviar.
View more
-
Saved!After years of shoddy science eggs are back classed as healthy. https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/eggs-fdas-updated-healthy-food-list/
"research conducted by the FDA indicates that the cholesterol level in eggs does not negatively affect the body’s cholesterol levels as once believed."
“We applaud the FDA for this important update, which reflects decades of research and unequivocally affirms the value of eggs for healthy living,”
Like anybody with a brain didn't already know lol.-
Saved!KlemoibEditing … You don't even want to know the sheer amount of industry lobbying that went into this one. They literally changed the definition of healthy. If you want to believe it after decades of proof after proof after proof that eggs and dietary cholesterol are not healthy. Then there is also the fact of the cholesterol plateau that shows that if you already eat a lot of cholesterol (which is the majority of the population) you won't see your cholesterol go up as much or at all, but that does not mean dietary cholesterol is not a problem. In people who do not eat too much cholesterol eating eggs and other forms of cholesterol will increase their cholesterol a lot and worsens their health. So in people who are already fucked, you won't see a difference because at a certain point you can't get anymore fucked. That's why it's important to know what the diet of the test subjects is before hand or else you can simply create the desired results pretending that cholesterol is fine and dandy by using people who eat a regular diet high in cholesterol. Go ahead and suck all the eggs you want and believe what you will, but a food does not change from unhealthy to healthy just because of a click-bate article or shady industry influences. It is either unhealthy or not and it's up to people to ascertain the truth, but the research landscape has increasingly become extremely problematic with conflicts of interests. But I know most people are not interested in truth, they are more interested in being told that all the foods they like are actually good for them so they don't feel bad about their choices. -
Saved!NodleyEditing … I get that you're vegan Klem and hate to see your belief destroyed but evidence is evidence, the results show that eggs don't affect cholesterol like once thought, and the benefits of the rest of the egg like vitamins have never ever been in doubt, only the cholesterol. Much of the confusion around eggs has stemmed from the fact that egg yolks contain cholesterol. While egg yolks are high in cholesterol and are a major source of dietary cholesterol, it is saturated fatty acids that have a greater effect on our blood cholesterol levels. And a new study has shown a link between eggs and reduced risk of dementia too, nutrition is kinda important yo. There was also work done this year on UNprocessed red meat using the exact same data studies as before so nothing new, they just looked at the data in better ways, and they found no link with red meat and poor health, but a link with BMI instead. Trust the science not what you want to be true. That's what science is, nothing is fixed, it changes as new evidence is discovered, if you deny the new data you're a science denier. Unlike you I have no agenda or anything I want to be true, I eat both meat and vegetables. And all evidence for open-minded people has always pointed towards processed foods, sugars and bad lifestyle choices - lack of exercise and alcohol etc. It's becoming increasingly obvious that is the cause of everything we're seeing, and not "evil" meat. -
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … ""research conducted by the FDA" says everything you need to know. If eating eggs works for you, great. Keep doing it. But I'd take this research with a grain of salt. -
Saved!NodleyEditing … Luckily for you Rukk the Yanks now agree with most other people such as the UK: https://www.heartuk.org.uk/low-cholesterol-foods/can-i-eat-eggs and even new Zealand: https://www.heartfoundation.org.nz/wellbeing/healthy-eating/nutrition-facts/eggs-and-cholesterol So whilst I understand your reluctance to trust your government trust the rest of the world instead.
-
Saved!KlemoibEditing … I know you like to point at me being vegan as some sort of trump card to discredit anything I say about nutrition but I'm not talking about my beliefs about animal welfare. If meat and eggs and dairy were healthy for people I would accept that fact no problem (in fact I actually believed that before I learned more about nutrition research because my environment would constantly say I'd be unhealthy without meat and I would never reach "optimum health"), but it is just not reality. You can cherry pick all the studies you want and make up assumptions about them, but if you look at all the evidence without bias you will have to conclude that animal products are not a benefit to human health. That has been the scientific consensus since the start of the previous century and still is. That is not controversial in any way. It is only controversial to the general population that does not like the answer. Science is evolving of course, but new research is not always better than older research. New research builds from the old and adds to the old and maybe puts it in a different perspective. A well conducted study will forever be valid. Quality of research is important. Industry funding plays a big role so it if difficult to navigate it though. Even when just looking at egg research, the majority of the studies are commissioned by the egg industry just like how it was for tabacco research.
-
Saved!KlemoibEditing … I think truth is important but you have to try to see it through all the bullcrap. I have to say I understand why people are so confused about nutrition and I know how that confusion is created (big buckaroos and interest groups). I also know that no matter how much I try to explain why what I'm saying is not simply some belief of mine because I'm a filthy vegan, but actually based on the research, I'll still be trumped with "lol your vegan tho". But when someone says things that I know to be false and or misleading I will correct them anyway. No matter if it makers people call me names, I'll still do it. Not because I care about your health or because I want to be right, but because listening to bullshit hurts my brain and it irks me when it is propagated. Maybe if you say 1+1=3 enough times I'll also get tired and agree with you and say "indeed 1+1 =3" or try to find a nice middle ground where I say "1+1=3 but only in moderation!". But I'll still know 1+1=2. I'll just stop trying to make my case.
-
Saved!NodleyEditing … I'm simply saying that they have since concluded that they were wrong about cholesterol in eggs all along and the study is there to see. And it's not just the FDA it's every nation on Earth, so where's your proof of corruption funding for everybody? So no, the study findings that you're clinging to are out of date. Science moves on, you CANNOT hold onto OLD science claiming it's FACT, then DENY NEW science because it's the opposite of what you want. You either trust science or you don't, cherry picking isn't scientific, you either reject both or accept both. Denying eggs are good for health now is like saying the earth is flat, you're just clinging to an outdated model and ignoring the most recent evidence.
-
Saved!KlemoibEditing … "they have since concluded that they were wrong about cholesterol in eggs all along" This is not in actuality reality. "where's your proof of corruption funding for everybody" I could actually give you that, but it's a fuck-ton so I would not even know where to start. "the study findings that you're clinging to are out of date." I'm not "clinging" and no such thing exists because science does not go "out of date". If that were the case science would be worth nothing and we can never ever learn anything because it has an expiration date. If that were to be true, any study you cite today, will be out of date in like 5 years and no longer relevant. That is not how research works though. Many studies together give a picture of reality. There is never simply one study that changes how we see things. Then we would believe completely contradictory things from one week to the next because there are a lot of studies done constantly and often conclude contradictory things from each other (and sadly it's often by design). I learnt more about this from reading a lot, but also from hearing about how my friend had to deal with publishing her passionless paper and all the weird things going on around finding funding and such. Most research is not done out of interest or usefulness or a thirst for knowledge, but most research is commissioned by those who stand to gain from the results. The research landscape is one giant turd and the researchers who actually want to do good research often can't get funding because at best nobody is interested in what they research and at worst the results of their research could damage the bottom line of giant industries. Science alone does not make money and it's also costly to do. Researchers are bound to market influence and funding. This is especially the case with nutrition research.
-
Saved!NodleyEditing … So if the new study is corrupt then why isn't the old one? Are you saying the old one is correct? You can't make claims like that then cherry pick the one you want to be true. Are you saying that the one in 1968 that lines up with your beliefs is the only correct trustworthy study? The scientific bases for the original dietary cholesterol restriction was based on three lines of evidence: animal studies showing cholesterol in the diet increased plasma cholesterol levels and development of atherosclerosis; epidemiological evidence that high dietary cholesterol was associated with high CVD incidence; and clinical studies showing that high cholesterol intake resulted in increased serum cholesterol levels. While the evidence of harm seems strong, each line of evidence is open to debate. Animal studies often used herbivores which were hypersensitive to dietary cholesterol as compared to omnivores (rabbit versus dog). Studies in suitable animal models often required use of pharmacological levels of cholesterol in the diet in order to elicit a response. Epidemiological data in the 1960s and 1970s relied on simple correlation analyses to show associations and did not account for collinearity of nutrients (saturated fat and cholesterol found in animal products). Eventually multivariate analysis of dietary lipids and CVD incidence documented that dietary cholesterol was not an independent risk factor. Clinical feeding studies had two limits: use of pharmacological levels of dietary cholesterol (for example, six eggs per day for six weeks) and in the early studies reliance on measurement of total plasma cholesterol as the marker of risk. Use of physiological dietary cholesterol levels and analysis of lipoprotein cholesterol distribution, including LDL size, provide a very different perspective on risk assessment. So if you want to deny almost 60 years of science advancement and studies by saying all scientists since the 60s are corrupt and bent and made all this new stuff up I guess that's up to you. But just think about how it looks to everybody else, you're simply denying data based on your beliefs, and science doesn't work like that, I've shown you why the 1968 study was flawed so now it's up to you to accept that science has moved on or deny it. Every government around the world now lists eggs as healthy in a balanced diet.
-
Saved!KlemoibEditing … What do you mean with "the old one"? It's not like there is one study about cholesterol. Studies in general about cholesterol were done from the beginning of the past century up till now. It's not like researchers still don't know what is going on. It's well-understood what dietary cholesterol does to the body but since industry funding, confusion is created. In the beginning none of the cholesterol studies had industry funding, as time progressed, industry started to fund these studies more and more. The egg industry in particular. In the past 20 years or so the majority of cholesterol studies were industry funded. Here, there is even a meta analysis about this whole topic: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7958219/ Even in most industry funded studies cholesterol increases were found but often the conclusions of those studies even neglect that fact and sweep it under the rug. ("49% of industry-funded intervention studies reported conclusions that were discordant with study results (ie, net cholesterol increases were described as favorable in the articles’ stated conclusions)")
-
-
Saved!
-
-
Saved!Before work today I hung out with Kyle. Gave him Rhythm Heaven as his birthday present, he likes it. His girlfriend Katie is apparently fascinated with it despite not being much of a gamer (outside of Harvest Moon). We went to a steakhouse and I got fish and fried okra and cheesecake. He gave me his key, which I’ll give to my parents.
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … Sounds like a good morning. Although I'm not a fan of fish or okra, so your food sounds disgusting, haha. -
-
-
-
Saved!Eggs are great, and I'm not just stroking my own dick when I say that, though I am literally stroking my own dick as I say this.
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … Eggs are so versatile. Fry em, boil em, scramble em, make an omelette, bake a cake with them, make burgers with them, make french toast, toss them at old people's houses. So many ways to use them.
-
Deleted!
Alternative Names
| Ägg | S | |
| Egg | E | |
| Huevo | S | |
| Hühnerei | G | |
| Œuf | F | |
| Ovo | P | |
| and 4 more | ||
Page Info
| Created | 2013-07-25 07:10 am |
| Page creator | Nodley |
| Views | 591 |
Listed in, list of Lists as cards
-
NodleyRanked in
-
dspoonrtRanked in
-
Veterini HavelockRanked in
-
Dan ManzellaRanked in
Wide-tile list of VG-level Pages.
Wide-tile list of character Pages.
Simple text.