• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Beware eating too many eggs?

Remember "Go to work on an egg" ? Eggs are a good cheap source of many useful food products. So I say relax, eat what you feel like, within reason. They whoever "they" are keep moving the goal posts.
Don't forget milk contains animal fats, cholesterol, highly dangerous ?
 
Typical Daily Mail article, scaremongering!

I am not going to reduce egg consumption, nor is my husband. Eggs are nutritious and filling.
 
Ah, yes, you are right Grazer, but Daily Mail tends to practically bend over backwards to find those kind of reports, but wait for it, next week we will read in the Daily Mail that eating a dozen eggs a week is recommended to treat acne or something along those lines :lol:

Just like they have done with coffee, coffee this and coffee that and last week coffee was good at keeping depression at bay.

I think its a case of being sensible and listening to your instincts, do what you feel is right for you.
 
Has anyone been able to find the actual study? And be wary of percentage increases in risk... if there was a study of 2,000 people out of which 2 from one group developed a condition which only 1 in the other group developed, that could be stated as doubling the risk! But in practical terms it is a virtually meaningless difference... 1 in 2,000 versus 2 in 2,000

It seems like I am not the only one having difficulty tracking it down... http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2011/09/30/eggs-prostate-cancer-and-the-daily-mail/

Our friends at The Daily Mail in the UK have been spreading a story that men who eat 2.5 eggs or more a week have an 81 per cent increase in their risk for lethal prostate cancer compared to men who do not. We assume that this is helping to sell newspapers. The scientific evidence appears to be limited.

To date, we have not actually been able to track down either the original media release or the original study from which The Daily Mail managed to extract this critically important new piece of information! Since one or other must exist somewhere, we can at least take some pleasure from the fact that the majority of the media did not consider this to be a particularly likely or well-validated news story. The Daily Mail provided no source for its initial report.

Supposedly, the evidence comes from yet another analysis of data from the Physicians Health Study, which has been going on under the auspices of the Harvard School of Public Health for much of the past 20+ years. Some of the data that had come out of this study has been interesting and thought-provoking. Some of it appears to be of very dubious merit.

In this particular case the “evidence” that eating more than 2.5 eggs a week is associated with a large increase in risk for prostate cancer-specific mortality is based on data from 199 men who died of prostate cancer in a total sample size of 27,000. Of these 199 men, just 55 (about 0.2 percent of the total sample) reported eating more than 2.5 eggs per week. What is more, this association appears to take little to no account of a whole variety of other factors that might have also influenced the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality in these patients.

An article on the web site of the Harvard School of Public Health deals specifically with the issue of egg consumption and the fact that excessive egg consumption may have significant health impact. However, it also states clearly that, “Recent research has shown that moderate egg consumption — up to one a day — does not increase heart disease risk in healthy individuals.”

Since a heart healthy diet is generally considered to be a prostate healthy diet, it does not seem particularly likely that the 2.5 egg story has any great merit … and what is 0.5 of an egg anyway … only the white … or only the yolk?
Click to expand...
 
Just to stir it up a little around here - for the past 3 days I have been having the following for breakfast:

150ml Unsweetened Soy Milk
20ml Double cream
25ml crusha Sugar-free milkshake
2 raw eggs

All blitzed up and drank as a shake. It is lovely - and has keep me full all through the day.
 
Many thanks Phoenix. As above "...199 events during 306,715 person-years. Men who consumed 2.5 or more eggs per week had an 81% increased risk of lethal prostate cancer compared to men who consumed less than 0.5 eggs per week" with a conclusion of "...consumption of eggs may increase risk of developing a lethal-form of prostate cancer among healthy men."

When weighed against all the benefits, this is not enough to convince me to give up my couple of dozen eggs per week from pastured chickens.

Abstract
Red and processed meat may increase risk of advanced prostate cancer. Data on post-diagnostic diet and prostate cancer are sparse, but post-diagnostic intake of poultry with skin and eggs may increase risk of disease progression. Therefore, we prospectively examined total, unprocessed, and processed red meat, poultry, and eggs in relation to risk of lethal prostate cancer (e.g. men without cancer at baseline who developed distant organ metastases or died from prostate cancer during follow-up) among 27, 607 men followed from 1994-2008. We also performed a case-only survival analysis to examine post-diagnostic consumption of these foods and risk of lethal prostate cancer among the 3,127 men initially diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer during follow-up. In the incidence analysis, we observed 199 events during 306,715 person-years. Men who consumed 2.5 or more eggs per week had an 81% increased risk of lethal prostate cancer compared to men who consumed less than 0.5 eggs per week (HR: 1.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13, 2.89; p-trend: 0.01). In the case-only survival analysis, we observed 123 events during 19,354 person-years. There were suggestive, but not statistically significant, positive associations between post-diagnostic poultry (HR ≥3.5 vs. <1.5 servings per week: 1.69; 95%CI: 0.96, 2.99; p-trend: 0.07) and post-diagnostic processed red meat (HR ≥3 vs. <0.5 servings per week: 1.45; 95%CI: 0.73, 2.87; p-trend: 0.08) and risk of progression of localized prostate cancer to lethal disease. In conclusion, consumption of eggs may increase risk of developing a lethal-form of prostate cancer among healthy men.
Click to expand...
 
I hate the scaremongering game on so many of these blogs who point to their 'one' source - which is usually a very small study only peer reviewed by people in the same building or same study group.

One week chocolate is bad for us - then good for us.
One week caffeine is bad - then good..

And those two are often bandied back and forth by the friggin' NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE an otherwise very well trusted source of study data - very widely peer reviewed.

So who's to know... But for sure I'm not going to stop my consumption of 3 egg omelets every day of the week. Not based on a study of 299 men.

So many cancers are genetic in nature and run in families - which is of course the proof of a genetic underpinning. Even the data on smoking and lung cancers has so much junk science and special interest (non-smoker) $ backing it that if I were a smoker (which I'm not) I wouldn't be swayed all that much about the huge cancer risk.

Well, I digress......
So EAT THEM EGGS, gang!!!
 
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/09September/Pages/eggs-in-diet-prostate-cancer-risk.aspx
A more rational approach in this article, concludes with:
"While an 81% increased risk sounds like a high and definitive figure, it is probably best to wait for more conclusive research before cutting eggs out of your diet. There are existing dietary and lifestyle guidelines for reducing cancer risk, such as limiting your consumption of energy-dense foods such as meat and increasing your consumption of fruits, vegetables and wholegrains."

To me this is a relief or sorts as one of the thing that still does my head in is dietary choice when you have to have your eye not only on the DM but also the BP and chol. Set this in the modern food industry context and you are presented with some conflicting 'choices'.

I try to persuade myself that restricting over-indulgence, exercising and monitoring are the way and after all, food is one of life's enjoyments and to get totally hung up about it could just as easily shorten your life as being overcautious.
 
Cowboyjim said:
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/09September/Pages/eggs-in-diet-prostate-cancer-risk.aspx
A more rational approach in this article, concludes with:
"While an 81% increased risk sounds like a high and definitive figure, it is probably best to wait for more conclusive research before cutting eggs out of your diet. There are existing dietary and lifestyle guidelines for reducing cancer risk, such as limiting your consumption of energy-dense foods such as meat and increasing your consumption of fruits, vegetables and wholegrains."

To me this is a relief or sorts as one of the thing that still does my head in is dietary choice when you have to have your eye not only on the DM but also the BP and chol. Set this in the modern food industry context and you are presented with some conflicting 'choices'.

I try to persuade myself that restricting over-indulgence, exercising and monitoring are the way and after all, food is one of life's enjoyments and to get totally hung up about it could just as easily shorten your life as being overcautious.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with you more, Jim! The problem with diabetes is that it directly affects a 'basic function of life' - eating. And that is a pretty 'personal thing' for each of us. Though I think the medical world is too often forced to cover its a*ss so they don't get sued - in the end the research doesn't really lie. And there's just too much research tying diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol to the exacerbation of heart disease. Note I didn't say 'primary cause of in all cases'.

There is a predisposition in our bodies genetically toward the mixture ratio of A sized & B sized cholesterol particles in our blood. Diet can do little to change that predisposition. So if, via a VAP test, you discover you have equal A nd B particle sized cholesterol AND via a Cardiac C-Reactive Protein Test you discover you have high levels of inflammation (both true for me - even though a fairly low carber and super low triglycerides) -- then, FOR YOU (me), eating a diet HIGH in cholesterol and Saturated fat -- is Russian Roulette game and pretty foolish in my view - EVEN IF it would help your diabetes control when in combination with low carbing.

And that's NOT EVEN to begin to consider 'quality of life issues'. I've found it interesting that the people who speak the loudest about how they LOVE their new super lo carb diet and never feel deprived are the very same people that 'loved all those green veggies and artichokes and non-starchy foods' to begin with!! :lol: So for them -- there's little sacrifice involved. For those of us who can't bear the tastes of broccoli and all the rest -- or who have digestive issues (green veggies are very hard to digest as most, in their growing and/or cooking have been stripped of their natural digestive enzymes) will find life very hard - void of a lot of food choice eating super low carb. No joy. That's a life I'm not willing to live. So it's moderation in all things. And all number but my heart numbers (which were this way even before diabetes) are as good and better that the super low carbers. So my personal choice is 'balance'. I know others seek a different path and it works for them. I'm glad for them but it would never work for me.

So I'm squarely on the same page with ya there!
 
I agree that we all have to work out what is the best balance for us as individuals ,for instance I am very skinny (just 7 stone) so my diet to control my DB and put on weight would have to be different to someone who needs to lose weight but also has DB .One reason a lot of us are on this forum is to learn to manage our DB and maybe learn from others who may be in a similar situation.No one size fits all no matter what the NHS guidlines say .
CAROL
 
Back
Top