If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Eggs
On Jan 12, 9:10*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 12, 2:29*pm, "Manco" wrote: It's truly amazing but I thought up until recently that eggs were "bad" because of the cholesterol. But in fact, I keep reading that by themselves they have no detrimental effects unless consumed in huge quantities. Amazing how society can get crazy about a notion for such a long time. Now I'm going to incorporate eggs in my diet(not just 2 a week). They aren't that great unless you remove the yolk. Sure you can eat them, but they are loaded with cholesterol. No nutritionists or doctor I know says to eat a lot of egg yolk, although if you limit yourself to a few a week and don't have a history of heart disease it may not kill you. That is hardly an endorsement for eggs though. dkw Dkw I think you are great. There is a thread here about how nasty and rude people have become so please ignore the turkeys. YOu helped me last fall when I was trying to lose 10 pounds. I lost it and it has stayed off .XX Thank you again. Please stay as you are and don't change. I totally agree with you about the egg yolk. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Eggs
"honeybunch" wrote in message ... On Jan 12, 9:10 pm, " wrote: On Jan 12, 2:29 pm, "Manco" wrote: It's truly amazing but I thought up until recently that eggs were "bad" because of the cholesterol. But in fact, I keep reading that by themselves they have no detrimental effects unless consumed in huge quantities. Amazing how society can get crazy about a notion for such a long time. Now I'm going to incorporate eggs in my diet(not just 2 a week). They aren't that great unless you remove the yolk. Sure you can eat them, but they are loaded with cholesterol. No nutritionists or doctor I know says to eat a lot of egg yolk, although if you limit yourself to a few a week and don't have a history of heart disease it may not kill you. That is hardly an endorsement for eggs though. dkw Dkw I think you are great. There is a thread here about how nasty and rude people have become so please ignore the turkeys. YOu helped me last fall when I was trying to lose 10 pounds. I lost it and it has stayed off .XX Thank you again. Please stay as you are and don't change. I totally agree with you about the egg yolk. ********* new response: Fear of eggs is a bad yolk. Why, oh why, is my outlook express not adding the arrow things in re-replies? Replies to OPs are working right. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Eggs
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message ... wrote: Manco wrote: Actually low-carb is the ONLY way long-term to keep the weight off and everyone with any intelligence greater then a chimp KNOWS this. I laughed like a lunatic at the joke. Thanks. I think the results from the National Weight Control Registry say different (average weight loss 66 lb, kept off for 5.5 years). People on the Registry (myself included) have these things in common: They eat breakfast. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - Keep hunger from gradually eroding motivation. They exercise. Only the rare person has any down side to this major contributor to health. They weigh themselves regularly. These data points should apply across the board. And also since they are about maintenance whether they apply during the loss phases is questionable: Weighing regularly tends to be a point of obession among newbies but a point of matter of fact among oldbies for example. Time on plan matters. They eat a low calorie, low fat diet, which is actually relatively high in carbs. This was caused by a bias in their questionaire. I don't know if it is still the case but for years there was literally no way to inform them that you used low carb. I knew some low carbers who registered and did their best but ended up being falsely listed as low fatters, and I knew some (including myself) who read their questionaire and declined because we couldn't say we were low carbers. Even if they now can get low carb answers, their prior bias filtered out a lot of potential registrants. They dropped all data from low carbers therefore their conclusions about low fat are not of value. Sure, some folks use low fat to lose and maintain; it's as crazy to say low fat works for no one as to say it works for everyone. But dropping all data from low carbers and then concluding that successfull maintenance requires low fat is a nonsense conclusion. Doug is right. I'm in the registry. The questionnaire is biased. I'm sticking with the updates, since in time they may review their work to correct for their mistakes. Well, they might. A typical low carber confronted by the questionnaire would throw the paperwork away. The data is skewed. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Eggs
"Rachael Reynolds" wrote in message o.uk... "Doug Freyburger" wrote in message ... wrote: Manco wrote: Actually low-carb is the ONLY way long-term to keep the weight off and everyone with any intelligence greater then a chimp KNOWS this. I laughed like a lunatic at the joke. Thanks. I think the results from the National Weight Control Registry say different (average weight loss 66 lb, kept off for 5.5 years). People on the Registry (myself included) have these things in common: They eat breakfast. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - Keep hunger from gradually eroding motivation. They exercise. Only the rare person has any down side to this major contributor to health. They weigh themselves regularly. These data points should apply across the board. And also since they are about maintenance whether they apply during the loss phases is questionable: Weighing regularly tends to be a point of obession among newbies but a point of matter of fact among oldbies for example. Time on plan matters. They eat a low calorie, low fat diet, which is actually relatively high in carbs. This was caused by a bias in their questionaire. I don't know if it is still the case but for years there was literally no way to inform them that you used low carb. I knew some low carbers who registered and did their best but ended up being falsely listed as low fatters, and I knew some (including myself) who read their questionaire and declined because we couldn't say we were low carbers. Even if they now can get low carb answers, their prior bias filtered out a lot of potential registrants. They dropped all data from low carbers therefore their conclusions about low fat are not of value. Sure, some folks use low fat to lose and maintain; it's as crazy to say low fat works for no one as to say it works for everyone. But dropping all data from low carbers and then concluding that successfull maintenance requires low fat is a nonsense conclusion. I filled in the forms and can't remember if it was biased or not but the main problem is it is a self selecting sample. They themselves don't claim it to be otherwise but the results when used out of context can imply it is a scientific study. Rachael Epidemiology is almost always an art and should not be called science. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Eggs
On 2008-01-14, Elizabeth Blake wrote:
"Cynthia P" wrote in message . .. I agree with the survival part, but there's nothing wrong with healthy high cal foods if used in moderation. The trick is to learn to be happy with the more moderate amounts. I think this is the part that the current population of Earth has forgotten. I'm not doing low carb or low fat, I'm more of a moderate person, but if one was doing low carb, the egg yolk would not be a problem. And if one is scared of too many saturated fats, omega3 eggs do cut back on that, while supplying the good fats. A few years ago when I started to lose weight I did stick with very low fat eating, and I did lose weight. I still watch my fat intake but I don't automatically pass up food just because it has some fat. My reason for trying to decrease my fat intake is because I can eat a larger volume of food if I cut down on fat calories. But, I also don't just want to eat buckets of green beans and broccoli either so I do have fat but I watch the amounts. I've never bought the omega 3 eggs but next time I get a craving for hard boiled eggs I'll look for them. I love devilled eggs (hard boiled eggs mashed with mayo). I use 3 eggs and throw two of the yolks away, then mash them it all down with Kraft non-fat mayo: it hits the spot... Looking at the nutritional info for Eggland's best, from Safeway, and each whole egg has only 1g of saturated fat (4g fat total), which is low by any standards. It's true that the cholesterol content is a tad high (175mg per egg) but I thought the conventional wisdom now is that the cholesterol you eat doesn't actually raise serum cholesterol much if at all (and not nearly as much as saturated fat does) so it's not really a consideration. The same reasoning applies to shrimp, I believe (reference?). So it looks to me like three eggs (even with the yolks) is actually still less sat. fat than, say, a single slice of cheese! I think they get an (undeservedly) bad rap... Losher |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Eggs eggs and more eggs..And 3 slices ff cheese | Alex4all | General Discussion | 0 | September 28th, 2007 12:38 AM |
Eggs eggs and more eggs | Alex4all | General Discussion | 15 | November 9th, 2006 01:26 PM |
EGGS EGGS EGGS EGGS | Alex4all | General Discussion | 3 | November 8th, 2006 05:47 AM |
EGGS FOR ALL! | Alex4all | General Discussion | 1 | November 7th, 2006 02:25 PM |
Eggs Eggs Eggs | poohbear | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 11 | May 21st, 2004 10:06 PM |