A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are eggs dangerous? (cholesterol, etc)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 3rd, 2006, 06:54 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Are eggs dangerous? (cholesterol, etc)

Ignoramus16172 wrote:
Those people who are afraid of eating cholesterol may take interest in
this study. Apparently, eating eggs (2 eggs per day in one group) did
not significantly increase cholesterol or any of its components.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

Egg consumption and endothelial function: a randomized controlled
crossover trial.

Katz DL, Evans MA, Nawaz H, Njike VY, Chan W, Comerford BP, Hoxley ML.

Yale Prevention Research Center, 130 Division Street, Derby, CT 06418,
USA.

BACKGROUND: Because of egg cholesterol content, reduction in egg
consumption is generally recommended to reduce risk of cardiovascular
disease. Recently, however, evidence has been accumulating to suggest
that dietary cholesterol is less relevant to cardiovascular risk than
dietary saturated fat.


There is mention of saturated fat though.


--

Cheese

http://cheesensweets.com/contact/cheese
  #2  
Old March 3rd, 2006, 07:34 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Are eggs dangerous? (cholesterol, etc)

Ignoramus16172 wrote:
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:54:12 -0500, Cheese wrote:
Ignoramus16172 wrote:
Those people who are afraid of eating cholesterol may take interest in
this study. Apparently, eating eggs (2 eggs per day in one group) did
not significantly increase cholesterol or any of its components.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

Egg consumption and endothelial function: a randomized controlled
crossover trial.

Katz DL, Evans MA, Nawaz H, Njike VY, Chan W, Comerford BP, Hoxley ML.

Yale Prevention Research Center, 130 Division Street, Derby, CT 06418,
USA.

BACKGROUND: Because of egg cholesterol content, reduction in egg
consumption is generally recommended to reduce risk of cardiovascular
disease. Recently, however, evidence has been accumulating to suggest
that dietary cholesterol is less relevant to cardiovascular risk than
dietary saturated fat.

There is mention of saturated fat though.


Yes, you are right, but it has very little with what they actually
tried. It's a passing mention.

For more fun, check this out. They say an interesting thing, that low
carb diet improves cholesterol and triglycerides in diabetics, "but
this was at the expense of an increase in relative saturated fat
intake". One has to wonder as to just why "increase in relative
saturated fat intake" is an "expense" if it improved condition of
those diabetics. Oh well.

Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes--a randomized controlled trial.

Daly ME, Paisey R, Paisey R, Millward BA, Eccles C, Williams K, Hammersley S, MacLeod KM, Gale TJ.

Diabetes and Vascular Health Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust, Exeter, UK.


OBJECTIVE: This study sought to examine the effects of a 3-month
programme of dietary advice to restrict carbohydrate intake compared
with reduced-portion, low-fat advice in obese subjects with poorly
controlled Type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: One hundred
and two patients with Type 2 diabetes were recruited across three
centres and randomly allocated to receive group education and
individual dietary advice. Weight, glycaemic control, lipids and blood
pressure were assessed at baseline and 3 months. Dietary quality was
assessed at the end of study. RESULTS: Weight loss was greater in the
low-carbohydrate (LC) group (-3.55 +/- 0.63, mean +/- sem) vs. -0.92
+/- 0.40 kg, P = 0.001) and cholesterol : high-density lipoprotein
(HDL) ratio improved (-0.48 +/- 0.11 vs. -0.10 +/- 0.10, P =
0.01). However, relative saturated fat intake was greater (13.9 +/-
0.71 vs. 11.0 +/- 0.47% of dietary intake, P 0.001), although
absolute intakes were moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Carbohydrate restriction
was an effective method of achieving short-term weight loss compared
with standard advice, but this was at the expense of an increase in
relative saturated fat intake.

PMID: 16409560 [PubMed - in process]


Ig,

I mean no disrespect to you, but I don't like these studies.
Specifically because they're taking carbs away from an obese person for
3 months. Perhaps I'm stereotyping but I'm guessing most not dieting
obese people eat an extremely high carb percentage and therefore they're
denying them most of what they're used to eating. This confusion causes
all kinds of nutrient deficiencies and I think it shocks the body enough
to yield temporary false readings. I'd be much happier with a study
that tested a low carber at the 1, 5 and 10 year mark when they've
learned to balance their nutrients instead of when they're still staring
glossy eyed at a menu wondering what they're allowed to eat.

I also find it strange that they only mention "reduced-portion" on the
low-fat side. Do you believe you only have to reduce portions on a low
fat diet? I don't. In fact, since fat has twice the calories of
protein and carbs I'd argue that low fat is the only diet that might
actually allow portion sizes to remain constant while decreasing calories.

--

Cheese

http://cheesensweets.com/contact/cheese
  #3  
Old March 3rd, 2006, 08:09 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New low carber looking at a menu

Cheese wrote:

I'd be much happier with a study
that tested a low carber at the 1, 5 and 10 year mark when they've
learned to balance their nutrients instead of when they're still staring
glossy eyed at a menu wondering what they're allowed to eat.


CLASSIC description of what it felt like in the first few months
of low carbing. Yet now I can glance at a menu and see the
unlimited low carb options in a flash. Practice and learning a
skill.

  #4  
Old March 3rd, 2006, 09:28 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New low carber looking at a menu


"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...
Cheese wrote:

I'd be much happier with a study
that tested a low carber at the 1, 5 and 10 year mark when they've
learned to balance their nutrients instead of when they're still staring
glossy eyed at a menu wondering what they're allowed to eat.


CLASSIC description of what it felt like in the first few months
of low carbing. Yet now I can glance at a menu and see the
unlimited low carb options in a flash. Practice and learning a
skill.


Salads are usually good, but not always.


  #5  
Old March 4th, 2006, 01:43 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Are eggs dangerous? (cholesterol, etc)

Ignoramus16172 wrote:
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:54:12 -0500, Cheese wrote:

Ignoramus16172 wrote:

Those people who are afraid of eating cholesterol may take interest in
this study. Apparently, eating eggs (2 eggs per day in one group) did
not significantly increase cholesterol or any of its components.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

Egg consumption and endothelial function: a randomized controlled
crossover trial.

Katz DL, Evans MA, Nawaz H, Njike VY, Chan W, Comerford BP, Hoxley ML.

Yale Prevention Research Center, 130 Division Street, Derby, CT 06418,
USA.

BACKGROUND: Because of egg cholesterol content, reduction in egg
consumption is generally recommended to reduce risk of cardiovascular
disease. Recently, however, evidence has been accumulating to suggest
that dietary cholesterol is less relevant to cardiovascular risk than
dietary saturated fat.


There is mention of saturated fat though.



Yes, you are right, but it has very little with what they actually
tried. It's a passing mention.

For more fun, check this out. They say an interesting thing, that low
carb diet improves cholesterol and triglycerides in diabetics, "but
this was at the expense of an increase in relative saturated fat
intake". One has to wonder as to just why "increase in relative
saturated fat intake" is an "expense" if it improved condition of
those diabetics. Oh well.


In their secret hearts, they know saturated fats are bad ...... (and
somehow, cholesterol has got to be bad too) Anyway, everybody knows that:..

.... "Low carb is unhealthy, and to not stab it every chance you get is
unprofessional."



Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes--a randomized controlled trial.

Daly ME, Paisey R, Paisey R, Millward BA, Eccles C, Williams K, Hammersley S, MacLeod KM, Gale TJ.

Diabetes and Vascular Health Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust, Exeter, UK.


OBJECTIVE: This study sought to examine the effects of a 3-month
programme of dietary advice to restrict carbohydrate intake compared
with reduced-portion, low-fat advice in obese subjects with poorly
controlled Type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: One hundred
and two patients with Type 2 diabetes were recruited across three
centres and randomly allocated to receive group education and
individual dietary advice. Weight, glycaemic control, lipids and blood
pressure were assessed at baseline and 3 months. Dietary quality was
assessed at the end of study. RESULTS: Weight loss was greater in the
low-carbohydrate (LC) group (-3.55 +/- 0.63, mean +/- sem) vs. -0.92
+/- 0.40 kg, P = 0.001) and cholesterol : high-density lipoprotein
(HDL) ratio improved (-0.48 +/- 0.11 vs. -0.10 +/- 0.10, P =
0.01). However, relative saturated fat intake was greater (13.9 +/-
0.71 vs. 11.0 +/- 0.47% of dietary intake, P 0.001), although
absolute intakes were moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Carbohydrate restriction
was an effective method of achieving short-term weight loss compared
with standard advice, but this was at the expense of an increase in
relative saturated fat intake.

PMID: 16409560 [PubMed - in process]



--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
  #6  
Old March 4th, 2006, 09:27 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Are eggs dangerous? (cholesterol, etc)

Ignoramus16172 wrote:
jbuch wrote:
Ignoramus16172 wrote:
For more fun, check this out. They say an interesting thing, that low
carb diet improves cholesterol and triglycerides in diabetics, "but
this was at the expense of an increase in relative saturated fat
intake". One has to wonder as to just why "increase in relative
saturated fat intake" is an "expense" if it improved condition of
those diabetics. Oh well.


In their secret hearts, they know saturated fats are bad
...... (and somehow, cholesterol has got to be bad too) Anyway,
everybody knows that:.. ... "Low carb is unhealthy, and to not
stab it every chance you get is unprofessional."


I suspect that inserting phrases like "their cholesterol increased
at the expense of increased saturated fat expense" is necessary to
get articles published or to have favorable peer reviews.


On the other hand, apparent inconsistencies could raise concerns of
reviewers, who are there specifically to poke holes. Authors know
that. You would point it out, so would I - and such possibility is not
so farfetched. I reviewed for journals like Med Sci Sports Exerc, or
Neuro-Oncology, that are far away from my circle of "crooked buddies"
.... bzzz ... I mean, scholars of spherical poultry
(http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/DZ-UNC-02-22-06.jpg). This is typical,
and I'd say that in general there is little incentive for a scientist
to support a particular point of view. Reviewers that I know couldn't
care less about what kind of games somebody tries to play in there,
and call BS by what it is. Science now is as good as always at
challenging consensus. I suppose that more likely, the authors are
thinking that there might be other issues with saturated fat intake
besides those that they studied in the paper (one could ask them
directly by email given at PMID: 16409560 entry).
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are eggs dangerous? (cholesterol, etc) Cheese General Discussion 6 March 4th, 2006 09:27 PM
Are eggs dangerous? (cholesterol, etc) Andy General Discussion 0 March 3rd, 2006 05:34 PM
Are eggs dangerous? (cholesterol, etc) Andy Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 March 3rd, 2006 05:34 PM
THE SKINNY ON ATKINS by Michael Greger, MD warehouse Low Carbohydrate Diets 19 May 26th, 2005 04:01 AM
Deviled Eggs Ken Kubos Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 January 13th, 2004 04:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.