How many of these can you eat daily without getting cancer or another shit in 5 years?
>>37343728
millions of people have eaten eggs pretty much daily for their whole lives and none of them have gotten cancer.
>>37343775
Ye but how many?
3?
4?
10?
When I worked on a farm, the guy who owned the place ate 2-5 eggs every morning, every single day of the year. It depended on the season and amount of work which was required. I have no idea if that's particularly healthy, but he didn't have any major problems at all.
>>37343806
who knows the point is people have had eggs in their diets as staples for thousands of years brah. i know, it doesn't prove it's automatically good to eat any amount of eggs you want. but this is like saying how many cigs can i smoke and in what fashion in order for me to not experience any cancer.
Well they have a lot of cholesterol in the yolk.
That all you have to worry about.
>>37343775
Nobody who has eaten eggs has ever gotten cancer?
>>37344314
The choline as well is a problem, especially for cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3441112/
>>37343728
My grandpa is 94 and says his secret is a hardboiled egg every morning so it must be good, right?
>>37344405
It has never been proven eggs cause cancer, only suggested, linked or whatever in-between, formongering word you can think of.
>>37343728
Everything here is overexaggerated.
Your heart will not stop because of a few eggs every day. You will not die of mercury poisoning if you eat a can of tuna regularly. Just don't eat like 20 eggs a day and you will be good, like any other food, eat in moderation.
It's funny that the same people who tell you shit like "red meat will give you cancer reee" go out on weekends and pop pills from random strangers in the club bathroom.
>>37344570
It's never been proven that cigarettes cause cancer, only suggested, linked or whatever in-between
>>37344673
>It's funny that the same people who tell you shit like "red meat will give you cancer reee" go out on weekends and pop pills from random strangers in the club bathroom.
>tfw vegan friends are chainsmokers
>>37344673
Basically, "whatever I personally do is perfect. If you do more of something than me, then THAT'S bad. If you do less of it than me, you're overexaggerating"
>>37343806
All of them. They ate all the eggs.
>>37344418
>upper quintile is still below even the acceptable intake for men
>>37343806
I can eat fifty eggs.
>>37344418
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16825685
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22041500
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22139053
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140534
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19635752
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23383301
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24169354
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25785727
you're more likely to get diabetes from eating eggs rather than cancer.
salami, bacon and sausages though? ass cancer confirmed.
>>37345762
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/101/5/1088.abstract
eggs have no effect on blood cholesterol. I eat 12-18 per day 5-6 days a week. You're probably eating so much horrible and cancerous processed shit and worrying about the natural cholesterol in eggs because you're a fucking pussy and need to man up.
If eggs can kill you, you might as well kill yourself so we can weed out the genetically worthless (Like niggers and their lactose intolerance)
>>37343824
>Anecdotal evidence
>>37345833
>eggs have no effect on blood cholesterol.
They do, cholesterol absorption is just a saturable process
I can't link the paper I want to because springer is on the spam filter.
>>37345924
You can type this in manually if you want.
>>37344763
that's because proving anything in the actual sense of the word is impossible outside of the realm of mathematics. You can't even prove that chopping peoples head off causes death.
>>37345944
You should've put a study that actually can be read without buying it.
I have read quite a bit on the subject and have found that it is a causal factor of heart disease, yes, but there are other factors at play. It's the common "correlation=/=causation" argument that normally I would disagree with, but here it seems pretty apt. Ditto with saturated fat (Note- NOT trans fat) If it's a naturally occuring food that isn't poisonous it's just not going to kill you unless you're putting more factors into play, I.E. being morbidly obese, using anabolics, etc. Just eating a lot of eggs if you're fit is not going to do shit to your heart I would estimate until you're like in your 40s or 50s.
This is beside your point, but "whose background diet is very low in cholesterol content." In other words, people who never have cholesterol are now taking it. I'd like to see that expanded to show the full graph. How about people who eat eggs regularly? How is their cholestorol ceiling? It goes back to the fact that the arteries already have to be damaged- say, through putting tremendous strain on them by being a fat fuck.
It's hard to explain all this here, but essentially there are a lot of factors in play. The cholesterol enters your bloodstream, of course, but it has no dramatic impact upon delivery unless you are naturally at risk.
>>37346028
Here is also a book you can read that is by doctors and summarizes very clearly what these ridiculous government studies do not.
I'm not saying that study is a government study (I don't know) but these myths are the same ones that propagate the "whole grains" myth that's literally killing people, and a food pyramid that essentially wants you to be a living feedbag in taking in the cheapest foods (grains) possible.
The simple carbohydrates are of course the real enemy, and once you cut them out of your diet your life will probably change drastically.
>>37346028
>You should've put a study that actually can be read without buying it.
http://moscow.sci-hub.cc/c6b916f1233eaa8c9f160301eb0d165d/connor2002.pdf
>I have read quite a bit on the subject and have found that it is a causal factor of heart disease, yes, but there are other factors at play.
I don't think anyone denies that. It's still a big player though.
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/21/2224
>Ditto with saturated fat (Note- NOT trans fat) If it's a naturally occuring food that isn't poisonous it's just not going to kill you unless you're putting more factors into play, I.E. being morbidly obese, using anabolics, etc
How do you figure that?
http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/5/1/e002891.full
>In 2010, nonoptimal intakes of n‐6 PUFA, SFA, and TFA were estimated to result in 711 800 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 680 700–745 000), 250 900 (95% UI 236 900–265 800), and 537 200 (95% UI 517 600–557 000) CHD deaths per year worldwide, accounting for 10.3% (95% UI 9.9%–10.6%), 3.6%, (95% UI 3.5%–3.6%) and 7.7% (95% UI 7.6%–7.9%) of global CHD mortality.
When every health organization in the world recommends limiting saturated fat, and the data (from many different experimental modalities) show over-consumption contributes to the disease, you're gonna need a really invincible argument to explain all of it away.
>>37346028
>Just eating a lot of eggs if you're fit is not going to do shit to your heart I would estimate until you're like in your 40s or 50s.
What evidence do you have to support this, because it sounds like you're just pulling figures out of your ass that emotionally please you? Mainstream advice is prudent to limit intake to 1 whole egg a day in the context of an otherwise healthy dietary pattern. Less if you hyper-respond to dietary cholesterol. This is what has been shown to be safe.
Also, if you’re talking about high cholesterol, heart disease starts in the womb. Expecting the damage to reverse after 40-50 years of abuse is some serious wishful thinking.
>This is beside your point, but "whose background diet is very low in cholesterol content." In other words, people who never have cholesterol are now taking it. I'd like to see that expanded to show the full graph. How about people who eat eggs regularly?
As the graph shows, if they were consuming 350mg of cholesterol their intestinal cholesterol transporters would be saturated and adding more would not raise their blood cholesterol any further.
>It goes back to the fact that the arteries already have to be damaged- say, through putting tremendous strain on them by being a fat fuck.
How would arterial damage affect the bottleneck of intestinal cholesterol uptake? You actually see less of a response to dietary cholesterol in fat people. Being fat causes insulin resistance, which increases intestinal and hepatic cholesterol synthesis, expanding the biliary cholesterol pool. Fat cells also get overloaded with it and release some via reverse cholesterol transport. Enterohepatic circulation of this cholesterol goes on to do the same thing: limit intestinal cholesterol absorption.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/23/3058.long
>>37346028
>It's hard to explain all this here, but essentially there are a lot of factors in play. The cholesterol enters your bloodstream, of course, but it has no dramatic impact upon delivery unless you are naturally at risk.
Everyone is naturally at risk, then. There are no common genetic variants that prevent cholesterol-carrying atherogenic lipoproteins from getting stuck in the subendothelial intima.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/116/16/1832.full
For example, after you adjust for major factors (smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, etc) there is a log-linear increase in risk above 40mg/dL LDL-C.
Oh, and here are some 12 year olds with subclinical atherosclerosis. Elevated cholesterol is their only problem.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15467-6/pdf
![41VkWywlMEL._SX339_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/b0lmw4G.jpg "41VkWywlMEL._SX339_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg")
>>37346071
>Here is also a book you can read
Ironic how you don’t want to pay for a study (not a student or in academia?), yet direct me to a book. I’ve read this before, though, and can see why nobody in CV biology cares for it but the hardcore crackpots. Here’s a series of (free) papers that debunk most of the garbage it contains:
http://www.jlr.org/content/45/9/1583.full
http://www.jlr.org/content/46/2/179.full
http://www.jlr.org/content/46/10/2037.full
http://www.jlr.org/content/47/1/1.full
http://www.jlr.org/content/47/7/1339.full
and a book by the same author which is also good
http://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-Wars-Skeptics-Preponderance-Evidence/dp/0123739799
However if you still find any argument in there particularly convincing, post it here and I’ll share my thoughts.
>>37346987
>When every health organization in the world recommends
Yes, the same people who are overseeing an obesity epidemic that gets worse every year
>>37346071
>that is by doctors and summarizes very clearly what these ridiculous government studies do not.
Now you’ve gone full tinfoil hat mode. By the way, there are plenty of “doctors” who are batshit insane. Take Mercola for example. Some deny the HIV-AIDS link, others are anti-vaxxers, embrace homeopathy, and so on. Not a very good title for an ad verecundiam.
> I'm not saying that study is a government study (I don't know) but these myths are the same ones that propagate the "whole grains" myth that's literally killing people, and a food pyramid that essentially wants you to be a living feedbag in taking in the cheapest foods (grains) possible.
Uh, what’s so bad about whole grains again?
https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/the_guidelines/n55d_dietary_guidelines_evidence_report.pdf#page=241
http://www.nature.com/nrendo/journal/v11/n7/full/nrendo.2015.76.html
http://nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals.org/content/72/12/741
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/141/5/1011S.long
http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/335326
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224411002718
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7828563&fileId=S0954422410000041
> The simple carbohydrates are of course the real enemy, and once you cut them out of your diet your life will probably change drastically.
That’s like saying obesity is the “real enemy”, and it’s perfectly OK if you don’t exercise as long as you stay thin. More than one behavior can be bad for you.
>>37347092
The people who are desperately trying to fix it you mean? And ignoramuses who won't listen?
>>37347179
yes, it's everyone that's at fault, not the very comptent people whose infallible advice produces no results
>>37347218
If people can't follow the guidelines what more is there to do? Drugging them with ritalin or something might help, but that's psychiatry beyond lifestyle modification.
