What says /fit/ about yolks?
>>35294047
Bump
>>35294047
Objectively good. People like to claim the yolks have "sooo much cholesterol" but they don't know that there's both good and bad types of cholesterol, and yolks are full of both the good kind and tons of vitamins
yolks are full of vitamins and fat is good for you
people who throw out yolks are stupid and old, they were taught that tans fats are good for fuck's sake.
>>35294467
But, realistically, would an omelette with 6 egg yolks every morning be bad for health?
>>35294047
I have been eating 6 eggs daily for like 2 weeks as well
>>35296223
Wanna know this as well pls use citations
>>35296245
whoohaaaa 2 weeks already???!!!
4 years straight eating 6 eggs a day, still alive and well
Eggs make testosterone levels increase
We had this thread yesterday
boards.4chan.org/fit/thread/35287197
They're bad for you, eat sparingly
>>35294047
They're excellent, fairly nutritious, good source of protein and cheap. Eat up to 10 a week
>>35294416
Dietary cholesterol isn't directly correlative with blood cholesterol at all.
>>35294047
>>35294401
Cholesterol produces testosterone, and unless you're else eating like 5 servings of meat, you're probably not getting 100%DV like with a couple of eggs.
>>35296223
>>35296245
Why not spread those out as 2 per meal? IIRC, absorption is limited by other processes, so that could effect cholesterol availability for T production. "When this process becomes unregulated, LDL molecules without receptors begin to appear in the blood."
>>35296527
What that repost (>>35287569) should realize is that cholesterol oxidation is probably reduced by antioxidants, so that point is pretty underwhelming. IIRC, the serum cholesterol measurings were also taken with a huge amount of egg intake. We have DVs for a reason, and that includes the recommendation of intake up through a level.
you can buy egg whites in bottles, just use that if you're afraid of cholesterol
>>35297293
>Cholesterol produces testosterone, and unless you're else eating like 5 servings of meat, you're probably not getting 100%DV like with a couple of eggs.
Testosterone is synthesized from the cholesterol in your blood. The amount of cholesterol in your blood does not correlate to the amount of testosterone that is synthesized. Dietary cholesterol does not turn into testosterone. When it comes to blood cholesterol levels, everyone quickly says "dietary cholesterol isn't blood cholesterol" but when it comes to the mistaken belief that testosterone increases as blood cholesterol increases, people immediately think dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol are the same thing, therefore eat lots of eggs. Settle on a belief, they're both wrong anyway.
>We have DVs for a reason, and that includes the recommendation of intake up through a level.
DV and RDI are different things as well. DV isn't necessarily the amount you should be eating, but also a guideline to keep you from eating too much of something that can be harmful.
>>35294467
>fat is good for you
Why?
>>35298078
*mumble mumble* government conspiracy *mumble mumble* muh test *mumble mumble* cavemen
>>35298121
Fuck you.
>>35297829
This case study would suggest much differently:
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/01/18/how-to-increase-testosterone-naturally/
>high fat, high cholesterol diet
>T doubled from 383ng/dL, 7.2 pg/mL to 778 ng/dL, 14.4 pg/mL in 3 months
>after another month, T was up higher at 826.9 ng/dL
http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741266?dopt=Abstract
Furthermore, if you're trying to claim that dietary cholesterol becomes blood cholesterol and deny that dietary cholesterol benefits T, you're countering your own argument.
So we still don't fucking know.
>>35299109
There's no evidence that eggs are anything less than decent in moderation.
There is evidence that eggs are beneficial.
>>35298878
>this anecdote would suggest differently
Let's keep things science-based
>http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49
This found that protein lowers testosterone, and saturated fat, which raises cholesterol, increases testosterone, while monounsaturated fat, which lowers cholesterol, increases testosterone even moreso than the cholesterol-raising saturated fat, which goes against the "more cholesterol = more testosterone" claim you're making.
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741266?dopt=Abstract
Obviously this is an entire dietary shift with a huge number of variables that could affect hormone levels. It's not designed in a way that it could be used to support your claims. Even so, the change in free testosterone was called small. Here's a similar study where a low-fat diet shift had no effect on testosterone but cut estrogen levels in half.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3966484
You'll get different results depending on what the other variables in the study are, including body weight changes (low carbers take note, the people in the first study lost 1kg of weight when switching to a low fat diet, even when eating the same amount of calories) and other nutrients like zinc and magnesium that affect testosterone production.
>Furthermore, if you're trying to claim that dietary cholesterol becomes blood cholesterol and deny that dietary cholesterol benefits T, you're countering your own argument.
How? I'm saying that dietary cholesterol does increase blood cholesterol, and that blood cholesterol and testosterone levels are not directly related.
>>35294047
The only reason to pull out the yolks is if you're eating low-fat for whatever reason.
>>35299611
Or if you value the health of your arteries
>>35299393
>>35298878
What do these mean
Yes.
>>35299871
It means that fucking your cardiovascular system over in the hopes that you'll become high test is a dumb broscience idea.
>>35299393
>>35299637
>>35299958
>let's keep things science based
Unless you can explain those test results through something else, you can't just disregard statistics. Doubling T isn't something that just happens.
>monounsaturated fat, which lowers cholesterol, increases testosterone even moreso than the cholesterol-raising saturated fat, which goes against the "more cholesterol = more testosterone" claim
SFA, MUFA, and PUFA don't have the same % effect on cholesterol. The idea of monounsaturated fat having a bit more correlation is no implication on cholesterol levels, dietary or blood, at all.
>blood cholesterol and testosterone levels are not directly related
You have no source for that. The study lists a positive correlation, and cross references it with another study's positive correlation, of dietary cholesterol and T.
Here's a pretty fun read:
http://anthonycolpo.com/research-update-eating-more-cholesterol-makes-muscles-stronger/
Skipping the statin discussion (top 25%) is probably fine.
what kind of a bitch pussy would wear these
>>35300142
>Unless you can explain those test results
Let's not even call it test results as if it's a published paper in a medical journal. It's anecdotal evidence without even any documentation that shows that any of it actually happened.
>The idea of monounsaturated fat having a bit more correlation is no implication on cholesterol levels, dietary or blood, at all.
I'll rephrase. A type of fat that lowers cholesterol had the highest correlation with testosterone in that study. If your argument is that increasing cholesterol increases testosterone, this paper doesn't help you make that point.
>You have no source for that.
It's the fact that there's no evidence that it does linearly relate that leads me to say so. I know of no textbook or other expert source that says this or even suggests it.
>Here's a pretty fun read:
>Anthony Colpo
I'm familiar with this guy and he's an absolute retard, but I'll see what he has to say
Skipped over the statin stuff, first study I see is reference [15] about dietary cholesterol and strength gains, funded by the US Poultry and Egg Association. I'm trying to find a free, full version of the study to look at
>>35300347
>>35300142
Sooooooooo
You guys wanna smash or what?
>>35300347
Yeah, I'm not seeing a full version of that study, which a lot of this article seems to be based on. The funding source and the use of 50-69 year old men as subjects lead me to believe that there's bias in play, but without being able to read the study I can't see what actually happened in it, even to verify that it's legit.
It doesn't stop Anthony Colpo from rambling like a crazy person about blood cholesterol though.
>“An interesting finding was the significant (P < 0.05) reduction in TC at 24, 48 and 72 h, after exercise in both groups, which we hypothesized was associated with cellular repair.”
>Read the last eight words of that last sentence again. Several hundred times.
>I’ve been banging on since forever about the fact that cholesterol is not harmful, is not toxic, is not atherosclerotic, but an essential substance that forms a key component of our cells and is used for cellular repair. Blaming cholesterol for atherosclerosis is every bit as stupid as blaming brick mortar for the termites eating away at your house.
Anyone who understands what cholesterol is understands that it has a very important role in your body, but like anything that serves a purpose, there's a right amount and a too-much amount. It's like saying "it's impossible that water could drown you, water is necessary for life."
>When Reichman and his team subjected volunteers to eccentric exercise, they found it took two days of eating a high cholesterol (800 mg/d) diet to normalize the large reductions in blood cholesterol caused by the workout.
Translated to a PoV that isn't pro-blood-cholesterol, it sounds like in that study, the high cholesterol diet negated the blood cholesterol lowering benefit of the exercise.
>>35300347
>I'll rephrase. A type of fat that lowers cholesterol had the highest correlation with testosterone in that study. If your argument is that increasing cholesterol increases testosterone, this paper doesn't help you make that point.
Should I rephrase as well? Different types of fats don't effect cholesterol in the same manner. If an MUFA diet reduces cholesterol less than an SFA increases cholesterol, that's no explicit tell on cholesterol's effect on T. Furthermore, there are also possible correlations from food with more monounsaturated fat that would also increase T, like magnesium or zinc.
>It's the fact that there's no evidence that it does linearly relate that leads me to say so. I know of no textbook or other expert source that says this or even suggests it.
So, you're ignoring the study you quoted which lists both its and another study's positive correlation with dietary cholesterol and T?
>>35300347
>>35300560
>>35300600
i fucking hate nitpickers like you
>>35300703
You're quoting both sides of the argument.
>>35300729
you can also be plural
>>35294047
Nigga I eat 16 backyard chicken eggs a day they better not be bad for me
>>35300600
>If an MUFA diet reduces cholesterol less than an SFA increases cholesterol, that's no explicit tell on cholesterol's effect on T. Furthermore, there are also possible correlations from food with more monounsaturated fat that would also increase T, like magnesium or zinc.
Okay, you've just become skeptical of your own study. Can you show me why you believe the part that doesn't support your belief must have something wrong with it? The monounsaturated fats must not have lowered cholesterol much and the saturated fats must not have raised cholesterol much? Does the study give an indication of this?
>So, you're ignoring the study you quoted which lists both its and another study's positive correlation with dietary cholesterol and T?
This line?
>Adlercreutz et al. (1) reported significant positive correlations between T and dietary fat, SFA, MUFA, and cholesterol in postmenopausal women. The same nutrients were positively correlated with T in the present investigation except for cholesterol
So this study didn't find positive correlations with dietary cholesterol, but this referenced study on postmenopausal women did
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/49/3/433.full.pdf
In this study of old women, it was seen as a bad thing because it increased breast cancer risk. The study design, again, is also taken far away from what you're arguing, which is that cholesterol levels are directly, causally related to testosterone levels. There's been no evidence of that so far.
>>35297293
WTF IS ORAC
>>35300741
>Criticizing posts checking statistics and studies
>Probably posting nothing of value
OK.
>>35300748
>Okay, you've just become skeptical of your own study. Can you show me why you believe the part that doesn't support your belief must have something wrong with it? The monounsaturated fats must not have lowered cholesterol much and the saturated fats must not have raised cholesterol much? Does the study give an indication of this?
Extrapolating much? There are variables that aren't listed. Do we know if MUFA foods also have lots of other T increasing nutrition? Do we know the relative effects on cholesterol of MUFA vs. SFA? You're claiming that it's 1:1, and it's not.
>>The same nutrients were positively correlated with T in the present investigation except for cholesterol
..A quote which omits further clarification:
>which showed a correlation of r = 0.53 (P = 0.07) with T
The wording might seem vague, but per the mentioned study, there is no listing of a r=.53, p=.07 value for cholesterol [pictured]. That value must come from this study.
>>35301137
>There are variables that aren't listed. Do we know if MUFA foods also have lots of other T increasing nutrition?
You tell me, you posted the study as evidence for your claim. I'm just reading it back to you.
>Do we know the relative effects on cholesterol of MUFA vs. SFA?
Yes, MUFA lowers it while SFA increases it
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198603203141204
Given your use of the study and the claim you're using it as evidence for, we would expect to see that the cholesterol-lowering fat would also result in lower testosterone than the cholesterol-raising fat. Since this wasn't the case, the paper you chose doesn't seem to support your claim.
>The wording might seem vague, but per the mentioned study, there is no listing of a r=.53, p=.07 value for cholesterol [pictured]. That value must come from this study.
They didn't make a table of it, but the Volek study is saying that positive associations with T were found for dietary fat, SFA, and MUFA, while the study on postmenopausal women included the same but with the addition of dietary cholesterol, which again doesn't imply a causal link. Then they mention another study (Key et al, reference 15) where PUFA was positively associated with T, and PUFA lowers cholesterol even more than MUFA does. Interestingly, that study also found that vegans had significantly higher testosterone than vegetarians and omnivores, where dietary cholesterol intake was near 0 and saturated fat intake and of course serum cholesterol levels were also much lower.
Another study found that total and LDL cholesterol negatively correlate with testosterone
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24394726
The best I can find is that, as in that study, HDL positively correlated, but again it's not clear that even this is causal.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1998648
Here, there was a correlation with HDL, but it was lost after adjusting for BMI and deemed not causal
>>35300804
anti oxidants
>>35294047
Probably bad for you, but I don't really give a fuck since I don't eat eggs all that much. Definitely not the worst thing you can eat.
Hello /fit/, /ck/ here. Here's something to do with your egg yolks left over from your egg white omelettes. Obviously this board is a bit more health-conscious than ck (duh), so feel free to lower the sugar content. I wouldn't do it too much, maybe down to 1 cup,
Ingredients
1¾ cups kosher salt
1¼ cups sugar
6 large egg yolks
Nonstick vegetable oil spray
---
Whisk salt and sugar in a medium bowl to combine. Evenly spread out half of salt mixture in an 7" x 9" glass baking dish. Using the back of a tablespoon, create 4 depressions in salt mixture, spacing evenly. Carefully place an egg yolk in each depression. Gently sprinkle remaining salt mixture over yolks and tightly wrap dish with plastic. Chill 4 days.
If you break a yolk, just scoop it out, discard and try again.
Preheat oven to 150°. Brush salt mixture off each yolk, then carefully rinse under cold water to remove any remaining salt (yolks will be semi-firm, bright, and translucent). Gently pat dry with paper towels.
Generously coat a wire rack set inside a rimmed baking sheet with nonstick spray; place yolks on rack. Dry out in oven until opaque and texture is like a firm gruyere cheese, 1½–2 hours. Let cool. (Alternatively, if your oven doesn’t go that low, you can dry out eggs in an unheated oven for 2 days.)
Finely grate cured egg yolks over soups, pastas, or salads as you would a hard cheese.
Yolks can be last for 1 month Place in an airtight container and chill.
>>35301488
>Yes, MUFA lowers it while SFA increases it
>http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198603203141204
That's missing the whole point, that MUFAs and SFAs don't effect cholesterol in the same percent -- in other words, how much. Sure, MUFAs seem to lower LDL, and SFAs seem to increase LDL, but that has little to do with dietary cholesterol.. which is the topic. Thereof, the trend of FAs is toward optimization -- proper ratios of LDL vs. HDL, which says very little about *overall* cholesterol levels.
>we would expect to see that the cholesterol-lowering fat would also result in lower testosterone than the cholesterol-raising fat.
On what grounds? As stated, other nutrition (specifically minerals), and even more so a combination, could effect testosterone much more than MUFAs reduce LDL.
>They didn't make a table of it, but the Volek study is saying that positive associations with T were found for dietary fat, SFA, and MUFA, while the study on postmenopausal women included the same but with the addition of dietary cholesterol, which again doesn't imply a causal link.
Then from where does the value come?
>>35301904
>That's missing the whole point, that MUFAs and SFAs don't effect cholesterol in the same percent -- in other words, how much
I don't see how that would be an issue. Why would they need to have the same change in either direction? One lowers cholesterol, one increases it, both correlate similarly with testosterone.
>Sure, MUFAs seem to lower LDL, and SFAs seem to increase LDL, but that has little to do with dietary cholesterol.. which is the topic
Why did you post this paper then? I don't know what you were trying to say with it other than to say that because saturated fat correlated with testosterone in the study, that higher blood cholesterol must mean more testosterone, and therefore eating cholesterol, which also raises cholesterol, must raise testosterone. Why else would you have linked this paper?
>On what grounds?
The broscience theory of "testosterone is synthesized from cholesterol, therefore higher cholesterol means more testosterone" which is what I'm opposing
What is your argument then and what is your evidence if the paper you posted isn't it?
>>35302517
>Why did you post this paper then?
>What is your argument then?
Still ignoring that the paper seems to claim that it and another study correlate dietary cholesterol and T?
>>35302569
I didn't ignore that, I addressed it already. The paper says specifically that it didn't find a correlation, and references two other papers, one of which found a correlation not necessarily implied to be causal in postmenopausal women, the other found higher testosterone in the diet group that ate virtually 0 cholesterol and had significantly lower blood cholesterol.
>>35302598
And I asked that if there is no correlation, where this random r=.53 is coming from, as the Adlercreutz correlations are listed in the pictured table.
>>35302658
It was just mentioned in the Discussion section, I guess not as an important part of their study they were looking at. Did you post this study for that?
>>35302673
You're deflecting by seeming vague. In the statement..
>Also, Adlercreutz et al. (1) reported significant positive correlations between T and dietary fat, SFA, MUFA, and cholesterol in postmenopausal women. The same nutrients were positively correlated with T in the present investigation except for cholesterol, which showed a correlation of r = 0.53 (P = 0.07) with T.
..where does the r = 0.53 correlation come from, as the study it's discussing (pic: >>35301137) doesn't list it?
>>35302760
As they say, it's from their study, but apparently not a main thing they were looking at so they didn't make a table for it. I don't know what else you want me to say, I didn't author the study nor did I post it
>>35302810
So, they found a correlation. That's all.
>>35302830
"The same nutrients were positively correlated with T in the present investigation except for cholesterol"
The relationship with cholesterol apparently wasn't statistically significant, hence them saying their study, in contrast to the postmenopausal woman breast cancer study, didn't show a positive correlation
>>35302899
Maybe for their p of .05, but .07 is still pretty decent.
>>35302760
>>35302830
Im gonna do High-fat Low-carb and you guys cant stop me
>>35302911
According to the people who made the study, it wasn't pretty decent as it didn't achieve statistical significance.
>>35302912
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
>>35302939
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-HQel1AGM
>>35302945
I have no plan on watching that. Calorie restricted diets should lose more weight than unrestricted calorie diets, yet the unrestricted but low-carb diets lost more weight than restricted but low fat in multiple studies.
>>35302957
>yet the unrestricted but low-carb diets lost more weight than restricted but low fat in multiple studies.
And that's why you should watch it. If you don't know how to interpret studies, listen to someone who does
>>35302938
.53 is significant.
>>35302983
The .53 isn't what determines statistical significance
ARE EGGS GOOD OR BAD FOR FUCKS SAKE
>>35302911
Yeah, no. Biology is a soft enough ''science'' already with most results at only 2 sigma. Any lower and it becomes religion.
I'm a poor student and whey powder churns my stomach something awful, so I eat half a carton of eggs a day for proteins.
From what I'm hearing eating eggs in moderation is okay, if not great for you, but what are the consequences to eating say, more than 6 eggs per day?
That's the shit I want to know.
Anybody here eat 12 eggs+ a day?
Are you dead yet?
>>35303084
>in moderation
>how about 6+ a day?
When it comes to eggs, moderation generally means no more than 1 a day
From this thread I learned
>Academic debates on a tentacle and dickgirl imageboard are seemingly pretty fruitless
>Cholesterol levels may or may not have a statistical relevance on T levels
>High Fat-Low Carb diets may possibly lose more weight than High Carb-Low Fat diets.
I wish I could just give up eating all together. This shit is annoying as fucking shit.
