http://www.lifescript.com/Health/Co...=19318&FromNL=1



astonish

No. Next question.

Has that nonsense already come full circle?

I hadn't realized I was so old!

Lisa

oh no, what will three eggs do?

I suspect the driving force behind that report is the fake food industry.... I wonder how many people who eat Egg Beaters and other egg substitutes die each year of heart disease, heart attacks and strokes....

I eat no less than one egg every day. I doubt if I've skipped three days in the last 2 years without eating at least 1 egg and many times 3 or 4 eggs in a day.

My last cholesterol test in August was 135, triglycerides were 95... That and other reports from the ADA are useless to me.

Just as there is no reason to reinvent the wheel, I see no reason to reinvent real food...

Ron

That article is just dripping with special interest money. Somebody will profit from scaring diabetics into giving up whole eggs. The comments after the article says it all. There were 5 commenters who saw through the bs of the article and said so in plain English. Not one person who responded supported the facts presented by the article. That must tell us something (actually the comments were better reading than the article).

What?!

That is just literally IN-credible.

This makes me think of a Weight Watchers dessert recipe someone here at work circulated recently. It included a boxed cake mix and substituted Egg Beaters for 2 eggs! The cake mix probably had 2000 calories of starch alone but WW had taught her that Egg Beaters were healthier.

Gold, Jerry!

UnFREAKINbelievable.

Here is the original research:

http://www.adajournal.org/article/S...isrc=newsletter

I am not good at math, in fact, I am terrible at math
During a mean of 13 years, 1,140 HF hospitalizations were identified. After multivariable adjustment (energy intake, demographics, lifestyle factors, prevalent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension), HF risk was lower with greater whole-grain intake (0.93 [0.87, 0.99]), but HF risk was higher with greater intake of eggs (1.23 [1.08, 1.41]) and high-fat dairy (1.08 [1.01, 1.16]). These associations remained significant independent of intakes of the five other food categories, which were not associated with HF.

I have no idea what those figures mean. But I do know that stating things one way, makes them sound a lot different if they are stated another way.

For instance I read one time that 30% of all cancer was caused by environment and 1/3 was caused by diet. Even someone who is terrible at math can figure out that they were actually saying that environment and diet were equal in the causation of cancer.

I was reading a book yesterday called, "Selling Sickness". In the chapter on high blood pressure, they were discussing medication for bp.

These statistics were presented to a group attending a lecture on bp.

"Would you take a drug for five years if it:
1. Lowered your chances of having a heart attack by 33%
2. Lowered your chances of having a heart attack from 3% down to 2%, a difference of 1%
3. Saved one person in 100 from having a heart attack but there is no way of knowing in advance who that one person would be?"

Most people responded to yes to number one. Twenty percent responded yes to number 2 and 3. The statistics were actually the same figures, stated in a different way.

The doctor who was giving the talk explained that 33% off a $300 item would lower the price to $200. While 33% off of a $3.00 item would only lower the price to $2.00.

Were the actual results skewed to make it sound worse than it actually is in this instance. I don't know. I repeat, I am not good at math.

Can someone break this down into a more understandable format?

Astonish

"For instance I read one time that 30% of all cancer was caused by environment and 1/3 was caused by diet."
I don't think it's possible to know what percent of what causes
cancer anymore than it's possible to know what percentage of
people get lung cancer from secondhand smoke.
I think the people who are spouting the numbers are trying to
blow smoke up our axx's.
Eddie

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2001/nhgri-21.htm

Read "Good Calories Bad Calories". Nice big hints in there about cancer rates prior to the introduction of easily digestible carbs to native populations vs cancer rates AFTER.

It is my belief based on that info as well as the Mexican breast study population and several dozen others that diet is about 75% responsible for cancer cases. The exact triggers being a diet high in sugar, flour, potatoes, high fructose corn syrup, etc...