Egg Yolks - Bad as Cigarette pack smoked. Really??

[Justforfun000]

Thought I'd float this out to everyone. Is this a compelling study or are there flaws in the conclusion?

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-o ... 28591.html

..

Egg yolks almost as bad for your arteries as smoking: study

.
.By Jordana Divon | Shine On – Tue, 14 Aug, 2012 1:24 PM EDT.. .
.



Research suggests egg yolks impact your arteries almost to the same extent at smoking. (Thinkstock)For all the egg white omelets you've consumed in lieu of their yolkier brethren, a new study published in the Atherosclerosis online journal claims you can also consider it a pack of cigarettes not smoked.

Researchers at Western University in London, Ontario say that when it comes to increasing your risk of heart attack or stroke, eating the round, yellow centre of an egg is almost as bad for you as putting a lit cigarette between your lips and inhaling.

"The problem is, if you expect to live a long time, you are going to be at risk of heart attacks and strokes," Dr. David Spence, a Robarts Research Institute scientist and study co-author, tells QMI Agency. "Why would you want to be eating something that makes the plaque in your arteries build up faster and make your heart attack and stroke come on sooner?"

Also see: Microwave popcorn ingredient linked to Alzheimer's disease

Though multiple studies have lauded eggs for their many health benefits, this particular study suggests these benefits appear to be outweighed by potential risks to Canadians of a certain age.

Here's how the researchers reached their controversial conclusion.

Spence and his team gathered data from 1,231 patients at the London Health Sciences Centre. The average patient age was 62.

Scientists took ultrasound measurements of the carotid arteries — this is the artery system that supplies blood and oxygen to the head and neck as well as the brain — to determine the amount of atherosclerotic plaque found inside the small but vital vessels.

Patients also filled out a survey that determined a number of lifestyle factors, such as smoking habits and the frequency of egg yolk consumption.

Researchers quantified their data by multiplying the number of cigarettes smoked per day by the number of years a person smoked. They did the same with the eggs by multiplying the number of eggs per day with the number of years a person ate them.

What researchers found was that after the age of 40, plaque in the carotid arteries increased anyway. But patients who smoked and ate egg yolks experienced an enormous spike in plaque buildup.

And while smoking proved to be the bigger plaque accelerator, egg yolk eaters showed two-thirds of the effect of the smokers group.

Also see: Wristband tells you when you've had too much sun

While eating the occasional egg won't do too much damage, the study implies, a constant diet of yolks could potentially lead to major heart problems.

The issue lies in quantity. The recommended daily cholesterol intake for people with heart attack and stroke risk is 200 milligrams.

By contrast, one large egg yolk alone contains 237 milligrams.

However, Spence and his team have some critics. According to Steven Novella of ScienceBasedMedicine.org, the study is flawed for a number of reasons.

"The weaknesses of this study includes the fact that it is retrospective and based on survey data, which is notoriously inaccurate. Further, it is an observational study and therefore there are many confounding factors that are not controlled for. Perhaps people who eat more egg yolks also eat more bacon, or have a generally poorer diet, or don't exercise as much."

Novella's criticism also includes that the study's authors have no way to explain a causal relationship between egg consumption and carotid plaque build up in the arteries.

"Apparently what the authors have shown (which is consistent with previous data) is that eating lots of eggs does not increase total cholesterol or bad cholesterol (LDL) nor does it decrease good cholesterol (HDL)...This strongly suggests the association is not causal but is incidental or spurious," writes Novella.

Also see: Cervical cancer screening guidelines updated

Other prominent critics include the country's egg farmers.

Karen Harvey, a nutrition officer with the Egg Farmers of Canada, tells QMI that the comparison between cigarettes and eggs is ridiculous.

"It goes without saying that smoking is considered one of the most harmful activities when it comes to your personal health and wellness," Harvey says.

Yolks, she adds, are a nutritious food that contains the major source of the egg's vitamins and minerals.

While nothing beats a hot plate of scrambled eggs and toast on a lazy weekend morning, Canadians with cholesterol issues may want to check out the host of delicious egg white recipes floating around the 'net.

[Darth Wong]

The key phrase is "almost as bad for your arteries as smoking".

One of the side-effects of smoking is plaque buildup in the arteries, and it is old news that cholesterol also causes plaque buildup in the arteries. Of course, it goes without saying that this is just one of the many side-effects of smoking, so an egg yolk is obviously not as bad for you as a pack of cigarettes. It's just as bad for you in this one particular way, which is really not that hard to believe.

[Dominus Atheos]

So many things wrong with this article. But I'll start with, cholesterol levels are not considered the key danger of smoking. That's like saying using a cell phone increases your risk of AIDS by the same amount as living near Fukushima. Yes, it's probably true, but I don't think that means what you think it means what you think it means.

Edit: reordered the second sentence for clarity.

[Block]

Novella's criticism also includes that the study's authors have no way to explain a causal relationship between egg consumption and carotid plaque build up in the arteries.

"Apparently what the authors have shown (which is consistent with previous data) is that eating lots of eggs does not increase total cholesterol or bad cholesterol (LDL) nor does it decrease good cholesterol (HDL)...This strongly suggests the association is not causal but is incidental or spurious," writes Novella.

This quote basically means that this study is complete bullshit.

[Terralthra]

Thought I'd float this out to everyone. Is this a compelling study or are there flaws in the conclusion?

It's not even as bad for your arteries as smoking. The study was fairly poorly done in a variety of ways. Here's an analysis:

Eating Egg Yolks as Bad as Smoking?

This article refers to the article and paper below: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 155640.htm http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 5012005047

On August 13, 2012, ScienceDaily.com published an article entitled, “Eating Egg Yolks as Bad as Smoking?” ScienceDaily.com concludes “eating egg yolks accelerates atherosclerosis in a manner similar to smoking cigarettes.” Unfortunately, ScienceDaily.com and many other news networks fail to accurately describe the details and outcomes of the study. Here, I carefully examine the study and suggest an alternative conclusion from the data.

First, it is important to look at the participants of the study. The data was collected from individuals soon after they had a stroke or transient ischeamic attack (known as a “mini stroke”). This study is not examining healthy individuals or comparing the number of strokes in people who ate lots of eggs vs. those who ate few eggs. All participants in the study already had a stroke regardless of their egg consumption.

Next, the means of data collection is important to consider. Participants were given questionnaires and asked to recall the number of eggs and packs of cigarettes they had smoked during their lifetime. Questions regarding exercise, stress levels, and other aspects of the diet were not asked. The researchers relied on the participants to be both truthful and accurate in their memory of egg consumption and smoking history during their lifetime.

There are important differences in the makeup of each group in the study. The group that ate the most eggs had an average age of 69.77 years compared to only 55.70 years for the group who ate the least eggs. The group who ate the most eggs also smoked the most and had the highest rate of diabetes. Surprisingly, the group that ate the most eggs had the lowest total cholesterol, lowest LDL cholesterol, highest HDL cholesterol, and lowest body mass index.

The difference in age between the groups eating the most and least eggs is important, as the authors themselves admit that plaque area increases with age. Although raw data is not present in the paper, based on figure 1A, it appears that individuals with an age of 69.77, solely based on age, would have an average cartoid plaque area of 170 mm2. The group that ate the most eggs had an average carotid plaque area of about 175 mm2, while the group that smoked the most cigarettes had an average carotid area of about 240 mm2. This indicates that the group that ate the most eggs had an average carotid plaque area that was 2.94% greater than expected, while the group that smoked the most cigarettes had an average carotid plaque area 40.00% greater than expected. Unfortunately, figure 1C, comparing eggs eaten and plaque area, does not correct for age so the effect of egg consumption appears to have much more of an effect than it would if age was eliminated as a variable.

The authors promote the idea that egg yolks are bad because they are high in cholesterol and eating foods high in cholesterol supposedly increases serum cholesterol in the blood. However, as stated earlier, the group that ate the most eggs actually had the lowest total cholesterol, lowest LDL cholesterol, and highest HDL cholesterol. According to their data, it seems that eating lots of eggs actually promotes a healthier cholesterol profile and lower body mass index. Amazingly, the authors do not address this in their paper nor do they hypothesize on what mechanism is causing high egg consumption to increase plaque buildup.

Egg consumption is likely not the cause of increased plaque. Too many other variables are at play (exercise, stress, dietary factors). Interestingly, the authors note that these patients had been advised to lower egg consumption and had not complied prior to their stroke. Perhaps they were less concerned with their health than the group that had complied and lowered egg consumption, causing them to make a variety of poor health choices unrelated to egg consumption.

Alternatively, this data could be interpreted completely differently. The data shows the individuals who ate the most eggs were the oldest and had the most plaque after their stroke. Perhaps the eggs actually had a protective effect allowing those who ate the most eggs to withstand more plaque buildup and live the longer before having a stroke. Those individuals who ate the fewest eggs had a stroke an average of 14 years earlier than those who ate the most eggs. Perhaps if they would have been eating more eggs, they would have lived longer without a stroke.

It is important to remember that these epidemiological studies do not show cause and effect. They merely show correlation. They serve as a point of reference to form a hypothesis to be tested in prospective studies. Unfortunately, the authors say, “Our findings suggest that regular consumption of egg yolk should be avoided by persons at risk of cardiovascular disease.” This is not true. That statement is merely their hypothesis that needs to be tested in prospective studies. Based on my logic in the previous paragraph, with the same data I could have concluded, “Our findings suggest that regular consumption of egg yolk should be encouraged for persons at risk of cardiovascular disease.”

[Justforfun000]

Very informative. Especially your breakdown Terralthra. Thank you!

[Isolder74]

Who is doing this study? This sounds just like the same kind of BS that PETA loves to trot out constantly. I wonder how long will it take before this is featured on their front page! Well I'm not going to look and give them traffic.

What makes this study more ludicrous is this one passage right here:

But patients who smoked and ate egg yolks experienced an enormous spike in plaque buildup.

Well duh!

and this:

What researchers found was that after the age of 40, plaque in the carotid arteries increased anyway.

The problem I have with this study is they provide no correlation with how the egg yolks are causing the build up. In fact, it seems that the study only shows nothing more then is already known, there is an increase in risk for heart disease after 40. What makes the study worse is they did not have a control group nor did they look to make sure there was not any other contributing factors.

We are back to the fear-mongering of making eggs a deadly enemy again. Bandwagon away!

[Justforfun000]

I'm really getting pissed at the constant stream of seemingly accurate and informative "studies" that aren't well established. I wish there was some kind of media principle in effect that held them to the standard of never publishing a misleading or inaccurate headline regarding scientific studies.

The problem is not in the data and the arguments of this or that..I mean at least they threw out opposing viewpoints and tried to balance it all..but the headline is what 95% of the common folk are going to remember. You'll be lucky if they READ the article and that's extremely disturbing.

Even with that being said, it's quite clear this was a very poorly designed study with shitty methodology in many respects.

[Justforfun000]

As a complete 'aside' from this..it's interesting to see real world examples that make me understand why math is such an integral part of science. I loved science in school and I might have been inclined to go down the road in many ways as a profession but they always stressed that math was a HIGH priority and almost a necessary partner on the road.

I never liked arithmetic and other types of math that I've forgotten by now...I just never had the natural inclination...but from what I've been told later in life, the math that's involved in science is much more complex and interesting and I probably never had a true introduction to it. Probability being one specific example.

I've always loved the inquisitive nature of science, and I love logic, reasoning skills and testing things..(chemistry and hands on applications of such were a lot of fun...I can mix this and that & get this new thing?? Cool! lol), but seeing people break down the mathematical side of science and using it to qualify and evaluate studies shows me how important it is to understand as well. I wish now I had been better equipped and inclined to get over the hump.

[Phantasee]

As far as I know, the currently accepted knowledge is that dietary cholesterol doesn't have significant effects on serum cholesterol. That is to say, your body's levels of LDL and HDL aren't dictated by how much cholesterol you eat. Exercise has more effect.

[PainRack]

Hey, at least its better than the Alcoholic Mouthwash gives you oral cancer media representation

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/01January/P ... ancer.aspx


Now, let's look at the Daily Mail should we?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... perts.html

Mouthwash 'causes oral cancer' and should be pulled from supermarkets, say expertsMouthwashes can cause oral cancer and should be removed from supermarket shelves, an expert said last night.

There is 'sufficient evidence' that those containing alcohol contribute to increased risk of the disease, according to a review of the latest studies by an Australian scientist.

Professor Michael McCullough, whose findings are published in the Dental Journal of Australia, said some mouthwashes were more dangerous than wine or beer because they contained higher concentrations of alcohol - as high as 26 per cent proof.
He said they should only be available with a prescription and for short-term use.

'We see people with oral cancer who have no other risk factors than the use of alcohol-containing mouthwash, so what we've done in this study is review all the evidence that's out there,' he said.

Smoking and alcohol consumption are well-established risk factors in oral cancer which is diagnosed in 5,000 people in the UK each year, and causes 1,600 deaths.

Professor McCullough, from Melbourne University, said the alcohol in mouthwash allows cancer-causing substances such as nicotine to penetrate the lining of the mouth more easily.

And it can mean a toxic breakdown product of alcohol called acetaldehyde - another carcinogen - can accumulate in the oral cavity when swished around the mouth.

The review reported evidence from an international study of 3,210 people which found daily mouthwash use was a 'significant risk factor' for head and neck cancer.

The effects were worst in smokers who had a nine-fold increased risk of cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx. Those who drank alcohol had more than five times the risk.

Last night a British Dental Association spokesman said the evidence was 'not conclusive' and more research was needed.

Yinka Ebo, from Cancer Research UK, said: ' Mouthwash users may be more likely to have poor oral hygiene so more research is needed to find out if it's the mouthwash or the poor oral hygiene that increases the risk of mouth cancer.'

A spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, which makes Listerine, dismissed the claim.

He said: 'This small review includes only a selective group of clinical data. Evidence from at least ten epidemiological studies published over the last three decades strongly suggests that use of alcohol-containing rinses does not increase the risk of oral cancer.'

Scary headline, but.... reasonable article text. Now for the inverse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... ancer.html

Mouthwash 'can cause oral cancer'

Some mouthwashes can contribute to oral cancer and should only be available on prescription, researchers have claimed.

They claimed there was now "sufficient evidence" that mouthwashes containing alcohol contribute to an increased risk of the disease that they should be taken off supermarket shelves and labelled with health warnings.


In a review of the latest studies, the scientists found evidence that the ethanol in mouthwash was allowing cancer-causing substances to permeate the lining of the mouth more easily and therefore cause harm.


Professor Michael McCulloch, chairman of the Australian Dental Association's therapeutics committee and associate professor of oral medicine at Melbourne University, said the alcohol in mouthwashes "increases the permeability of the mucosa" to carcinogens like nicotine.


He added that a toxic breakdown product of alcohol called acetaldehyde that may accumulate in the oral cavity when swished around the mouth is also a carcinogen.


Prof McCullough said: "We see people with oral cancer who have no other risk factors than the use of alcohol-containing mouthwash, so what we've done in this study is review all the evidence that's out there.
"We believe there should be warnings. If it was a facial cream that had the effect of reducing acne but had a four-to-five-fold increased risk of skin cancer, no one would be recommending it."

Some mouthwash can contain as much as 26 per cent alcohol.

The findings, published in the Dental Journal of Australia, said the most popular mouthwashes contained higher concentrations of alcohol than drinks such as wine or beer.

Prof McCullough said: "If you have a glass of wine, you tend to swallow it. With mouthwash you have a higher level of alcohol and spend longer swishing it around your mouth. The alcohol present in your mouth is turned into acetaldehyde."

He said regular alcohol consumption was a cancer risk - but usually did not involve swishing it around the mouth.

Eating while drinking increased salivation which lowered the risks, he said.

Oral cancer is a mutilating disease that afflicts thousands of people each year and kills half of them within five years of being diagnosed.

Smoking and alcohol consumption are well-established risk factors, but the use of mouthwash containing alcohol is more controversial.

Prof McCullough and co-author Dr Camile Farah, director of research at the University of Queensland's School of Dentistry, recommended mouthwash be restricted to "short-term" medical use or replaced by alcohol-free versions.

Dr Neil Hewson, of the Australian Dental Association, said: "It hasn't actually been established there is a direct relationship between mouthwashes with alcohol and oral cancer."

He said if people floss their teeth, brush properly and have a good diet they should not need mouthwash at all.

Reasonable headline, scary text.

[Isolder74]

What makes it worse is how they did the study. They used a questionnaire! I ask you can you tell me how many eggs you ate one month ago Just one month ago. You have to include even figuring out how many might have been in the cakes, muffins, etc, etc etc. that you ingested. Could you even come up with an accurate figure for last week Now try quantifying every egg you ate for the last year. You can't do it can you

In fact I'd be hard pressed to be able to say how many of anything I've used like Shampoo bottles or razor blades. I'd find it doubtful they got accurate info on even 1/4 amount of cigarettes the smokers used up! It's just shoddy from start to finish!

[mr friendly guy]

I always find such studies dubious when they rely on participants recalling what they have eaten years before.

[Irbis]

Common sense: egg yolks are eaten by very fragile, vulnerable organisms (bird embryos). If there was anything seriously unhealthy in them, there would be enormous evolutionary pressure to weed out whatever it was, especially seeing how crucial this phase of development is for producing strong bird capable of passing the genes to next generation. Ergo, nonsense

[Alkaloid]

Not really, a lot of people become lactose intolerant after infancy, but babies are smaller and more vulnerable than adults, babies are just better conditioned to drink milk than adults are. Whats good for a foetal bird may not necessarily be good for a human. That said, this study is still horrible.

[Ziggy Stardust]

How the hell did these people get that paper published in the first place? I have seen much better scientific papers rejected for publication for really minor, excusable faults, and somehow these people get this piece of crap out there?

Ah, but it looks like they are all clinicians, which explains it. I don't know what it is about clinical studies, but they are always so much sloppier than they have any right to be.

[Dalton]

Well, at least they posted links to actual sources. I've seen sites where citations consisted of google.com and wikipedia.org.