To eat daily, or not to eat...EGGS!

[Apple1 2,572]

8 minutes ago, FluffyChix said:

Association can NEVER prove CAUSATION. Association will NEVER provide a smoking gun. Why? There are TOO many confounding variables. In order to prove causation, you must have double blind controlled studies, and in nutritional science those studies are expensive ergo few and far between.

Nobody would refute this statement, but when the evidence is weighted more towards showing healthier populations consume very little or no animal Protein, and don't show the same problems as the populations that do, we should be paying attention.

Kaiser Permanentr of California is even recommending a plant based diet based on the weight of the evidence that this type of eating can prevent and reverse many chronic medical conditions.

I don't need to wait until the science proves it 100%. The fact is I have nothing to lose by switching to a healthier diet. I don't know what my genetic makeup is and I don't think it matters much in this case. If I had certain food allergies or gluten intolerance then yes, but I don't.

The weight of the evidence has convinced me it might not you for the same reason I used to argue for low carb, we close are minds to the truth. I had to look at this evidence with my eyes open. I am a researcher so I know how to evaluate research. There will always be faults with experimental design. It is very hard to control every variable present especially when people are your study subjects.

This is just food for thought. Another opinion. Look into it if you are interested or not. There are many ways to eat and you can surely continue with what works for you. There are some bariactric doctors that also support this type of diet. Look up Dr. Matthew Weiner he has written a book and has a ton of YouTube videos.

[FluffyChix 17,418]

2 minutes ago, Newme17 said:

Because they adopted the western diet.

Yes, but "adopting the western diet" contains MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY variables, too numerous to correct for in association studies. Eating more animal Protein is only 1 very small variable and it wasn't even a quantitative figure...

[Newme17 3,444]

Just now, FluffyChix said:

Yes, but "adopting the western diet" contains MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY variables, too numerous to correct for in association studies. Eating more animal Protein is only 1 very small variable and it wasn't even a quantitative figure...

Oh goodness... I'm done. Be blessed and enjoy your day hon.

[FluffyChix 17,418]

Be blessed as well, and the wonder of a free society is that each of us can draw our own conclusions and act upon them! I'm thrilled for both you and Apple1. The only reason I jumped in is about the whole: making statements as facts. Cuz whether or not you realize it, if it's said often enough on the internet, myths become facts. MUAH!

[Apple1 2,572]

36 minutes ago, FluffyChix said:

But this is not a true statement. The weight of the evidence does NOT prove it.

I never said it proves it. I said it is clear enough for me to eliminate animal products from my diet. All i am saying is I don't need to wait until the perfect study is designed and proves this without a doubt.

[Apple1 2,572]

2 minutes ago, FluffyChix said:

Be blessed as well, and the wonder of a free society is that each of us can draw our own conclusions and act upon them! I'm thrilled for both you and Apple1. The only reason I jumped in is about the whole: making statements as facts. Cuz whether or not you realize it, if it's said often enough on the internet, myths become facts. MUAH!

The fact is many people are assuming a lot about what they are eating. I know I was. Many people are assuming low carb high Protein diets are healthy and safe in the long term and really there is no 100% scientific proof that is true. Keto, Paleo, all of these types of diets are fads. I used to buy into it but once you really start researching you see why some doctors are now prescribing plant based Whole food diets to their patients.

I don't think I am spreading myths at all. I am just putting another opinion out there.

[Apple1 2,572]

55 minutes ago, FluffyChix said:

The Okinawans did not only include more animal Proteins, but more processed foods and bad fats--just like us. So was it the processed food, trans fats, or other highly poly unsaturated fatty acids that caused the heart disease rate to go up? We will never know because there are TOO many confounding variables based on recall and self-reporting to ever be able to draw any kind of responsible conclusion as to why Okinawan rates of heart disease are now almost equal to western civs.)

Yes to all of the bad components of the western diet that they started eating. This is why I said the weight of the evidence for eating a Whole Foods plant based diet is clear to me. They started eating processed junk food which also included animal Protein.

A WFPB diet does not include any of those types of foods, or as little as possible, because no one is perfect no matter how hard they might try.

[Apple1 2,572]

1 hour ago, jess9395 said:

Those diets CAN definitely lead to longer healthier lives in some people for sure. But those studies only show that it does that for some populations. More research is needed to determine for whom that way of eating is best practice and from whom another diet is better. It could be like the saturated fat.... there's literally a gene for that.

But even genetics does not mean you will definitely have or develop a disease. Some of this research shows that genes for type 2 diabetes didn't cause disease until a more western diet was introduced. The same thing happened for heart disease. If I have genes that never cause me any issues because I am eating a mostly plant based Whole Foods diet, why should I care?

Just more to think about.

[jess9395 5,450]

Seriously? I don't normally and don't think I've ever pointed out someone here on the forums, but you have something negative to say about anything that is pointed out. I'll gladly take a scientists/doctor (who has studied all the research and clinical trials for his lifetime work) findings over what a forum poster has to say. I'm sorry you can't see or hear what was said/shared. I don't think you even did read or listen actually. The science is there. It's proof, what more do you need? Wow. Smh.

You clearly haven't read many of my posts. Please don't weigh in on what I post or don't until you've done that. I say many positive things.

I did read, all of it. And I will clarify my statement above. For the people for whom saturated fat leads to weight gain and poor heart health the information you post is accurate and should be heeded. There is a significant portion of the population for whom that is true. It just isn't true for everyone. There is a genetic basis that can actually be tested for.

I'm sorry you think my the newest science is negative. I think it's exciting to learn more and figure out this puzzle of why certain thing work and don't and even more exciting to discover a scientific basis for why it works for some people and not others.

Science is science and not positive or negative.

[jess9395 5,450]

More science for anyone who hasn't tuned out already...

Google confirmation bias. We all, from scientists to lay people, academics, students, medical professionals... we all tend towards the information, studies, facts, data, articles that support our own position.

I am certainly no different though I try to be objective. My stance is often to look for the facts/data/information that challenges any existing belief whether it's mine or someone else's because that is how we progress in science. If we hold on to existing paradigms and don't challenge them--whether the paradigm is the USDA food pyramid or the idea that dietary cholesterol causes heart attacks--then we will never progress. Good science can be questioned and stand up to questioning.

[Apple1 2,572]

12 minutes ago, jess9395 said:

More science for anyone who hasn't tuned out already...

Google confirmation bias. We all, from scientists to lay people, academics, students, medical professionals... we all tend towards the information, studies, facts, data, articles that support our own position.

I am certainly no different though I try to be objective. My stance is often to look for the facts/data/information that challenges any existing belief whether it's mine or someone else's because that is how we progress in science. If we hold on to existing paradigms and don't challenge them--whether the paradigm is the USDA food pyramid or the idea that dietary cholesterol causes heart attacks--then we will never progress. Good science can be questioned and stand up to questioning.

Yes there is bias everywhere. Nobody would refute that, but Newme17 was trying to offer a different perspective that does have science to back it up and it was dismissed.

We don't all know what is in our genes but even without knowing we can say saturated fat is bad for a large majority of people. Even if you happen to be one of the lucky ones that can process fat and not get heart disease, you would not be harmed by eating a Whole Foods Plant based diet.

There are a lot of reasons why research that would help show this doesn't get funded.

[Belizean 11]

I was sleeved on the 14th and I cannot wait till that day! EVERYTHING I see I wish I could have a bite of 2nd week of post op diet can't wait to get thru the next 2 weeks of just liquids! 3 weeks of liquids from my surgeon! I feel like I'm starving!

Sent from my Z981 using BariatricPal mobile app

[jess9395 5,450]

Yes there is bias everywhere. Nobody would refute that, but Newme17 was trying to offer a different perspective that does have science to back it up and it was dismissed.
We don't all know what is in our genes but even without knowing we can say saturated fat is bad for a large majority of people. Even if you happen to be one of the lucky ones that can process fat and not get heart disease, you would not be harmed by eating a Whole Foods Plant based diet.
There are a lot of reasons why research that would help show this doesn't get funded.

Well there are studies though. And many more being funded because people always question.

And it's not a large majority that is harmed by saturated fat. It's a significant minority. So less than half.

And there are studies that show many people benefit greatly from animal Protein, so I will maintain that while there are ethical, health and other reasons to consider a plant based diet there are many reasons to consider animal protein as well. I fully support you promoting that. But I will encourage people to look at both. Because there is clear evidence on both sides and as you say we can't predict who can benefit from which just yet. We have to experiment on our sample size of one--ourselves. This is why I haven't posted on the protein a holic thread, though I read it with interest. It definitely has a place like this one exploring the science behind animal products does.

I do believe all the science supports staying away from processed foods as much as possible, whether you chose plant based or animal productsZ

[Guest]

I like to have avocado for my fat...I often have guacamole with my chicken and fish and I eat full fat bacon bits in my scrambled eggs w/cheese. I have eggs most morning...I eat two small eggs...the size is perfect. I eat full fat cheese and dairy also...just not alot of either. So far so good

[Apple1 2,572]

24 minutes ago, jess9395 said:

And it's not a large majority that is harmed by saturated fat. It's a significant minority. So less than half.

I have looked at a few recent publications attempting to show that saturated fat is not related to CHD or stroke. I don't have time to post a detailed review, but many of them suffer from issues also.

Siri-Tarino, Sun, et al. 2010 received money from the National Diary Association, the National Beef Council, and Atkins Nutritionals. In this study they eliminated all subjects with high cholesterol, duh that really makes sense when saturated fat raises cholesterol.

Chowdhury, Warnakula, et al. 2014 actually included people who were on lipid lowering medications.

My point is that you can find issues with just about any study if you look hard enough.

The only reason I posted to this thread was because I just can't see recommending high consumption of eggs. I should have just moved right along and ignored it. I raise my own chickens so my eggs are healthier in my opinion (I haven't done any studies) and I am still not going to continue eating them. There are plenty of doctors that have switched their diets to plant based, and all truly believe the evidence is clear even if it is not proven with double blind clinical studies.

The reason I posted the link to the Campbell article is his statement that there is not 100% verifiable proof that a WFPB diet optimizes health for all people at all times, but he still feels comfortable that the closer we get to consuming WFPB diet the healthier we will be. The data support this, but do not prove it. This is good enough for me. I understand the political climate with which researchers must always deal with. If you have research that disagrees with the current political party you can be sure that if you are a government scientist, it won't be published. You must also always try to follow the money with any published research.

I will see how well my blood work improves over time. My cholesterol and triglycerides have gotten worse eating a low carb diet with moderate to high Protein and fats. I refused a statin drug preferring to to use diet and exercise, and of course the WLS, to hopefully lower my numbers.

One diet is not right for all people, but I believe there is evidence and support for making this change for me. I hope this debate can encourage people to look at studies objectively and decide for themselves. Nutrition is not my specialty, but I do understand the big money, conflicts of interest, and bias involved in many of these studies.