Alright, after reading several posts, I have a question.

Eggs, the incredible and very edible, egg. My Dr. said we shouldn't be eating eggs daily. Maybe twice a week w/ two strips of turkey bacon, would be my cutoff. I see on other posts, when some are giving their daily intake, eggs and turkey bacon seem to be a daily thing. Also, oatmeal, many people will have that for breakfast and I've become deathly afraid of it, due to the carbs. My Dr. said the same thing, he said oatmeal would be something he's okay w/ me eating.

What's going on here, did I miss something?

31 minutes ago, Apple1 said:

I personally wouldn't eat eggs daily. I never thought I would be saying this, but the research I have been doing points to better health when animal Proteins, eggs included, are more of a condiment and not the main focus or portion of the diet. Dr. Garth Davis wrote the book Proteinaholic and he presents the research very well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

http://nutritionstudies.org/questioning-the-ethics-science-of-a-pure-vegan-diet/

Just a couple of links for you to check out.

I don't think I will eat them every day, but I will eat them a bit more than I have. I would eat maybe one egg twice weekly, in the past. I'll add a bit more, but I will not go overboard.

Here is another link (based wholly on science and facts) about eggs:

https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/eggs/

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-the-egg-board-designs-misleading-studies/

Edited August 21, 20178 yr by Newme17

I used to believe this, but the science just does not support this. People thought they were eating low fat, but they really weren't. I can eat heart healthy without eating processed foods.
The populations or cultures with the least amount of heart disease and type 2 diabetes, are from Blue Zones. These people live longer healthier lives eating more plants, whole grains, and very little animal protein or processed foods.

Yes you can DEFINITELY eat heart healthy whole foods, silly to think otherwise.

Re--the blue zones. Trouble wth those studies is they are correlation not causation. The populations of those cultures are different in other significant ways too including genetics and societal norms/values/customs (collectivistic vs individualistic) and many other ways. Could be a any one or combination of things in effect, we don't know.

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.

1 minute ago, jess9395 said:

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.

"Just because we’ve been dealt some bad genetic cards doesn’t mean we can’t reshuffle the deck with diet." Dr Greger

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/from-table-to-able/

I personally wouldn't eat eggs daily. I never thought I would be saying this, but the research I have been doing points to better health when animal proteins, eggs included, are more of a condiment and not the main focus or portion of the diet. Dr. Garth Davis wrote the book Proteinaholic and he presents the research very well.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/
http://nutritionstudies.org/questioning-the-ethics-science-of-a-pure-vegan-diet/

Just a couple of links for you to check out.

I didn't enter the fray on the protein a holic thread because I believe that there are definitely ethical arguments for it and it definitely promotes health in some populations. BUT even the links you provide are not science based studies or even correlational or literature review studies. They are arguments based on ethics, reasoning and a few case studies.

I have no doubt that animal protein works best for SOME PEOPLE as an occasional basis or condiment. But there is no science that shows it works best that way across populations.

There are studies that show that many processed foods are not best practices for anyone (corn syrup, partially hydrogenated or "trans" fats) but nutritional sciences are really developing fields and most of the studies are showing they are genetically based and not one size fits all.

@Apple1 ?

Here is another link (based wholly on science and facts) about eggs:

https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/eggs/

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-the-egg-board-designs-misleading-studies/

Except the conclusion made based on those studies are already out dated because they are based on the assumption that saturated fat is bad in all people.

That has been disproven. The effect of saturated fat is variable based on individual genetics. They've even discovered the particular gene responsible for the tendency to gain weight more rapidly when you have a diet high in saturated fat.

4 minutes ago, jess9395 said:

Except the conclusion made based on those studies are already out dated because they are based on the assumption that saturated fat is bad in all people.

That has been disproven. The effect of saturated fat is variable based on individual genetics. They've even discovered the particular gene responsible for the tendency to gain weight more rapidly when you have a diet high in saturated fat.

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.

6 minutes ago, Newme17 said:

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.

I know, that there is little I can say to refute your belief. The harder I would try to do that, the harder you would argue to sustain and perpetuate your belief and the belief you have in the author + Colin Cambell. But serious reality is: 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. I did not read or see Jess being negative. She merely presented her position to your opinions. The doctor's book is based on his beliefs, not on cold hard science. Same with the China Study. Proof by association will never be a paradigm I can get behind and risk my health about adopting those eating habits. Wasn't Keys enough for everyone? I have 100lbs sitting on my aspirin bottle thanks to him and his Association theories.

29 minutes ago, jess9395 said:

Yes you can DEFINITELY eat heart healthy whole foods, silly to think otherwise.

Re--the blue zones. Trouble wth those studies is they are correlation not causation. The populations of those cultures are different in other significant ways too including genetics and societal norms/values/customs (collectivistic vs individualistic) and many other ways. Could be a any one or combination of things in effect, we don't know.

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.

Of course more research is always needed. Many of these studies do not prove 100% that eating a Whole Foods plant based diet will save you from developing heart disease or cancer. However the weight of the evidence is clear and it is enough to convince me to transition away from animal proteins.

If you look at some of the populations studied one of them had a high genetic potential for type 2 diabetes, however they did not develop the disease until they moved away from their native diet to a more western one which included higher amounts of animal products.

I can find the study later. I am not trying to convince anyone though. I just wanted to present another opinion which has its basis in science.

1 minute ago, FluffyChix said:

I know, that there is little I can say to refute your belief. The harder I would try to do that, the harder you would argue to sustain and perpetuate your belief and the belief you have in the author + Colin Cambell. But serious reality is: 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. I did not read or see Jess being negative. She merely presented her position to your opinions. The doctor's book is based on his beliefs, not on cold hard science. Same with the China Study. Proof by association will never be a paradigm I can get behind and risk my health about adopting those eating habits. Wasn't Keys enough for everyone? I have 100lbs sitting on my aspirin bottle thanks to him and his Association theories.

It's not even the doctor of Proteinaholic I was talking about, he didn't spend his lifetime studying diet, although he does dispel the myth about a lot of stuff and it's not based on opinion either. So....

@Apple1 says it much nicer than me. Lol

10 minutes ago, Apple1 said:

Of course more research is always needed. Many of these studies do not prove 100% that eating a Whole Foods plant based diet will save you from developing heart disease or cancer. However the weight of the evidence is clear and it is enough to convince me to transition away from animal Proteins.

If you look at some of the populations studied one of them had a high genetic potential for type 2 diabetes, however they did not develop the disease until they moved away from their native diet to a more western one which included higher amounts of animal products.

I can find the study later. I am not trying to convince anyone though. I just wanted to present another opinion which has its basis in science.

But this is not a true statement. The weight of the evidence does NOT prove it. It's an erroneous conclusion based on inaccurate data. (And I think you are discussing the Okinawan population. And it's a great example of WHY association will NEVER prove causation. 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.)

(@heycrystal2052 (don't know how to make this a link?), sorry for blowing up your post! )

Edited August 21, 20178 yr by FluffyChix

28 minutes ago, FluffyChix said:

Okinawan rates of heart disease are now almost equal to western civs

Because they adopted the western diet.

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.