88 year old man ate 25 eggs daily for 15+ years with no cholesterol or heart disease

[paulinkansas]

Do you think the people that buy the fart jars ever open them?

There are some women that sell their dirty worn underwear on ebay, CL and FB.

I suppose if you sell them for what you paid for them you have a lifetime supply of free new underwear.

[Mrpb]

New data, published April 2022; Associations of Dietary Cholesterol, Serum Cholesterol, and Egg Consumption With Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality: Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis

Conclusions:
In this prospective cohort study and updated meta-analysis, greater dietary cholesterol and egg consumption were associated with increased risk of overall and CVD-related mortality. Our findings support restricted consumption of dietary cholesterol as a means to improve long-term health and longevity.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1...AHA.121.057642

[EiFit91]

New data, published April 2022; Associations of Dietary Cholesterol, Serum Cholesterol, and Egg Consumption With Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality: Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis

Conclusions:
In this prospective cohort study and updated meta-analysis, greater dietary cholesterol and egg consumption were associated with increased risk of overall and CVD-related mortality. Our findings support restricted consumption of dietary cholesterol as a means to improve long-term health and longevity.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1...AHA.121.057642

Is there an open access version of this somewhere to your knowledge? Can't get access to it unfortunately

[Mrpb]

Is there an open access version of this somewhere to your knowledge? Can't get access to it unfortunately

Can't find it either. Interesting stuff...

The updated meta-analysis of cohort studies on the basis of 49 risk estimates, 3 601 401 participants, and 255 479 events showed consumption of 1 additional 50-g egg daily was associated with significantly increased CVD risk (pooled relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00–1.08]; I2=80.1%). In the subgroup analysis of geographic regions (Pinteraction=0.02), an increase of 50-g egg consumed daily was associated with a higher risk of CVD in US cohorts (pooled relative risk, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.02–1.14]) and appeared related to a higher CVD risk in European cohorts with borderline significance (pooled relative risk, 1.05), but was not associated with CVD risk in Asian cohorts.

[EiFit91]

Can't find it either. Interesting stuff...

The updated meta-analysis of cohort studies on the basis of 49 risk estimates, 3 601 401 participants, and 255 479 events showed consumption of 1 additional 50-g egg daily was associated with significantly increased CVD risk (pooled relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00–1.08]; I2=80.1%). In the subgroup analysis of geographic regions (Pinteraction=0.02), an increase of 50-g egg consumed daily was associated with a higher risk of CVD in US cohorts (pooled relative risk, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.02–1.14]) and appeared related to a higher CVD risk in European cohorts with borderline significance (pooled relative risk, 1.05), but was not associated with CVD risk in Asian cohorts.

"pooled relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00–1.08]; I2=80.1%"

This in particular caught my attention as it didn't seem like strong evidence in statistical terms as it seems like that association is barely statistically significant (if I understand this correctly, I am assuming the relevant null hypothesis is that the relative risk is equal to 1) so I wanted to look into the article for more details. With that many observations I'd expect a CI further away from 1 under the assumption that the actual relative risk is larger than 1. Seems intuitively easier to square that CI with an assumption that the true relative risk = 1 but I wouldn't push that intuition since I haven't read the article

And the I2 = 80.1% also suggests that there's a lot of inconsistency in results across studies included (source: http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/epri...lysisPaper.pdf)

[Heisman2]

I read through it and the linked editorial. The editorial is quite interesting. It shows that if you take the cohort data (not from the meta-analysis, but from the single study):

1. If you consume cholesterol-containing foods yielding 300 mg cholesterol daily compared to foods without cholesterol (matched for total calories and macro ratios), then the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cancer mortality are 1.10, 1.13, and 1.06, all significant.
2. If you consume 1 egg daily compared to no eggs (matched for total calories and macro ratios) then the hazard ratios are 1.06, 1.09, and 1.04, all significant.
3. If you consume 1 egg daily compared to equal calories of non-egg cholesterol-containing foods (butter, milk, sausage, beef, pork, cheese, fish, other) (matched for total calories and macro ratios) then the hazard ratios are 0.91, 0.92, and 0.93 (only the 1st is significant).

Thus, if anything, in the individual cohort eggs may be protective. Perhaps other foods with cholesterol that also have greater saturated fat lead to greater risk.

Regarding the full meta-analysis, similar findings have been found previously of relatively weak associations that differ by geographic location. I'm skeptical it is the eggs and rather reflects unmeasured confounding variables.

I will say one caveat is that pretty much none of the studies consider how eggs are prepared (ie, fried vs scrambled vs hard-boiled). Perhaps in Asian countries they prepare them in a healthier way and that leads to the difference in associations seen.

[Mrpb]

@Heisman, I just read the part about eggs on your website. Not sure if you knew but that 2022 review you're citing was written by Fernandez, who has received a lot of money from the American Egg Board. The fact that she doesn't disclose this in the paper makes it even more suspicious imo. I've never seen her publish any study in which eggs came out bad.

[Heisman2]

@Heisman, I just read the part about eggs on your website. Not sure if you knew but that 2022 review you're citing was written by Fernandez, who has received a lot of money from the American Egg Board. The fact that she doesn't disclose this in the paper makes it even more suspicious imo. I've never seen her publish any study in which eggs came out bad.

Thanks for the tip, I'll add that in. Not disclosing that is a red flag. I need to include this new analysis as well.

[jaxqen]

He could have created a youtube channel called "Eat eggs, create farts, disregard b!tches"
Just record yourself as you eat eggs
Now and then, after a fart, say something about females
Since he has Alzheimer, he could say anything... "those wh@res stole my horse again, where is my horse?"
He would get some tens of thousands followers
All kinds of youtube comments
Influencer

[LiftNutz]

If this man ate 25 eggs every day for 15 years and did not develop cholesterol or heart disease, then it is safe to say that eggs are not necessarily bad for your health. It is also possible that this man's body was able to process the cholesterol from the eggs more efficiently than other people's bodies.

[Heisman2]

If this man ate 25 eggs every day for 15 years and did not develop cholesterol or heart disease, then it is safe to say that eggs are not necessarily bad for your health. It is also possible that this man's body was able to process the cholesterol from the eggs more efficiently than other people's bodies.

He did process it much more efficiently, they actually show that in the paper. Further supports anyone who is curious for themselves should get a lipid profile (likely 4 weeks) after establishing a new egg-consuming routine.