What’s Wrong with Eggs?

By Susan Levin, M.S., R.D. | Posted on September 3, 2013

A common question I hear as a dietitian (second only to “Where do you get your protein?” of course) is “What’s wrong with eggs?”

Where to begin? Let’s start with the obvious egg facts. Eggs have zero dietary fiber, and about 70 percent of their calories are from fat—a big portion of which is saturated. They are also loaded with cholesterol—about 213 milligrams for an average-sized egg. For reference, people with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or high cholesterol should consume fewer than 200 milligrams of cholesterol each day. (Uh oh.) And, humans have no biological need to consume any cholesterol at all; we make more than enough in our own bodies.

Why so much fat and cholesterol in such a tiny package? Think about it: eggs hold every piece of the puzzle needed to produce a new life. Within that shell lies the capacity to make feathers, eyes, a beak, a brain, a heart, and so on. It takes a lot of stuff to make such a complex being.

In addition to these excessive (for humans) natural components of an egg, other human-health hazards exist. Because eggshells are fragile and porous, and conditions on egg farms are crowded, eggs are the perfect host for salmonella—the leading cause of food poisoning in the U.S.

Those are some facts and figures. But how do eggs affect real people in real life? Luckily, researchers have conducted good studies to help answer that question.

Cancer

In a 1992 analysis of dietary habits, people who consumed just 1.5 eggs per week had nearly five times the risk for colon cancer, compared with those who consumed hardly any (fewer than 11 per year), according to the International Journal of Cancer. The World Health Organization analyzed data from 34 countries in 2003 and found that eating eggs is associated with death from colon and rectal cancers. And a 2011 study funded by the National Institutes of Healthshowed that eating eggs is linked to developing prostate cancer. By consuming 2.5 eggs per week, men increased their risk for a deadly form of prostate cancer by 81 percent, compared with men who consumed less than half an egg per week. Finally, even moderate egg consumption tripled the risk of developing bladder cancer, according to a 2005 study published in International Urology and Nephrology.

Diabetes

A review of fourteen studies published earlier this year in the journalAtherosclerosis showed that people who consumed the most eggs increased their risk for diabetes by 68 percent, compared with those who ate the fewest.

In a 2008 publication for the Physicians’ Health Study I, which included more than 21,000 participants, researchers found that those who consumed seven or more eggs per week had an almost 25 percent increased risk of death compared to those with the lowest egg consumption. The risk of death for participants with diabetes who ate seven or more eggs per week was twice as high as for those who consumed the least amount of eggs.

Egg consumption also increases the risk of gestational diabetes, according to two 2011 studies referenced in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Women who consumed the most eggs had a 77 percent increased risk of diabetes in one study and a 165 percent increased risk in the other, compared with those who consumed the least.

Heart Disease

Researchers published a blanket warning in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology, informing readers that ceasing egg consumption after a heart attack would be “a necessary act, but late.” In the previously mentioned 14-study review, researchers found that people who consumed the most eggs increased their risk for cardiovascular disease by 19 percent, and if those people already had diabetes, the risk for developing heart disease jumped to 83 percent with increased egg consumption.

New research published this year has shown that a byproduct of choline, a component that is particularly high in eggs, increases one’s risk for a heart attack, stroke, and death.

Animal Protein

Inevitably, this discussion also leads to another question: “Even egg whites?” Yes, even egg whites are trouble. The reason most people purport to eat egg whites is also the reason they should be wary — egg whites are a very concentrated source of animal protein (remember, the raw material for all those yet-to-be-developed body parts?). Because most Westerners get far more protein than they need, adding a concentrated source of it to the diet can increase the risk for kidney disease, kidney stones, and some types of cancer.

By avoiding eggs and consuming more plant-based foods, you will not only decrease your intake of cholesterol, saturated fat, and animal protein, but also increase your intake of protective fiber, antioxidants, and phytochemicals. Be smart! Skip the eggs and enjoy better health!

Susan Levin, M.S., R.D.

Susan Levin, M.S., R.D., is director of nutrition education at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting preventive medicine. Ms. Levin researches and writes about the connection between plant-based diets and a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

More Red Meat = More Diabetes

Renowned Harvard nutritionist gives us even more reason to cut back on the carne.

July 31, 2013

Steve Holt

Higher Red Meat Consumption Linked to Diabetes — Once again, a medical study finds significant health risks, like diabetes, in the consumption of red meat. (Photo: Diane Diederich/Getty Images)

On Sunday, the Boston Globe Magazine featured a profile of Harvard professor Walter Willett, calling him the “world’s most influential nutritionist.” Willett’s influence comes as much from his ability to debunk or reframe studies about food and nutrition as it does from his original work.

In the long and very interesting article, Globe writer Neil Swidey mentions a recent study of Willett’s that was released in June: A new look at the 123,000 people involved in a 20-year study ending in 2006 found elevated red-meat consumption to be linked with an increase in diabetes.

According to the study, conducted by Willett and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health, participants who ate at least a half serving more red meat over a four-year period were 48 percent more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes in the following four years. Conversely, those who lowered their meat consumption by more than half a serving per day decreased their diabetes risk. The research was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Previous studies have connected red meat intake with an increased risk of diabetes, but Willett’s study was the first to show that eating more meat raises a person’s risk—and vice versa. Red meat is defined by the United States Department of Agriculture as that which comes from mammals, while white meat comes from poultry and fish.

Not surprisingly, the meat lobby strongly refutes such claims—“nothing to see here, folks!”—and frequently attempts to dismiss studies that are critical of meat on propaganda websites like MeatPoultryNutrition.org and MeatSafety.org.

“While some recent studies have generated headlines linking meat to different ailments, it is important to remember that conditions like heart disease, cancer and diabetes are complex conditions that cannot simply be caused by any one food,” American Meat Institute spokesman Eric Mittenthal told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

On the FAQs page of MeatPoultryNutrition.org, a site run by an industry lobby group called the American Meat Institute, pleads for readers to not give up their meat: “The wisest course of action is a balanced diet, weight control, plenty of exercise and a healthy degree of skepticism about the ‘study of the week,’ ” the site reads.

But Willett’s four decades of research and consistently reliable findings are difficult to dismiss wholesale. And while he admits further study is necessary to account for lifestyle and other health factors, Willett and his colleagues believe the strong connection found between red meat and diabetes warrants people cutting back on their consumption of beef, pork or lamb (giving up meat on Mondays may be a good place to start).

And as we’ve reported numerous times, we are eating less meat, overall.Americans’ meat consumption dropped by more than 12 percent between 2007 and 2012—an amount that equals a half-pound of meat per person, per day.

If Willett’s findings hold true, the result of a less meat-centric diet may be a reduction in the instances of diabetes among Americans, which has skyrocketed in recent years. And that will be great news indeed

Diabetes Treatments Do More Harm Than Good

John McDougall, MD

Dr John McDougall

Undeniable Evidence: Diabetes Treatments Do More Harm Than Good

Glucose Control and Vascular Complications in Veterans with Type 2 Diabetes by William Duckworth in the December 17, 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine found, “Intensive glucose control in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes had no significant effect on the rates of major cardiovascular events, death, or microvascular complications.”¹This study, called the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) was of 1791 military veterans (mean age 60.4 years) who had a suboptimal response to therapy for type-2 diabetes. They were assigned to receive either intensive- or standard-glucose control and studied for 5.6 years. The intensive-therapy reduced the Hemoglobin A1c levels to 6.9%; compared to 8.4% in the standard-therapy group. The patients were also put on aspirin and a statin.

A weight gain of 18 pounds occurred with the intensive-treatment compared to 9 pounds with standard-therapy. There were 95 deaths from any cause in the standard-therapy group and 102 in the intensive-therapy group. In the intensive-therapy group, the number of sudden deaths was nearly three times the number as those in the standard-therapy group (11 vs. 4). More patients in the intensive-therapy group had at least one serious adverse event, predominantly hypoglycemia, than in the standard-therapy group.

These pharmaceutical companies—Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Kos Pharmaceuticals, and Amylin—provided medications and financial support for the study.

Comment: This is the third industry-funded study published this year showing aggressive treatment hurts patients. On June 12, 2008 the ACCORD* trial and ADVANCE** trials were also published in the New England Journal of Medicine.^2,3Together, the effect of these three well-designed randomized studies should be enough to halt aggressive prescribing of diabetic pills and insulin to type-2 diabetics.Will this overwhelming evidence change how doctors practice? Probably not. Drug companies have millions of advertising dollars dedicated to emphasizing any slight benefits their drug treatments may show and minimizing the harms. In this manner they convince doctors to prescribe and patients to buy useless and harmful products. Most doctors are too afraid of lawsuits to stand up for the patients and against the drug companies. To change current practice, doctors need to fear being sued for too aggressively treating patients. Even more, they need to fear being sued for failing to prescribe the correct treatment for type-2 diabetics—a change in diet. None of these three studies published in one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals taught dietary and lifestyle modification to their patients.

Currently, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a diabetic medication requires evidence that the drug will lower blood sugar—not that it improves the patient’s life. The title of my February 2008 newsletter describes the results of such narrowly focused therapy: “Intensive Therapy Means Dying Sooner with Better Looking Numbers.” The FDA is as of December 2008 recommending that all new drugs developed for the treatment of type-2 diabetes show that they do not increase the risk of cardiovascular events. However, this is not a requirement, just a recommendation or suggestion to the pharmaceutical companies.⁴

Eating the rich western diet causes type-2 diabetes. My February 2004 newsletterprovides details on the cause and how a change in diet will cure essentially all type-2 diabetics—at the same time causing them to lose weight, reverse heart disease, and dramatically improve their overall health.

*ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes

**ADVANCE = Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation

1) Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, Reda D, Emanuele N, Reaven PD, Zieve FJ, Marks J, Davis SN, Hayward R, Warren SR, Goldman S, McCarren M, Vitek ME, Henderson WG, Huang GD; the VADT Investigators. Glucose Control and Vascular Complications in Veterans with Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008 Dec 17. [Epub ahead of print]

2) Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group, Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, Goff DC Jr, Bigger JT, Buse JB, Cushman WC, Genuth S, Ismail-Beigi F, Grimm RH Jr, Probstfield JL, Simons-Morton DG, Friedewald WT. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jun 12;358(24):2545-59.

3) ADVANCE Collaborative Group, Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, Neal B, Billot L, Woodward M, Marre M, Cooper M, Glasziou P, Grobbee D, Hamet P, Harrap S, Heller S, Liu L, Mancia G, Mogensen CE, Pan C, Poulter N, Rodgers A, Williams B, Bompoint S, de Galan BE, Joshi R, Travert F. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jun 12;358(24):2560-72.

Inaugural Plant-based Nutrition Healthcare Conference

“Type 2 diabetes trends indicate a looming pandemic with incalculable consequences. We’re putting into our bodies foods we were not designed to eat. When we consume a plant-based diet, our bodies begin to recover. We now understand how to prevent and reverse disease: Type 2 diabetes is a disease that never has to occur; it can be prevented and reversed with a whole foods, plant-based lifestyle.“ —Neal Barnard, MD
For more information, visit http://www.pbnhc.com.
Thursday, October 24 – Saturday, October 26, 2013 • Naples Beach Hotel & Golf Club
CME Accredited, Inaugural Plant-based Nutrition Healthcare Conference
Conference Overview
Breaking new ground, this medical conference transcends the individual experience comprised of anecdotal stories and historical research typically associated with plant-based diets. The conference objective is to prove the benefits of the dietary lifestyle through a review of current and progressive scientific research evidencing the preventive and disease fighting capabilities of plant-based, whole foods nutrition. Geared toward medical doctors from a variety of specialty areas, as well as all other healthcare practitioners, the conference is being presented with a commitment to intellectual integrity, without bias or influence.
Our Vision
A nation in which physicians and allied healthcare professionals have received thorough education about the foundational pillar of prevention: a whole foods, plant-based dietary protocol. A sustainable, financially sound healthcare system wherein
nutritional medicine and its proven ability to prevent, suspend and even reverse virtually all chronic disease, as well as many autoimmune diseases, is fully integrated throughout the healthcare practice spectrum.
For physicians and healthcare practitioners to enthusiastically embrace the health-protecting potency of a whole food, plant-based diet; in turn, effectively promoting patient and client adoption. The result: Transformation of medical practices, resulting in transformed and dramatically enhanced health and well-being of the patients and clients served.
Our Mission
The mission is to produce physician and allied healthcare professional educational opportunities, with scientific substantiation as the core principle. This is for the specific purpose of showcasing outstanding leaders in nutritional medicine and disease prevention and reversal.
The goal is to educate, equip and empower the gatekeepers of dietary-related advice—our nation’s physicians and healthcare practitioners—about the power of plant-based nutrition, providing compelling resources they, in turn, can use to inform and inspire their patients and clients to adopt the optimal whole foods, plant-based dietary lifestyle.
Who Should Attend?
Practitioners of family medicine, internal medicine, chiropractic, cardiology, endocrinology, immunology,
oncology, urology, gynecology, geriatrics, pediatrics, lifestyle medicine, integrative medicine, physiatry, surgery, neurology, psychiatry, and rheumatology.
In addition, because of the relevancy of nutritional medicine, this conference’s subject matter is ideal for allied healthcare practitioners representing a broad spectrum: physician assistants, nurse practitioners, health coaches, and registered dietitians—those dedicated to empowering patients and clients with the most proven disease prevention

Good question Finlay

Why is the school nurse promoting dairy as a necessary and good food choice for the children?

Good question Finlay.

The very simple answer is that your mind has been captured by your parents’ acceptance of milk as a great food. Your Dad assumed it was a good product because his mom and I made it available to him.

Why do we accept milk, or any other product, as being good for us? Because, we trust our Mom and Dad to make the right choices for us.

Unfortunately, the Dairy industry has been brain washing school children for years. Even when your Bumpa went to school, we had a nurse come around and tell us how good milk was 67 years ago.

So, you can see we have been listening to the dairy industry for too long without questioning them.

It is hard to believe that we have all been deceived by this one group. The problem gets worse if you consider the nurse truly believes that she is telling you the truth. She and her parents were misled as well.

So we now have a belief system that says milk is good for you no matter what.

So, again, your mind has just accepted that milk is good for you without question. This is not because you are complacent, or not thoughtful. It is because you are trusting of your parents’ choices and of what the nurse is telling you.

The dairy industry wants us to be complacent, docile and subservient and not to question them or their products.

I know that you will make an informed decision on this topic as you make yourself aware of the real facts. The facts are as follows:

Dairy products will make you fat, they will clog your arteries with plaque, promote heart disease, obesity, and, worst of all, cancer. The protein in milk is a known carcinogen, that is, it promotes the growth of cancer once cancer is initiated. Most sinful of all, milk contributes to diabetes in infants and reduces the lives of many children to a life-long disease dependent on insulin medications to stay alive. The dairy industry has been warned and prohibited from promoting cows’ milk for consumption by children under 2 years old.

So, you see Finlay, there are other opinions but generally dissenting views are not published or supported by the establishment. By the way, acne and facial pock marks can be attributed to milk consumption by teenagers. Look good, avoid dairy.

That is why it is up to you to do one very important thing.

“THINK”

Milk-diabetes Connection


CANADA confirms the milk-diabetes connection.

Early exposure to milk proteins is accepted as the cause of
diabetes.

REPORT ON DIABETES AND MILK CONSUMPTION WED, 23 JUNE, 1999

Investigator Dr.John Dupre, M.D., at the London Health
Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, has a new study, still
unpublished, which provides absolute proof of the missing
link that has been so controversial.

CANADIAN TELEVISION

CTV reported this story.

"It's a controversial theory that now has new scientific
fuel...can cow's milk trigger diabetes in children who are
prone to the disease?"

The study suggests that if babies considered at risk of
developing the disease are taken off cow's milk formula they
may be protected against getting diabetes later in life.

SCIENTISTS ASK THIS QUESTION

"Can juvenile diabetes be PREVENTED in children at risk of
the disease simply by eliminating cow's milk from their
diet?"

THE ANSWER - Dr John Vandermullen

Dr.John Vandermuellen's response:

"The data is building that there may in fact be something
there."

Vandermuellen and a number of Canadian researchers helped
design a study conducted on 200 infants in Finland.  The
children all had a family history of diabetes.  After being
breast fed, they were given either cow's milk or an infant
formula modified to eliminate cow's milk protein.  By the
time the children were age two there was a striking
difference between the two groups.

Among the children who avoided cow's milk formula, nearly 2%
showed signs of possible diabetes development.  Among those
given the cow's milk, over 12% had signs that diabetes could
be developing.

MILK PROTEINS CAUSE DIABETES

The theory is that milk proteins in the cow's milk may
trigger the child's immune system to attack it, along with
similar looking BETA-cells in the pancreas that produce
insulin.

The data are so intriguing that Canadian researchers have
begun an even larger study on thousands of children at
fourteen diabetes centers across Canada.

Susan Levin, M.S., R.D.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: