“To egg, or not to egg” — why’s this even a question?

Are we really still debating the nutritional value of eggs? And spending precious research dollars to investigate a question we answered a long time ago? Have these researchers been living under a rock?!

The answer is, of course. The more things change, the more they stay the same. And nowhere is that truer than in the backwards world of mainstream nutritional advice. Where every foregone conclusion is magically reframed as a massive breakthrough on a daily basis.

Behold the latest case in point: It took a group of researchers an entire year to determine it was safe for overweight, diabetic patients to eat a dozen eggs or more every week —without an increase in heart disease, compared to those who only ate two eggs or less per week.

The researchers so eloquently concluded, “These findings suggest that it is safe for persons at high risk of [type 2 diabetes] and those with [type 2 diabetes] to include eggs, in their diet regularly.”

Well, geez, I could’ve told them that! Maybe they could save themselves some time and effort by subscribing to Reality Health Check…

As I’ve reported time and time again, eggs are as close to a perfect food as you can get.

This may come as a surprise to anyone who hasn’t yet accepted that concerns over dietary cholesterol are a bunch of hogwash — an outdated myth that we shouldn’t be wasting our health care dollars worrying about.

But the sad truth is that there are plenty of these beliefs still out there — which I imagine is how the study I just mentioned got funding in the first place. And we all know that anyone who wants to get their hands on research dollars will be expected to toe the line between real science and a political agenda.

It kills me, but we see it all the time. Any researcher who relies on Big Pharma or Big Agribusiness dollars to pay the mortgage can’t just be honest and say what they mean.

As the real science shows, dietary cholesterol intake has a pretty small impact on blood cholesterol levels. (Dietary fat quality, on the other hand, makes a huge difference in raising your levels.) The American Diabetes Association — who I’d hardly call forward thinking — used to recommend limiting total cholesterol consumption to 300 mg/day. (For reference, one egg contains about 200 mg of cholesterol.)

But even they recently removed this limit.

So let’s set the record straight once and for all: Eggs aren’t bad. Especially if you eat them from happy free-range hens that eat bugs — not antibiotics — as nature intended.

The problem in the U.S. is that eggs are usually commercially produced, which changes their fatty acid ratio for the worse. Not only that, but thanks to the persistent belief that eggs are heartstoppers, they’re still not a common choice of health-conscious people.

In fact, higher egg intake is often associated with other bad habits like smoking, lack of exercise, and higher intake of processed meat. So it seems to me that, really, we’ve been pointing the finger in the wrong direction all along.

Because the fact is that eggs are a bonafide health food. They’re packed with protein and micronutrients tasked with weight management, keeping your eyesight sharp, and maintaining your blood vessels and heart health.

Not only that, but their environmental impact is one of the lowest as far as animal protein goes. A proverbial cherry on top, if there ever was one.

I would hope that this puts the egg controversy to rest once and for all. But you and I both know old myths die hard.

Until next time,

Dr. Fred

Source:

medscape.com/viewarticle/896695