Let's talk about eggs

[cheetahrunwild]

yes. eat eggs. good source for vegetarians for omega's. good for PMS. PROTEIN. not fat.

 

[modern buddha]

^ What's wrong with fat in your diet?

 

[cheetahrunwild]

i meant a lot of people have the misconception that "eggs are fat, other than the white" have increased eggs steadily as well as omega 3s from nut sources last month and this is the least painful time of the month i've had in a year, i recommend it for the ladies.

 

[L2R]

ok, so i've been eating at least 3 hardboiled eggs each work day (sometimes more) consistantly for over a year now, and i just got my blood checked and my cholesterol (and everything else) is fine.

 

[ebola?]

I've said this numerous times, but dietary intake of cholesterol has a negligible effect on serum cholesterol. It's really other dietary and lifestyle factors that determine serum cholesterol levels, via influence of the endogenous synthesis of cholesterol. Thus, eggs are fine.

50-80g is what i try to aim for. I would class 80grams of protein as a high protein diet.

From what I've read, 50 gm / day seems to be what is necessary for maintaining excellent health. 80 gm / day is appropriate for a training endurance athlete. 1.5 gm / lb of body weight / day is the upper limit for what is useful for a competitive body builder aiming for bulk. The later quantity is also likely where kidney strain begins to become an issue for healthy individuals.

When I was a vegan, I would routinely take in ~80 gm / day without trying. Attaining adequate protein intake is not difficult at all, unless you have an absolutely abysmal diet, based on potatoes and candy or something.

ebola

 

[L2R]

^yes, i know. a couple of posters have been saying it. i'm just supporting it with evidence.


mmmmm potatoes and candy *drools*

 

[slimvictor]

Eggs have a lot of protein, but at what cost?

What I mean is that, if you get 50 grams of protein from eggs - this is about 2 eggs' worth- you have just ingested 750 calories (or about one-third of your daily total), 57 grams of fat including 17 grams of saturated fat, 1.5 grams of cholesterol (500% recommended daily limit), 1.25 grams sodium (more than half of your daily limit), and gotten zero fiber, 2% of your vitamin C, around 50% of your vitamin A, 21% of your iron, and 34% of your calcium. See link here.

If you instead got 50 grams of protein from broccoli, you would have eaten almost the same number of calories (~700), but you would have gotten just 7 grams of fat, essentially zero saturated fat, zero cholesterol, 800 mg sodium, 65 grams of fiber, 2100% of your daily vitamin C, almost 600% of your daily vitamin A, around 75% of your daily calcium, and 70% of your iron.

What's more, broccoli has an abundance of nearly every vitamin and mineral humans need. See here.
Eggs are most definitely NOT a complete food.
If you compare the "completeness scores" for the two, you will see this. (Eggs=43/100, Broccoli =92/100)

The real problem is that the calories from the egg replace calories that could have been more complete, with vitamins and minerals.
So, someone who eats lots of broccoli (and/or other veggies) can probably eat an egg a day without a huge problem. Someone who eats few veggies should probably keep away from eggs.

That said, if you are not eating organic eggs, it is very, very likely that there are antibiotics, hormones, genetically-modified organisms (depending on the country - the chickens are fed genetically modified corn and soybeans), pesticides, and herbicides in your eggs.

If you are not eating free-range eggs, you are supporting a system of cruelty, in which chickens live their entire lives in tiny cages without ever seeing the sun. This drives them crazy, so they peck at each other's bodies terribly - or at least they used to do so. The egg industry figured out what to do about this - they solder off the beaks of every chick they get from day one. (Also gotta give 'em antibiotics to keep diseases down, since their natural immune systems are compromised by the living conditions, and this ultimately makes antibiotic-resistant diseases which affect humans.)

So my opinion on eggs is this: organic, free-range eggs in moderation, as part of a balanced diet, can be relatively healthy.
Eating bacon and eggs for breakfast, then getting an egg on your hamburger for lunch, seems to me to be missing balance, and it seems unhealthy.

^ What's wrong with fat in your diet?

Nothing, unless you get too much (or too little).
Or, you can get a bad balance of fats (say, lots of saturated fats and trans-fatty acids, and not enough omega 3's and 6's).

 

[modern buddha]

^ The way doctors arrive at those "completeness" scores is by a chart they make. They say "okay, saturated fat is bad, fibre is good, protein is good, and the fewer calories, the better" (this is in general. I do not have the algorithms on hand).

Broccoli: low in calories, high in protein and high in fiber compared to calorie count. Therefore, this food is deemed "excellent".
Eggs: high in calories and fat for the amount you eat, high in protein and no fiber. The fiber and saturated fat are what kills their "score".

The way these doctors arrive at the score is, of course, based on what the group thinks is good and not good. While I agree that you should probably be eating more broccoli and greens than eggs, I do believe eggs are a very nutritious food to eat.

I personally have been eating a dozen eggs a week on average. I've changed my diet as part of an experiment to a high meat/eggs/veggies and low sugar/grain diet. I have to say that even though I'm feeling a bit woozie right now, I've felt much better and feel calmer during my day.

 

[Miss_vanilla]

The whole idea of a healthy diet is a varied one - this means lots of vitamins, minerals, fibre and fats from different sources. It also means you'll stick to a healthy diet longer term if it's interesting and tastes good. Broccoli is super healthy, along with all vegetables but I wouldn't replace an egg with a plate of broccoli - they're both healthy foods in their own right which I eat regularly.

Insofar as free range -v- organic -v- neither of those things - personally I'm sick and tired of the ethical and social minefield which is grocery shopping now. I do buy organic or free range eggs but my husband and I are financially secure and don't have kids. If you have kids or don't have a lot of money, eating any healthy food is good, including eggs. Everything we buy doesn't have to be organic, super food, super ethical - frankly it's unrealistic to expect that everyone can or will do this. Far better that we not lift the bar so high that people don't eat healthy food at all.

Eggs are healthy - fact. The same way a lot of food is healthy taking into account the way you eat it. Eggs might be high (ish) in fat for the small thing that they are, but the fat is largely healthy fat and for only 80-100 calories for one egg, you get a lot of mileage out of it. I never feel hungry after I eat even one boiled egg, the same way a handful of nuts or a piece of cheese can satisfy me for the longest time as opposed to a piece of toast for example.

I just don't think we need to complicate things unnecessarily, the way diet, food and grocery shopping seems to be these days.

 

[ebola?]

Or, you can get a bad balance of fats (say, lots of saturated fats and trans-fatty acids, and not enough omega 3's and 6's).

If anything, people eating contemporary diets take in far too high a ratio of omega-6s to omega-3s. Omega-6s are to be minimized, particularly if one ingests a significant amount of corn and soybean oil.

The real problem is that the calories from the egg replace calories that could have been more complete, with vitamins and minerals.

Is this really a crucial issue for most people? I would think that most people who eat more eggs would consume less meat rather than fewer veggies.

ebola

 

[L2R]

i like broccoli and have it regularly, but how much of it would need to be eaten to get 50g of protein?

 

[ebola?]

A quick web search suggests ~10-12 cups (~2.4-2.8 liters). Prepare to be doing some shitting, mane.

ebola

 

[L2R]

i can see myself getting sick of that pretty quickly

although i do enjoy my throne time. get lots of osmos and mahjong gaming done there.

 

[slimvictor]

Is this really a crucial issue for most people? I would think that most people who eat more eggs would consume less meat rather than fewer veggies.

ebola

Not in the Standard American Diet.
People eat few veggies, and lots of meat and eggs and potatoes and white flour.
That's why they are so fat.

A quick web search suggests ~10-12 cups (~2.4-2.8 liters). Prepare to be doing some shitting, mane.

ebola

Well, I wasn't suggesting that one should eat only broccoli.
A wide variety of foods is superior to a monodiet.
My point was that protein is abundant in vegetables - I was agreeing with your earlier statement that it is hard to get insufficient protein as a vegetarian unless you live on potatoes and candy (though rice is also very low in protein).
And that, calorie-by-calorie, vegetables are (or, at least, broccoli is) "worth more" than eggs.

^ The way doctors arrive at those "completeness" scores is by a chart they make. They say "okay, saturated fat is bad, fibre is good, protein is good, and the fewer calories, the better" (this is in general. I do not have the algorithms on hand).

Not so much in this case. Check out which essential nutrients are included in the number by looking at the circle on the left side of the page. Are there essential nutrients that you can think of that are missing from the wheel? It seems like they have them pretty well covered to me. The rating / number is based on the quantity of those nutrients in one serving, and not on whether the food has fibre or saturated fat. (There are other graphics on the page where these things are taken into account.)

 

[ebola?]

Not in the Standard American Diet.
People eat few veggies, and lots of meat and eggs and potatoes and white flour.
That's why they are so fat.

I should have been clearer that I was talking about the marginal effects of changing choices. Take someone who currently eats few eggs. Imagine that they decide to eat many eggs. What types of food are they likely to eat less of as a result? I'd imagine it would be meat, bread, or potatoes, not veggies.

Well, I wasn't suggesting that one should eat only broccoli.

I know. It's just fun to think about. I don't think anyone's advocating intake of 50 gm / protein / day via eggs either though.

And that, calorie-by-calorie, vegetables are (or, at least, broccoli is) "worth more" than eggs.

Maybe, but
1. calorie-by-calorie comparison isn't ideal, as in many cases, volume determines level of consumption and
2. this depends on what nutrients are rare in the rest of one's diet. For example, animal sources of DHA are rather expedient, particularly if algae supplementation is prohibitively expensive.

ebola

 

[modern buddha]

Not so much in this case. Check out which essential nutrients are included in the number by looking at the circle on the left side of the page. Are there essential nutrients that you can think of that are missing from the wheel? It seems like they have them pretty well covered to me. The rating / number is based on the quantity of those nutrients in one serving, and not on whether the food has fibre or saturated fat. (There are other graphics on the page where these things are taken into account.)

I understand the list of nutrients, etc. Yes, I do believe broccoli is more "healthy" than eggs, in a way. However, all of these nutrients have been put into an algorithm, which allows them to be given a numerical "nutritional value". However, this is not to say that eggs should be put down as being unhealthy, by any means. All that means is that, based on the algorithm these doctors have conjured from their ... er... studies, I guess, the nutrition (the fat, saturated fat, protein, calories, vitamins and minerals) in these foods have their eyes set on broccoli being much more healthy.

I do agree with your last statement in the first post you made: we really need to try to find out where our stuff is coming from. For me personally, I try to support lifestyles that I can be proud to share with others. Most people in the United States are trying to find a cheap way out of everything and it takes its toll on our bodies and lifestyles because we then find ourselves eating inadequate food-like substances instead of whole foods.

It's such a complicated issue. However, my position still stands: I think eggs are perfectly fine now. I didn't think so before. I also am starting to feel that it's not conventional wisdom that is correct with what's making us unhealthy. I think it's the exact opposite. We're just eating a lot of empty, non-filling calories.

 

[atara]

Broccoli is not a complete food; for one thing, it contains zero vitamin B12, which is essential to health (also zero cholesterol, also essential). Not that "is it healthier than broccoli? LOL" is actually a reasonable test of health. Eggs actually can contain every essential nutrient depending on the diet of the relevant chicken, but eating nothing but eggs is an extremely high protein diet will produce rabbit starvation. Eating nothing but broccoli, on the other hand, will produce plain-old ordinary starvation as it simply isn't possible to eat that much broccoli (you would need to eat twenty pounds of broccoli per day).

All that means is that, based on the algorithm these doctors have conjured from their ... er... studies, I guess, the nutrition (the fat, saturated fat, protein, calories, vitamins and minerals) in these foods have their eyes set on broccoli being much more healthy.

Such algorithms are not generally justified by empirical data and tend to reflect the opinion of the programmer.

What I mean is that, if you get 50 grams of protein from eggs - this is about 2 eggs' worth- you have just ingested 750 calories (or about one-third of your daily total), 57 grams of fat including 17 grams of saturated fat, 1.5 grams of cholesterol (500% recommended daily limit), 1.25 grams sodium (more than half of your daily limit), and gotten zero fiber, 2% of your vitamin C, around 50% of your vitamin A, 21% of your iron, and 34% of your calcium. See link here.

The link makes a number of assumptions about the preparation. A giveaway here is the claim that scrambled eggs contain trans fats -- they do, if you cook them in trans fat -- eggs do not naturally contain any trans fats. Also, 2 eggs will give you 13 grams of protein, not 50! You're thinking of "two servings of their standard serving of scrambled eggs". Which God only knows what goes into them.

 

[slimvictor]

Broccoli is not a complete food; for one thing, it contains zero vitamin B12, which is essential to health (also zero cholesterol, also essential).

No vegetable food "inherently" contains vitamin B12, and neither does meat (by one definition).
It is produced by bacteria in dirt. If the animal gets some of the dirt in its stomach, the meat will have B12.
If the vegetable is not washed thoroughly, it will have B12.

But I am quite sure that you are incorrect about cholesterol.
I have read that our bodies produce all of the cholesterol we need, and that we do not need any dietary cholesterol whatsoever.
This makes sense, because cholesterol is only available in animal products - there is not a single vegetable product that contains any cholesterol. And vegetarian / vegan diets are endorsed by many governmental health-overseeing departments across the world.

(BTW, did you ever notice that cholesterol and fibre are in complementary distribution? All vegetable products contain fibre, and and zero cholesterol, and all animal products contain cholesterol, and zero fibre.)

The link makes a number of assumptions about the preparation. A giveaway here is the claim that scrambled eggs contain trans fats -- they do, if you cook them in trans fat -- eggs do not naturally contain any trans fats. Also, 2 eggs will give you 13 grams of protein, not 50! You're thinking of "two servings of their standard serving of scrambled eggs". Which God only knows what goes into them.

Thanks for pointing this out - I definitely miscalculated.
And you are right that the egg information was for scrambled eggs, and if you don't cook them, you won't have any trans fats.

I should have been clearer that I was talking about the marginal effects of changing choices. Take someone who currently eats few eggs. Imagine that they decide to eat many eggs. What types of food are they likely to eat less of as a result? I'd imagine it would be meat, bread, or potatoes, not veggies.

But such a situation is not realistic. What really happens in the vast majority of cases is that people eat a lot of eggs and meat and potatoes.

Maybe, but
1. calorie-by-calorie comparison isn't ideal, as in many cases, volume determines level of consumption and
2. this depends on what nutrients are rare in the rest of one's diet. For example, animal sources of DHA are rather expedient, particularly if algae supplementation is prohibitively expensive.

ebola

I think that calorie-for-calroie can be a very useful way to compare foods, though I agree that it is not the only way.
Volume doesn't determine the level of food consumption in the long run - someone who fills up on watery soup with bread will get hungry soon afterward, and eat more food, while someone who eats calorie-dense food, such as chocolate (or eggs) will be satiated for longer. Therefore, over a day, it is ultimately the calorie count that really determines one's amount of consumption, more than anything else.

As for the overall balance of one's diet, you are right, of course, that balance is essential, but that is a different question than when trying to make a blanket statement that X is healthier than Y.
If you want to argue that we cannot make such statements without considering the whole diet, I will agree with you.
But, all other things being equal, and considering that most people eating the standard American diet get an excess of fat and protein and small or insufficient amounts of some vitamins, minerals, micronutrients, and antioxidants, I think it is pretty clear that broccoli is healther than eggs.

 

[ebola?]

Therefore, over a day, it is ultimately the calorie count that really determines one's amount of consumption, more than anything else.

While I agree that this is generally true, other criteria matter for when one is trying to add in concentrated sources of nutrition without substituting much out.

If you want to argue that we cannot make such statements without considering the whole diet, I will agree with you.

Yeah, this is where I was going with that.

But, all other things being equal, and considering that most people eating the standard American diet get an excess of fat and protein and small or insufficient amounts of some vitamins, minerals, micronutrients, and antioxidants, I think it is pretty clear that broccoli is healther than eggs.

Given that the SAD contains an overabundance of omega-6s and is deprived of omega-3s, in particular DHA, good sources of the latter two are crucial. But here, consumption of, say, salmon, or better yet marine vegetable fats would be even better than eggs.

ebola

 

[atara]

Not that "is it healthier than broccoli? LOL" is actually a reasonable test of health.

These are not interchangeable foods. They don't taste similar. They don't cook similarly. They aren't even in the same price range. You could not invent a more irrelevant or meaningless comparison than eggs versus broccoli. You might as well compare broccoli to cumin seeds. Check it: three ounces of cumin seeds contains all or most of your entire daily requirement of iron, magnesium, calcium and phosphorus, plus large amounts of B vitamins, vitamin E, zinc, and potassium, along with half your requirement of dietary fiber, plenty of monounsaturated fat (the good kind), and about 15 grams of protein. Blows broccoli right out of the water, up until you realize that cumin is a spice and no sane human will ever eat three ounces of cumin seeds.