Healthcare triage is a channel I quite like, as it's a very accessible source of health information. However, they just released a video I am a bit on the fence about. youtube.com/watch?v=qtqHFLcCVSs
He bring up studies that showed no effect on heart disease risk when people were given eggs. When this argument is brought op I often refer back to this: http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/th ... dible-egg/
At least he agrees drinking cow milk is not the best idea. What do you guys think of the whole cholesterol debate?
Healthcare Triage
-
miniboes
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:52 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Netherlands
Healthcare Triage
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
- David Frum
-
brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10332
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Healthcare Triage
I'm skeptical of anybody who likes to eat eggs defending them against the tides of major health organizations and government. The problem is that he's not capable of being objective on the subject if he has a vested interested in eating Egg yolk.
Even if it's really controlled for diet, and not just as Dr. Barnard says:
These are things that are hard to control for, and unless those studies used vegans and gave them the cholesterol and saw no change, I don't think they can make the claims that eggs aren't a measurable problem (and that's ignoring the other issues, which are probably more pressing).
EVEN IF they did all of that (I don't think they did, but I'd have to see the studies), and this hyposensitivity is real, there's still conflicting evidence of this cholesterol immunity within those studies, and 30% of people having additional increased risk from the added cholesterol is not anything to sneeze at or advise people not to avoid cholesterol over.
Unless you've been tested to prove you're hyposensitive, it's still a good idea to avoid the extra. An in either case, it's a good idea to avoid dietary cholesterol and the things that come with it in the same packages generally even for those hyposensitives.
Carroll is a little irresponsible in that he doesn't make that clear enough (he only mentioned it with milk).
Even if it's really controlled for diet, and not just as Dr. Barnard says:
(Barnard's article was last updated February 5th 2015)What The New York Times blog fails to explain is that eating an occasional egg might not increase health risks for people already eating a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet—just as smoking an occasional cigar might not increase health risks for people already smoking cigarettes. But if people are already eating a healthful diet without any added dietary cholesterol, eggs can contribute to many problems in addition to heart disease.
These are things that are hard to control for, and unless those studies used vegans and gave them the cholesterol and saw no change, I don't think they can make the claims that eggs aren't a measurable problem (and that's ignoring the other issues, which are probably more pressing).
EVEN IF they did all of that (I don't think they did, but I'd have to see the studies), and this hyposensitivity is real, there's still conflicting evidence of this cholesterol immunity within those studies, and 30% of people having additional increased risk from the added cholesterol is not anything to sneeze at or advise people not to avoid cholesterol over.
Unless you've been tested to prove you're hyposensitive, it's still a good idea to avoid the extra. An in either case, it's a good idea to avoid dietary cholesterol and the things that come with it in the same packages generally even for those hyposensitives.
Carroll is a little irresponsible in that he doesn't make that clear enough (he only mentioned it with milk).