Hacker News Reader

> (Opinion zone) Eggs cannot be healthy for you. They’re mostly cholesterol and saturated fat.

Your body is likely manufacturing 70-80% of your actual cholesterol content. I think cholesterol concerns have been debunked, or at least severely downgraded, since they became a big deal in the 1980's.

> Just look at their nutrient profile for proof: 1 egg nets you 70+% of your daily saturated fat recommendation ...

The fat recommendations you're citing are presumably coming from places like the USA's FDA -- which famously pushed the 'fat makes you fat' lie for many decades, directing citizens to consume increasing amounts of sugar instead, resulting in one of the most spectacular, and depressing, natural experiments that has proven this thinking to be literally fatally flawed.

> The fat recommendations you're citing are presumably coming from places like the USA's FDA -- which famously pushed the 'fat makes you fat' lie for many decades, directing citizens to consume increasing amounts of sugar instead, resulting in one of the most spectacular, and depressing, natural experiments that has proven this thinking to be literally fatally flawed.

I would like to add something. I am from India and I am seeing the results of Fat makes you fat principle peddled by doctors on the population. Before the introduction of "Americanised" version of food and US FDA dietary regulations(Docs in India follow the US FDA regulations), we had animal fats like Ghee, Butter, Panner, cream made from milk. Now the docs told remove these and told everyone to eat more Carbs. Well people started more eating more Carbs. Guess what they choose more and more processed cereals rather than greens. Now we have Type 2 Diabetes epidemic in India. People are not as fat as Americans but are skinny fat and have belly fat and all metabolic diseases. And the bad advice continues.

>Eggs cannot be healthy for you. They’re mostly cholesterol and saturated fat.

"Back then, we knew that egg yolks had lots of cholesterol, and we knew that high levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol in the blood increased the risk of cardiovascular disease. So it seemed logical that avoiding cholesterol in the diet made sense.

Since then, however, research has shown that most of the cholesterol in our body is made by our liver-it doesn't come from cholesterol we eat. The liver is stimulated to make cholesterol primarily by saturated fat and trans fat in our diet, not dietary cholesterol. But a large egg contains little saturated fat-about 1.5 grams (g). And research has confirmed that eggs also contain many healthy nutrients: lutein and zeaxanthin, which are good for the eyes; choline, which is good for the brain and nerves; and various vitamins (A, B, and D). In fact, just one large egg contains 270 international units (IU) of vitamin A and 41 IU of vitamin D. One large egg also contains about 6 g of protein and 72 calories.

The evidence that eating an egg a day is safe for most people comes from huge studies-many conducted here at Harvard Medical School-that have followed hundreds of thousands of people over decades."

https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/are-eggs-risky-f...

Not to mention:

https://www.dietdoctor.com/saturated-fat-completely-safe-acc...

The new, counter intuitive idea that saturated fat is harmless or even healthy is built on lies and bad science, promoted by people with a lot of money to gain if they can confuse people about this.

https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/the-b...

All diet recommendations are based on bad science because all nutrition science is bad science. That includes whatever your preferred diet is.

That guy has a serious axe to grind and isn’t a credible source.

But what you are responding to doesn't say "saturated fat is harmless or even healthy". It says there is little saturated fat in eggs.

Eggs are very high in cholesterol, which is mentioned explicitly 136 times in the link I provided.

Which is irrelevant, because the cholesterol we already have by other means is much much higher.

Considering eggs a problem for that (their cholesterol content) is like having a program that takes 20 minutes to run, and trying to optimize a routine that only accounts for 5 seconds of the overall time.

Baseline cholesterol levels are genetically determined, it's true, but diet is far from irrelevant. A cholesterol-rich diet can easily push your overall cholesterol level above that baseline into the danger zone. This has been verified in numerous gold standard direct intervention studies. Anecdotally I have several friends that have brought high cholesterol levels down through diet far enough that they didn't have to take statins.

Most of the studies that have claimed to show that diet doesn't raise cholesterol have involved populations of people that already have abnormally high cholesterol from a bad diet (i.e. the typical American).

Important points summarized here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtfzd43t8o

1 large egg contains approximately 1.6g of saturated fat. Recommended saturated fat intakes vary by who is making the recommendation, but the NHS in the U.K. says it should be at most 30g/20g for men/women, whilst the American Heart Association says it should be around 13g for a 2000 calorie diet. No idea where you got your 70+% figure from.

Edit: You've now corrected this to 10%, but even that is based upon a very cautious RDA for saturated fat.

Also, consuming 9 eggs by themselves would not cause you overdose on selenium either - the RDA for selenium is between 55-135mg (again, depending on source), whilst the overdose threshold for it is believed to be around 400mg. However, an egg contains around 15mg of selenium - so whilst consuming 9 of them would put you over or at your RDA, it is not an overdose, since the RDA is a recommendation, not a limit.

Too many egg (yolks) aren't healthy, just like everything else. But what is so bad about having a few egg whites? And even 1 yolk?

https://www.ahealthiermichigan.org/2011/10/11/the-nurtional-...

Or, if you happen to believe the cholesterol & fat in eggs is a big deal, just buy liquid eggs stripped of all of that.

A 920g container has 500 calories, 100g of protein, zero fat, zero saturated fat, zero trans fat, zero carbs, zero cholesterol.

So it’s your position that since you would not be healthy if you ate nothing but eggs, that eggs are not healthy?

Most people are not trying to minmax their nutrient intake. The numbers you give seem to make eggs a useful component of a healthy, varied diet.

> The B vitamins in them come from supplementing their mothers with synthetics.

Nitpick: eggs don't have mothers because eggs are not offspring.

Your assertion is contradicted by the study here. Could it be that your assumptions are wrong?

The assertion is not in contradiction to the study. Study makes no claims on healthiness of eggs.

Scientifically, healthy-unhealthy food does not exist. There's no health scale. Everything depends on the context.

If your blood results and other health information is stable, whatever you're eating isn't doing you any harm, then that's a healthy lifestyle.

Trying to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy is impossible.

Other (new) studies and meta-studies do, however. And contradict what you wrote.

E.g.

http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1846638/association-d...

>Trying to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy is impossible.

They don't try to "divide foods into healthy and unhealthy". They try to divide diets of food, including amounts and limits, into healthy and unhealthy.

I do not understand how the study you've given supports what you're telling me.

You cannot say that strawberries are the healthiest food, just like you cannot say eggs are not healthy.

>I do not understand how the study you've given supports what you're telling me.

The study contradicts what you wrote in your comment above -- I never claimed it supports what I tell you in my comment below it, which touches on another aspect.

I do not understand what the study contradicts? It mentions no particular food.

The study clearly claims that eating eggs is inversely correlated with CVD/IHD. How does that not bear on their healthiness?

It's not inversely correlated. The relationship is non-linear, how does that bear on their healthiness?

Unlike strawberries where relationship is linear, unlike many other vegetables. Put a healthy exercising population and the correlation disappears, I guess foods are no longer healthy in that case.

Swap inversely with negatively. How does that change anything?

It's not negatively correlated, they have not measured the effects of >1 egg/day. It doesn't change anything. Saying that the food is healthy is vacuous.

Eating 1 egg per day for the average member of the measured population seems to be healthy. It does not mean eggs by themselves are healthy or unhealthy.