Association between egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular outcomes
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
When I was a kid, for a few years, I had a stepmom who was relatively high educated, and was very quick to pivot to the healthy diet of the 90s: grains for breakfast, pasta for dinner. When I would spend the night out, and come home and talk about how much I loved the breakfast at my friend's house (eggs and bacon) she would call them "ignorant rednecks" and talk about how "some people are just too dumb to listen to science or doctors."
My "redneck" friends has a much healthier diet than I did. We know this now. Yet people still blindly trust the US public health authorities. I'm not a moron, so I don't inherently mistrust their statements either. I just think a healthy skepticism is warranted with US public health messaging and the science that they fund. Entire careers in academia were flushed down the toilet because a brave few tried to point out how incredibly flawed the "dietary cholesterol causes heart disease" narrative.
Think about this: the leading scientists and the scientific community in the 1990s strongly believed that both eggs and avocados strongly increased the risk of heart disease. Avocados. Bad for your health.......... Looking at our collective love of avocados today, it should be a highly publicized rebuke of how awful the FDA's food pyramid campaign was.
The only logical thing to do is to follow current scientific consensus the best we can. Adjust ourselves as those views adjust.
Anything else is just pure ego saying that you know better than experts. Random examples where you were "right" or the scientific consensus was "wrong" are irrelevant.
Edit: I'm just saying that the scientific method is the best tool we have for this kind of stuff, even with the bias and flaws of the studies. It's miles and miles better than Facebook-esque anecdotes about rednecks eating bacon.
Peter Norvig's essay on experiment design comes to mind:
I've found this depends on the person.
>I've found this depends on the person.
Good point. It is indeed gospel for some people :)
Infact in the new era of Covid, we now have common people parrot the opinion of medical 'experts' verbatim as though it were gospel
The current alternative to scientific studies (with their varying degrees of bias and flaws) are Facebook-esque anecdotes about rednecks eating bacon that apparently are so compelling that they get upvoted to the top of HN.
Your original point is a fair one, but you probably aren't aware of the fact that, on this specific topic, the leading scientists in the human nutrition field were extremely aggressive in crushing all dissenting voices, including destroying the career of a researcher at Harvard who was relegated to obscurity despite later being proven correct.
Dissent against Keys' lipid hypothesis of any form was career suicide in the human nutrition community. The viciousness of the attacks against dissenters was particularly remarkable, due to the fervent belief that undermining the "fat is bad" narrative would kill people.
They were wrong, and your point of view assumes that it's self-correcting over the long-term, so don't argue. In the case of the lipid hypothesis, it wasn't self-correcting at all. It's been a decades long fight to try to get a bunch of smug asshole academics to admit they fucked over the public for decades with their hubris.
The problem is now you're too aggressive in the other direction. You seem to have to dissent, regardless of the study design or funding.
Let's do an experiment. Or better, let's do a Gedankenexperiment so we sound more like experts:
Look around your (virtual) workplace. See that well-spoken idiot who you know is wrong about everything, but who somehow gets the attention and the money to run whatever projects they want? That's the expert.
You are not the expert, even though you know more stuff, because nobody asks you. And when you insisted they were wrong, they got rid of you.
The same thing happens everywhere, in academia, science, government, medicine... everywhere. We are only human.
But not to worry! It's all right. Thanks to the scientific method science actually advances, even if it's one funeral at a time. Just be careful who you trust.
Be very careful about how you word stuff like this, even if at the end of the day it's just healthy skepticism. It's the same vibe that gives power to conspiracy theories.
Pop science articles you read online, written by journalists? At best just clickbait. (I read them too. Only human...)
Unfortunately there is no substitute to thinking for yourself. The best way to start is with the question "does it work?". If the question doesn't make sense no need to carry on, we're off science altogether.
Until you figure out that most 'scientists' are morons, and are biased/ignorant/academic. An anecdote from an observant, meticulous, objective layman is far more dependable than the gobbledygook that characterizes most published research.
It's fine to critique studies and findings. It's not okay to say that you or your facebook friends know better and can substitute your own thoughts on a subject. That is how we get Covid deniers or vaccine conspiracy theories or the million other misinformation issues we have right now.
The problem is that there have been plenty of studies long before these more enlightened times we live in, which demonstrated that saturated animal fats, eggs, salt, and red meat are good for you, whereas high-grain and starch diets, seed oils, sugar, and hydrogenated fats are bad for you.
And what happened? These studies went against the FDA guidelines and the nutritional training of an entire generations of MDs, and thus were ignored and ridiculed. This resulted in a massive increase in type-2 diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.
We like to think that the medical experts we rely upon follow the science. They don't. To this day, the majority of MDs in the US follow the 60 year old guidelines that killed so many people prematurely. Despite the resounding preponderance of the evidence.
And it doesn't end there. The same is true for related areas like the whole cholesterol debacle that ignores HDL/LDL ratios, and especially ignores blood calcium levels. Even when they know better, i.e., when the research shows that high cholesterol in a healthy ratio with low to non-existent blood calcium levels is perfectly healthy and does not need treatment, they will still prescribe statins, or tell such patients to cut out red meat and eggs. This is not following the science, even while acknowledging that the patient is already healthy.
The same story with carnivore diets and diabetes. Even when the tests show that the patient has a vastly improved blood glucose count on a carnivore diet, i.e., they are getting healthier, and the doctor sees it and admits it, and he is aware of research which found the same correlation, he will still insist that they need to go back to eating a predominantly grain-based diet, because his training, and the peer pressure from his colleagues are overriding the science.
Because of this, it is up to you to find doctors who actually follow the science. They are out there. You just have to look for them.
The study which had the strongest impact on my opinions with dietary fat consumption was the longitudinal Framingham Heart Study. It's far, far more rigorous (and expensive) than virtually any of the studies being crapped out by the publish or perish grant-chasers. The absolute vitriol and emotional, irrational responses to the contradictions raised by Framingham really taught me lessons about the fashion-driven, corrupt nature of certain communities in academia.
Non saturated fats are newer to our diet as a species too. Just to keep that in mind.
No, there really isn't. What we have is bacon producers using a loophole to use 'natural' nitrates from things like celery for curing. They're the exact same molecule and perform the same function, but because they used processed celery juice instead of pure sodium nitrite, they get to claim they're nitrate free.
They aren't.
Ingredients: pork, water, sea salt, evaporated cane sugar
[0] https://products.wholefoodsmarket.com/product/365-everyday-v...
I recently read the label for a bag of popcorn which had sugar as the first ingredient, before corn. That popcorn had more sugar than corn. Boggles the mind.
[1] Meta analysis of tens of RCTs https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/nutrientrequireme...
[2] There are plenty of Mendelian Randomization (MR) studies, studies on the effects of statins, etc.
I'm fully aware that statins work to prevent heart attacks by lowering the LDL in the blood, but that's because they treat a symptom rather than the root cause triggering the body to use lipids to repair arterial walls in the first place. Why does the body deposit lipids on arterial walls? Because when arterial walls get damaged in any way, the body uses lipids to repair them.
There is a specific sub-type of LDL that is not dietary in source, called VLDL.
Source: https://www.healthline.com/health/vldl-vs-ldl
VLDL is created by the liver in response to consumption of carbohydrates, fructose, etc. It is very important to note that VLDL is NOT created by the liver in response to consuming animal fats. The patty and cheese with no bun won't affect your VLDL amounts. The bun, the fries, and the soda? They will trigger your liver to produce VLDL.
VLDL is the chief culprit in damaging arterial walls, and causing general inflammation in the body, when at unnaturally high levels. If you consume juice or soda on any kind of regular basis, your VLDL levels will spike afterwards.
After VLDL damages those arterial walls, it, along with normal LDL, will be deposited on the walls and harden.
The above explanation is why when people talk about having "high cholesterol", it is often useless in predicting heart attacks. The most important marker on a blood test for predicting heart attacks is the ratio of triglycerides to HDL in the blood stream. Notice that LDL isn't in the ratio. Why? Because the higher the amount of triglycerides in the blood, the higher the ratio, and the more VLDL a person has in their blood relative to HDL.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664115/
My point is that:
1) Observational regression studies are often useless, because it's impossible to remove so many factors such as the "doesn't listen to doctors" effect where a person who goes against prevailing medical wisdom and eats red meat will engage in other behaviors that doctors advise against, like smoking.
2) It's not the meat in the meat and potatoes diet that is the root cause of heart disease. No, it's a horrible combination of the two: The potatoes trigger the release of VLDL, which damages and inflames the arteries, and the meat contains normal LDL that typically wouldn't lodge in arterial walls, but is used in conjunction with VLDL by the body to repair the now damaged walls. Eat just the meet? No VLDL. The LDL you consume in the meat doesn't damage the arterial walls.
Just a note: In the past, I've been a vegan who consumed zero animal products. I didn't consume a single bite of animal products between 2002-2006. I'm not a blind defender of meat based diets, and I won't pretend that there aren't environmental implications of meat consumption. I just don't think it's useful to allow bad science to get people to eat less meat. I'm formally educated in statistics from studying Applied Economics, and I've worked professionally as a data scientist for 8 years now. I'm keenly aware of how bad these observational regression studies are. I'm not saying don't take them into account or use them, but they really need to be vetted when they conflict with longitudinal studies like Framingham.
Oats are among the lowest/slowest carb grains we have.
Egg on the and no one on this side of keto absolutism should argue that it’s nutritionally unbalanced.
This is completely false. Oatmeal is one of the few grains where this is not true (unless you’re eating it in a highly processed form like flour). It is very slow to digest, does not cause an insulin spike, and actually removes cholesterol from the body. As far as grains go, it’s pretty much the best one out there. There’s a reason oatmeal is the primary carb used by gym rats.
The only time it’s a problem is if you’re eating it out of an instant packet, but that’s really about all the added sugar, not the oatmeal grain.
Where do these statements come from? What counts as "slow" or "fast" digestion? Oats, being rich in carbohydrates, definitely affect insulin. As one example, this 2019 paper clearly shows that overnight oats elicit glycemic and insulin responses, so it's patently false to claim that oatmeal "does not cause an insulin spike": https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-018-0329-1#Fig2
> There’s a reason oatmeal is the primary carb used by gym rats.
Gym rats say and do a lot of things without scientific merit. That's why the term "broscience" exists.
> The only time it’s a problem is if you’re eating it out of an instant packet, but that’s really about all the added sugar, not the oatmeal grain.
It's not just the added sugar. Instant oats are more processed than steel-cut or rolled oats, and they do have a higher glycemic index.
From https://www.diabetes.ca/managing-my-diabetes/tools---resourc...:
> In general, the more highly processed a food is, or the quicker a food is digested, the higher the GI. For example, instant oats have a higher GI than steel cut oats.
From https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glyce...:
Glycemic load (glucose = 100):
Porridge, rolled oats = 55 ± 2
Instant oat porridge 79 ± 3
I've had plain oats with non-sugar additives (eg pure cocoa powder, seeds) and it definitely causes a spike, and my heart rate goes through the roof. Incidentally this happened more when I forgot to add cinnamon, which explains [1]. This was even with the fancier (read: double price half volume) steel cut or rolled varieties.
Oats are good, but as with most things not necessarily for everyone.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151119133230.h...
The special carbohydrate diet would encourage bacon and an oil/fat based diet over any grains ever.
Drinking bone brothe soup instead of eating oatmeal in the morning would be healthier.
Also sidenote: this is the picture regarding cardiovascular health, but with extremely high-fat foods and diets being the mode right now I'll bet we see a bit of an uptick on chronic pancreatitis cases in time. Moderation, as always, is the best course for most... "everything in moderation, especially moderation"
It wasn't just eggs. It was any dietary fats and alcohol. Eggs just happen to be something I ate most days for breakfast after the gym and suddenly could not keep down, along with most foods, and even water, at the time. Dehydration and kidney failure sucks, no matter what the cool kids tell you. Ended up losing about 50lbs of muscle and body fat in all of a couple of weeks.
They didn't want to risk surgery, partially due to the liquid compressing my lungs needed to subside, and since pancreatic necrotic debridement can be problematic in itself, and there had ended up being multiple deposits of necrotic material and other unidentified inflamed regions throughout my abdomen—so the least invasive option was put forward first: a modified diet and pain medication when I need it.
I might not feel pain immediately, and it's less the pain that I'm worried about—but until I have more imaging done and receive a diagnosis or the old "all-clear" I'm assumed to be at risk for developing chronic problems, or worse. (One does not simply keep on living without a pancreas)
So, I've been on a diet that puts me at below 30g of dietary fats a day total for about seven months now. Of particular concern is overloading the mechanism of pancreatic enzyme production, so that 30g has to be spread throughout the day evenly—can't have concentrated quantities that exists in some foods. It's the saddest diet. Most flavourful foods have a high fat content. Most non-fat options will just throw in some xanthum gum as a thickener and sugar and salt to flavour. It's not the same.
In short: it was the summary opinion of about 8 doctors including several surgeons at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, a hepatobiliary surgical oncologist in at St Joseph Hospital in Toronto, my GP, and several others. Eggs are little dietary fat bombs. I miss eggs, they're one of my favourite foods, and they're so healthy—it's where I used to get most of my B12 (I was already deficient). Egg whites are... fine.
What they should have done instead is mandate the use of the term "lipids" instead of "fat" on nutrition labels. Vocabulary could do so much to solve our problems. We are a nation of fat people who think that eating fat makes you fat. Then we also think that eating cholesterol gives us high cholesterol.
We use a different word for a cow when it's on our dinner plate but we can't do the same for fat? I guess this idea doesn't give the graphic designer anything to do.
When you want two dozen eggs, but you can only bring a single egg, choose ostrich. If each of the two dozen boys would like 3 normal eggs, they can share 3 ostrich eggs. Since each boy can bring one egg, 8 such meals are possible. For a weekend trip, everybody could subsist purely on eggs.
I dropped eating eggs for thirty years because we were all lied to by the experts. But as a result it brings me sheer joy to eat eggs for breakfast every single day - at my doctors recommendation ;<).
What the experts should have warned us about was our sugar intake. I have reduced mine, it's not that difficult, and only wish I had known to do so decades ago.
You are probably talking about Woody Allen's "Sleeper".
an anthropoligst visits an alien planet and talks to a jellyfish about its cultures creation myth. indignant, the jellyfish recoil - they have no such myth, only a scientific account as rational creatures. obviously, agrees the researcher; did life first appear on land or sea? confused, the jellyfish ask what is meant. well, the researcher, says, was the first life here or over there (pointing past the shore inland). the jellyfish are more confused - there is nothing past the shoreline. that is the edge of the great bowl that holds the ocean.
https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/youth/chorus/workshop5/17372...
it is a simple tale, but its simplicity is somehow lost on most of our population, both scientific and otherwise. the idea that we're at the pinnacle of knowledge for anything is very silly.
operate with assumptions, but dont pretend theyre not assumptions. we're still learning.
I would propose s/awful/corrupt
The only thing I've read that seems to never be contradicted is the following quote:
> Eat food, not too much, mostly plants
EDIT: Is it just me, or do they never say how the eggs are prepared? I feel like that would have a huge effect as well as since the preparation method changes the composition of the eggs of course. Frying eggs with a bunch of butter might negate any health benefits eating say, an otherwise poached egg, might have.
I loved fried eggs and wonder if I'd receive more benefit by boiling or poaching, hmm.
It was believed they were bad due to their high cholesterol and cholesterol was considered bad across the board. But modern research shows it's more complicated than that.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/87/4/964/4633437
". In addition, consumption of ≥7 eggs/wk was associated with a modestly but significantly greater risk of total mortality in this population. In contrast, egg consumption was associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality in a dose-response fashion among physicians with diabetes (2 times the risk of death in people consuming ≥7 eggs/wk than in those consuming <1 egg/wk). Furthermore, our data provided suggestive evidence for a greater risk of MI and stroke with egg consumption among male physicians with diabetes. In contrast, baseline hypercholesterolemia status did not influence the relation between egg consumption and CVD or mortality."
The same study admits that the finding was not conclusive though and that there have been other studies that have contradicted their results.
McGill published a study in 2012 [1] which shows egg yolk consumption is connected in an exponential relationship with carotid plaque area (see: pg 3):
> ... both tobacco smoking and egg yolk consumption accelerate atherosclerosis, in a similar fashion: the increase in plaque area is linear with age, but it is exponential with smoking history and egg consumption. Curve fitting with the cases that had non-zero values for egg yolks and smoking showed that an exponential fit was better than a linear fit.
[1]: http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/hanley/tmp/Applic...
Real question: Does anyone think that food industry money doesn't influence policy and recommendations? If so can you provide some sort of supporting evidence for this view?
If we find out, it's usually many years down the road and it's rarely as direct as "grain outbid eggs". There are behemoth consumer food manufacturers involved, pharmaceutical companies too (statin drugs are a cash cow). Lots of industries profit or lose based on public health decisions and perceptions.
Every once in a while it's pretty direct though, maybe the most well publicized example in recent years: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
If you look at all the studies uncritically and average out their findings, then the safe amount of eggs, imho, per week is between zero and two.
The study of the health outcomes of egg consumption, in general, is a bit out there. A 2009 study claimed the opposite, that 7+ eggs a week increased the odds of cardiovascular disease. There's a strong anti-vegetarian pop-culture under-current right now fueled by the alt-right, keto types, and 'masculinity' experts so small single studies like these will get a lot of attention, but I'd wait for someone to try to replicate it, or at least see it as one data point in hundreds of reputable egg studies that mostly seem to contradict themselves. The egg industry is a $10bn industry and politically very well connected. Some of these studies may be influenced by that. Evolution didn't seem to design us to regularly eat the eggs of other animals and we seem poorly adapted to do so.
Fun/depressing fact: There's one caged egg laying hen for every American.
1) Industry funding colors scientific results. I believe people on HN understand this.
2) There are marketing agencies in the US which exist to market the products of animal agriculture. These agencies fund a significant amount of research into their products.
3) The human body has an upper limit on the amount of dietary cholesterol it can absorb daily. Two eggs will accomplish this for most people.
4) Given (3), it is relatively simple to design a scientific study which demonstrates that consuming n+1 eggs daily is no more harmful than consuming n eggs daily.
Please see the video series by Dr Greger[1] and the old newsletter by Dr McDougall[2].
On a personal note, I followed the veggie doctors advice for a number of years, by eating a strict vegetarian diet nearly free of sugar. My body weight dropped by more than 100 pounds, to a healthy (not overweight) range. My cholesterol dropped to around 92. After a few years, I was persistently, ravenously, insatiably hungry. The only thing that helped was returning to consuming animal products. Without intending to devolve into the middle-of-the-road fallacy, you may wish to heed the advice of Harvard Medical[3].
[1] https://nutritionfacts.org/?s=eggs
[2] https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2016nl/jan/eggindustry.htm
[3] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/digesting-the-latest-res...
Weight loss is a significant contributor to improving cholesterol levels in cases of non-hereditary high cholesterol. When moving from obese to normal weight (in your case) or borderline obese/very overweight to normal weight (in my case) it's hard to separate that from the impact of the diet on cholesterol levels.
Unfortunately I have found being mostly vegetarian actually hasn't greatly helped with my weight as I find there are still many fatty options that don't involve meats.
I would be happy with how I eat, if it weren't for the fact that it can be hard to get certain things like high proteins from veggies. It's hard to match the efficiencies from a quick chicken and rice meal as an example.
> Our analysis suggests that higher consumption of eggs (more than 1 egg/day) was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but was associated with a significant reduction in risk of coronary artery disease.
Perhaps the title should be changed to "No Association Between Egg Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease."
Most people will read a headline that says "The association between..." to mean that there is an association (because that is how it is typically used).
"Association between egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular outcomes"
A good question is thus how to turn around an urban myth once it's already become commonplace?
...prepared with zero oil or butter on a ceramic non-stick pan.
My cholesterol levels are great. My wife eats the same diet (except she doesn't order dinner at work like I do) and her cholesterol levels are ridiculously good.
Cholesterol levels don't tell you much unless you have heart disease.
This is a little better quality than the usual junk we see for these articles. But still, it's mostly just data juggling from a public database. They have done a little to try and avoid cherry picking and established a process with third party investigators which is nice.
Personally I would rate this as "Worth further study." Interesting, but definitely not a firm conclusion.
They're literally telling you that they cherry-picked existing research for whatever serves their narrative.
Occam's razor applies here. They're trying to convince you that consuming cholesterol and saturated fat is not going to clog your arteries. If eggs won't, please tell me what will.
Eggs taste good, and they're in literally everything. Be careful when people tell you what you want to hear.
That's really interesting! I just had a heart attack a few months ago and eggs have been on my "very rarely" list, I'm glad to see I probably can move those up to "probably fine a few times a week" list.
I would definitely consult with your doctor and not apply general study conclusions to your own diet considering you had a heart attack recently.
I’ve worked closely with bunch of primary care doctors and would only trust 1 in about 10 of them to give good nutrition advice. My work involved careful review of their clinical treatment of patients in a primary care settings.
My anecdotal experience with cardiologists is no better.
The overall issue is that they have grown tired of really challenging patients to change much of their diets. Even if the diet is what is really killing them. And I don’t blame them, but I also think that many doctors don’t see nutrition as part of their job.
The wildy differing research results indicates to me that the science of diet and health is just really hard. You can’t easily create control groups for longer running studies. You can’t easily control for (epi)genetic factors. There’s a tonne of other variables you also need to rule out.
And for individuals it’s still unclear whether the results apply to them or not.
Personally I’ve decided to go middle of the road, listen to my body and factor in more obvious things into my decisions about food, like animal cruelty, antibiotic resistance because of mass livestock keeping and consequences to the environment.
> The results suggested that higher egg consumption was positively associated with the risk of diabetes in Chinese adults.
However, it also states:
> The association between egg consumption and diabetes is inconclusive.
These statements seem contradictory to me, but maybe someone can shed more light on this?
I’m interested because I was on a low-carb high-fat diet where I ate 3 eggs a day – that was until I got a blood test that showed very high cholesterol. Now I’ve cut dietary cholesterol and I’m on statins. It’s much harder to maintain weight loss this way.
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.05....
The journal publishers are always getting Sci-hub's internet access cut off, so you have to search for where they are served from at any moment. Every time they are cut off, they find another way back on, and you have to find them again.
The journal publishers are about as evil as any corporation not actively killing people can be. They take huge "page fees" from scientists to publish papers, huge subscriptions from academic libraries, and don't pay their editors or their reviewers. Their profit margin is 40% and rising.
Probably nothing can be done about them without legislation.
* * *
But statins interfere with your liver producing the cholesterol your body needs. Statins have bad side effects that they don't like to talk about, particularly muscle damage.
The best things you could do is eliminate sugar, and increase exercise. Saturated fat is good for you, and helps reduce appetite. Sugar and gluten are appetite stimulants.
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-egg-board-investigati...
I've known that the old school idea that cholesterol in eggs made them unhealthy was mostly bunk, but good to hear it confirmed.
Now I just need to figure out a way to find a good source of nitrate free bacon.
I get that technically the title does not actually imply there is an “association”, but why not name it something that doesn’t lead the mind as much in the wrong direction? For example: “Effects of Egg Consumption on the Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases”
The current climate of public opinion driven exclusively by twitter-sized soundbites won't resolve by itself...
Is there an upper ceiling where the benefit goes away? I go through dozens of eggs a week.
Lately it turns out that saturated fat is absolutely fine, always was. Eggs, too, apparently.
It has been the sugar, nitrites, margarine and Crisco in everything killing us. The trouble with Crisco was known with certainty in 1957, and it took Fred Kummerow until 2017 to get it mostly out of the US diet. Some companies still get exceptional treatment allowing them to continue putting in poison, apparently because it would cost them money to stop putting in poison just yet. They have poison in the pipeline they would need to throw away that they would prefer to sell.
But, there is still something in American beef that causes trouble; just, not the fat. FDA spent the last five decades not investigating why beef is killing people, just out and out assuming it had to be the fat. for no reason at all. Now, we have to start from scratch and find out what is the real cause.
Meanwhile, glucose is absolutely fine, too.
Glucose is what is in corn before they use an enzyme to turn half of it into fructose, which is poison in the amounts Americans eat. They do it because fructose tastes sweeter when it's cold. It's hard to buy glucose; you won't find bags of it at the grocery store, even to put in your coffee where it would be hot and plenty sweet anyway. You pretty much only find it in Karo corn syrup, which is itself getting hard to find.
Remember that name, Fred Kummerow. He is personally responsible for kids born in this millennium not dying from heart disease caused by poison siphoned into stuff sold labeled as food. The corporations, their pet politicians, and the FDA fought him every step of the way. FDA finally was forced to declare trans fats poison in 2009, and then he had to sue them to make them issue regulations forbidding its use, which they didn't issue until 2014; and then they gave industry 3 more years to flush the poison out of their pipelines and onto Americans' arteries.
If you can keep the fructose out of kids, they might not die from type-2 diabetes and metabolic disorder so much.
https://www.drmirkin.com/histories-and-mysteries/fred-kummer...
https://spacedoc.com/articles/the-truth-about-trans-fats
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/science/fred-kummerow-dea...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/0...