Thursday, 12 February 2009

”This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative…”

Fears that eating one egg a day will lead to high cholesterol and heart disease were challenged yesterday by scientific research.
It seems that there is no reason after all for healthy people to limit egg consumption to three a week — even though nearly half of British people believe that this is the maximum recommended number.
Well, fancy! So, no ‘scientific research’ was done on the subject before they dished out the original advice, was it?

And they wonder why people are rightly sceptical about ‘man made climate change’ and don’t know who to believe on the great MMR debate….
A paper to be published soon in the British Nutrition Foundation's Nutrition Bulletin has found that cholesterol in eggs has only a small and clinically insignificant effect on blood cholesterol. While people with high blood cholesterol are at increased risk of heart disease, only a third of the cholesterol in the body is attributed to diet.
Needless to say, the people with egg on their face over the incorrect advice will be quick to point out that this could be an attempt by the dastardly egg producing industry to muddy the waters:
There was some scepticism about the findings when it was confirmed that Juliet Gray, a public health nutritionist, was funded by the egg industry for her research time. The co-author Bruce Griffin, a professor of nutritional metabolism at the University of Surrey, did not receive payment, though in the past he has advised the British Egg Industry Council on scientific issues.
So what? This is another brick often thrown at those who produce man made global warming-sceptical research that is discovered to be funded by the oil industry.

But if it’s the case that their science is therefore dodgy, it should be easy to disprove, shouldn’t it? There should be no need to resort to ‘Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you?’ arguments…

And it seems that other organisations have been quietly walking back the previous advice for some time:
However, it also emerged yesterday that the British Heart Foundation (BHF) revised its advice on egg consumption two years ago and no longer suggests a maximum of three eggs a week.
Did they ever launch a publicity campaign to revoke the previous advice, and therefore expose themselves as credulous fools in thrall to the latest theory, no matter how little evidence it is based on?

Perish the thought:
This advice is in line with guidance from the Food Standards Agency, which also says that most people have no reason to worry about the number of eggs they eat a week — though anyone who has inherited a genetic susceptibility to high blood cholesterol linked to increased risk of coronary heart disease, about one in 500 people in Britain, is still advised to stick to two or at most three eggs a week.
You mean, one size doesn’t fit all? And we should all consider our individual circumstances before deciding whether to follow official advice?

Well, you can see why they wouldn’t want to shout that from the rooftops…
The study concludes that health chiefs and GPs should demolish the myths about eggs and heart disease and communicate a message that there is no need to limit the number eaten as long as they are part of a healthy low saturated fat diet.
Let’s see if they do that. And let’s see if people draw the inevitable conclusions…


Anonymous said...

Eat, Drink and be merry cause sure as eggs are eggs someone will find a reason for you not to do it.

Anonymous said...

Actually there's precious little evidence about the health benefits of a low fat diet either.

Anonymous said...

So what if she works for the egg industry?

All the other lot work for the government, don't they?

And they couldn't possibly have a horse in this race, could they, because they're totally unbiassed and professional in every way, and their funding does not depend on them toeing the party line, oh dear no, whatever made you think that?


Stan said...

I love eggs - quite probably one of the most amazing foods evah!

Just think of all the uses you can put them to - either on their own or as part of something else. They are natural, wholesome and come in their own packaging so reducing waste. Even the shells can be put to good use (full of calcium).

And if they go off you can chuck them at politicians.

Amazing things, eggs.

Dr Evil said...

Exactly the same with drinking alcohol. 1 unit is 8gm of alcohol, a number plucked out of the air about 30 years ago. Men are bigger than women so we'll think of a number for men and knock a third off it for women. Done. Oh bugger. The Yanks use a nearly twice the size (14gm) so Amercians can drink twice as many units as a Briton. Shhhhhh, don't tell anyone, they'll never know. Oh and don't tell anyone that it's their body mass and physiology that should determine how much they drink, not some bloody number thought up without any scientific testing at all (at the time). 3 to 4 units for a man is about 1 and two thirds of a pint of premium lager per day. As if!! FFS!!!

Bit like the breathalyser is bollocks. 80 mg per for a 6 foot 8 bloke and for a 5 foot 1 woman. She will be paralytic and he won't be affected hardly at all. A sobriety test is required, not a number on a machine.

JuliaM said...

"Eat, Drink and be merry cause sure as eggs are eggs someone will find a reason for you not to do it."

Indeed! Truly, the age of the New Puritans is upon us...

"And if they go off you can chuck them at politicians."


"A sobriety test is required, not a number on a machine."

Politicians are wary of people using their judgement. And when you see the decisions some of them make, you can see why...

Anonymous said...

If people don't eat enough fats, and especially meat/eggs/animal fats, then they WILL DIE.

Vegans WILL die. Sooner than other Nazis.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

My chickens will probably be happy to hear this news (they cannot read) and have been aware of the truth for some time. In their very modest way they donate the proceeds of their eggs to

which, among other things, provides chickens to people in other parts of the world who live at subsistence level.