 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / October 2008Eggs
It's truly amazing but I thought up until recently that eggs were "bad" because of the cholesterol. But in fact, I keep reading that by themselves they have no detrimental effects unless consumed in huge quantities. Amazing how society can get crazy about a notion for such a long time. Now I'm going to incorporate eggs in my diet(not just 2 a week). > It's truly amazing but I thought up until recently that eggs were "bad" > because of the cholesterol. But in fact, I keep reading that by themselves > they have no detrimental effects unless consumed in huge quantities. Amazing > how society can get crazy about a notion for such a long time. Now I'm going > to incorporate eggs in my diet(not just 2 a week). They aren't that great unless you remove the yolk. Sure you can eat them, but they are loaded with cholesterol. No nutritionists or doctor I know says to eat a lot of egg yolk, although if you limit yourself to a few a week and don't have a history of heart disease it may not kill you. That is hardly an endorsement for eggs though. dkw "No nutritionists or doctor I know says to eat a lot of egg yolk" That's so funny... a "lot" of ANYTHING is bad for you... Moderation in all things.. Eggs are a good (and cheap) protein.. they have 13 essential vitamins and minerals and are rich in lutein that help protect your arteries.. all that for 75 calories, 5 grams of fat, and no trans-fats.... I'm waiting for the freak show about carrot being the next killer... or is it lettuce???? Will~ On Jan 12, 2:29 pm, "Manco" <manco_doll...@net2blah.com> wrote: > It's truly amazing but I thought up until recently that eggs were "bad" > because of the cholesterol. But in fact, I keep reading that by themselves [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > going > to incorporate eggs in my diet(not just 2 a week). They aren't that great unless you remove the yolk. Sure you can eat them, but they are loaded with cholesterol. No nutritionists or doctor I know says to eat a lot of egg yolk, although if you limit yourself to a few a week and don't have a history of heart disease it may not kill you. That is hardly an endorsement for eggs though. dkw > "No nutritionists or doctor > I know says to eat a lot of egg yolk" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Will~ I'm learning that dkw is the resident troll of asd. I'll just killfile "it" and be done. > > "No nutritionists or doctor > > I know says to eat a lot of egg yolk" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Troll or voice of reason? I don't seem to agree with you on many things that's for sure. I think what you express are opinions yet you present them as if they are scientific facts. All I can say is that it is my opinion that eating a lot of eggs might not be a good idea, but everyone needs to decide that for themselves. I've decided to never eat egg yolk. Is that going too far? Well, it might be if it were hard to do, but it is very easy to do and still get a huge variety of food. I simply do not miss them. dkw > Troll or voice of reason? You are not the voice of reason. Most of your posts are junk. >> Troll or voice of reason? > > You are not the voice of reason. Most of your posts are junk. I think dkw represents a legitimate point of view, I just disagree with almost all of it. > > dkw12...@yahoo.com <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> Troll or voice of reason? Let's see. Someone who thinks the fat in a single egg yolk is toxic yet who eats dozens or hundreds of packets of artificial sweetener each day. Definitely closer to troll than reason, but the choice is not so binary. There's plenty of middle ground between the two extremes. > > You are not the voice of reason. Most of your posts are junk. > > I think dkw represents a legitimate point of view, I just disagree with > almost all of it. Low carb groups get folks who think that if low is good lower must be better so they do crazy stuff like all meat or zero carbs. Most eventually stop posting because they won't sustain it. DKW is no more extreme than any of those folks. He's the hardest of hard core low fatters and he's consistant about it. His main problem is the same as the cause of the current epidemic of obesity - He writes like his way is the only correct way. Both low fat and low carb work for certain people, neither is bad. > DKW is no more extreme than any of those folks. He's the hardest > of hard core low fatters and he's consistant about it. His main > problem is the same as the cause of the current epidemic of > obesity - He writes like his way is the only correct way. Both low > fat and low carb work for certain people, neither is bad. Actually low-carb is the ONLY way long-term to keep the weight off and everyone with any intelligence greater then a chimp KNOWS this. > Actually low-carb is the ONLY way long-term to keep the weight off and > everyone with any intelligence greater then a chimp KNOWS this. Mary responds: I think the results from the National Weight Control Registry say different (average weight loss 66 lb, kept off for 5.5 years). People on the Registry (myself included) have these things in common: They eat breakfast. They exercise. They weigh themselves regularly. They eat a low calorie, low fat diet, which is actually relatively high in carbs. M. Mary_Gor...@tvo.org wrote: > > Actually low-carb is the ONLY way long-term to keep the weight off and > > everyone with any intelligence greater then a chimp KNOWS this. I laughed like a lunatic at the joke. Thanks. > I think the results from the National Weight Control Registry say > different (average weight loss 66 lb, kept off for 5.5 years). People > on the Registry (myself included) have these things in common: > > They eat breakfast. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - Keep hunger from gradually eroding motivation. > They exercise. Only the rare person has any down side to this major contributor to health. > They weigh themselves regularly. These data points should apply across the board. And also since they are about maintenance whether they apply during the loss phases is questionable: Weighing regularly tends to be a point of obession among newbies but a point of matter of fact among oldbies for example. Time on plan matters. > They eat a low calorie, low fat diet, which is actually relatively > high in carbs. This was caused by a bias in their questionaire. I don't know if it is still the case but for years there was literally no way to inform them that you used low carb. I knew some low carbers who registered and did their best but ended up being falsely listed as low fatters, and I knew some (including myself) who read their questionaire and declined because we couldn't say we were low carbers. Even if they now can get low carb answers, their prior bias filtered out a lot of potential registrants. They dropped all data from low carbers therefore their conclusions about low fat are not of value. Sure, some folks use low fat to lose and maintain; it's as crazy to say low fat works for no one as to say it works for everyone. But dropping all data from low carbers and then concluding that successfull maintenance requires low fat is a nonsense conclusion. > Mary_Gor...@tvo.org wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > and then concluding that successfull maintenance requires low fat > is a nonsense conclusion. I filled in the forms and can't remember if it was biased or not but the main problem is it is a self selecting sample. They themselves don't claim it to be otherwise but the results when used out of context can imply it is a scientific study. Rachael >> Mary_Gor...@tvo.org wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Rachael Epidemiology is almost always an art and should not be called science. > Mary_Gor...@tvo.org wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > and then concluding that successfull maintenance requires low fat > is a nonsense conclusion. Doug is right. I'm in the registry. The questionnaire is biased. I'm sticking with the updates, since in time they may review their work to correct for their mistakes. Well, they might. A typical low carber confronted by the questionnaire would throw the paperwork away. The data is skewed. >> Actually low-carb is the ONLY way long-term to keep the weight off and >> everyone with any intelligence greater then a chimp KNOWS this. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > M. Another Registry member, too. I've never been a low-carber and have managed to lose and keep the weight off by following the method outlined by Mary. Beverly >> DKW is no more extreme than any of those folks. He's the hardest >> of hard core low fatters and he's consistant about it. His main [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually low-carb is the ONLY way long-term to keep the weight off and > everyone with any intelligence greater then a chimp KNOWS this. Must be a chimp then. Lost 76lb and have kept it off for 3 years come February and would never dream of cutting out food groups to the extent you or DKW do. Rachael Willow wrote: > They aren't that great unless you remove the yolk. Sure you can eat > them, but they are loaded with cholesterol. No nutritionists or doctor > I know says to eat a lot of egg yolk, although if you limit yourself > to a few a week and don't have a history of heart disease it may not > kill you. That is hardly an endorsement for eggs though. dkw Mary responds: Except that...genetics are the predominant factor in serum cholesteral levels. Most of the rest comes from crappy diet and lifestyle, not eating eggs - i.e. your basic North American thing - the high calorie, high fat diets, without enough fruit/veg/fibre, no exercise etc. Most epidemiological studies have shown little or no association between egg intake and risk of coronary heart disease. On Jan 12, 9:10 pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > It's truly amazing but I thought up until recently that eggs were "bad" > > because of the cholesterol. But in fact, I keep reading that by themselves [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to a few a week and don't have a history of heart disease it may not > kill you. That is hardly an endorsement for eggs though. dkw Dkw I think you are great. There is a thread here about how nasty and rude people have become so please ignore the turkeys. YOu helped me last fall when I was trying to lose 10 pounds. I lost it and it has stayed off .XX Thank you again. Please stay as you are and don't change. I totally agree with you about the egg yolk. On Jan 12, 9:10 pm, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 12, 2:29 pm, "Manco" <manco_doll...@net2blah.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to a few a week and don't have a history of heart disease it may not > kill you. That is hardly an endorsement for eggs though. dkw Dkw I think you are great. There is a thread here about how nasty and rude people have become so please ignore the turkeys. YOu helped me last fall when I was trying to lose 10 pounds. I lost it and it has stayed off .XX Thank you again. Please stay as you are and don't change. I totally agree with you about the egg yolk. ********* new response: Fear of eggs is a bad yolk. Why, oh why, is my outlook express not adding the arrow things in re-replies? Replies to OPs are working right. > It's truly amazing but I thought up until recently that eggs were "bad" > because of the cholesterol. But in fact, I keep reading that by themselves > they have no detrimental effects unless consumed in huge quantities. > Amazing how society can get crazy about a notion for such a long time. Now > I'm going to incorporate eggs in my diet(not just 2 a week). A case can be made both ways, complete with studies and experts. I think chicken eggs are a perfect food. The yolk is the best part. >> It's truly amazing but I thought up until recently that eggs were >> "bad" because of the cholesterol. But in fact, I keep reading that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A case can be made both ways, complete with studies and experts. I > think chicken eggs are a perfect food. The yolk is the best part. That's what I think now and I'm not listening to the vegan extremists trying to claim otherwise. They have a political agenda against basic human biology. > It's truly amazing but I thought up until recently that eggs were > "bad" because of the cholesterol. But in fact, I keep reading that > by themselves they have no detrimental effects unless consumed in > huge quantities. Amazing how society can get crazy about a notion > for such a long time. Now I'm going to incorporate eggs in my > diet(not just 2 a week). While I use Egg Beaters most of the time, I really love hard boiled eggs which you certainly can't make out of Egg Beaters. They're a great, portable, tasty protein snack. I have Type 1 diabetes and a hard boiled egg is a perfect snack if I don't want to take any insulin to cover food. I go through phases of eating them, since I don't buy eggs too often. When I do buy them I go through them quickly, but then I don't buy any again for a couple of months. -- Liz On Jan 12, 9:21 pm, "Elizabeth Blake" <poodleb...@nospam.optonline.net> wrote: > > It's truly amazing but I thought up until recently that eggs were > > "bad" because of the cholesterol. But in fact, I keep reading that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > Liz Yes, eggs do taste great, especially the yolk. That may be a survival thing though. If I were to list my all-time favorite foods, they would all be very-high cal. People seem to be drawn to high-fat/high-cal foods. Perhaps that is because for much of our existence, it was hard to get enough food to survive, so we had to stoke up on the high cal stuff and eat it fast because if we didn't, we might starve before our next meal. Those times though are in the past, for most of us, and we need to put those food preferences into perspective. Otherwise, those survival instincts work to our disadvantage in the long run by helping to cause overweight and unhealthy conditions. dkw > On Jan 12, 9:21 pm, "Elizabeth Blake" > <poodleb...@nospam.optonline.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > survival instincts work to our disadvantage in the long run by helping > to cause overweight and unhealthy conditions. dkw I agree with the survival part, but there's nothing wrong with healthy high cal foods if used in moderation. The trick is to learn to be happy with the more moderate amounts. I'm not doing low carb or low fat, I'm more of a moderate person, but if one was doing low carb, the egg yolk would not be a problem. And if one is scared of too many saturated fats, omega3 eggs do cut back on that, while supplying the good fats. The yolk is not even a problem on low fat, as long as it's used in moderation. There's good nutrition in the yolks. Now, the funny part is, the yolk is actually the part I like LEAST! I vastly prefer the taste of egg whites and always have, LOL! Likewise, I don't like fatty meats at all. Never have. I don't have trouble much with high cal healthy foods... I just keep them moderate. It's the high cal processed foods like chips and candy or high cal restaurant foods with hidden fats/sugars that are more the problem for me. For instance... a handful of raw almonds satisfies, but if I eat salted roasted nuts, I always want more. So I stick with the raw.  SignatureCynthia 262/228/152 > I agree with the survival part, but there's nothing wrong with > healthy > high cal foods if used in moderation. The trick is to learn to be > happy with the more moderate amounts. I think this is the part that the current population of Earth has forgotten. > I'm not doing low carb or low fat, I'm more of a moderate person, > but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on > that, while supplying the good fats. A few years ago when I started to lose weight I did stick with very low fat eating, and I did lose weight. I still watch my fat intake but I don't automatically pass up food just because it has some fat. My reason for trying to decrease my fat intake is because I can eat a larger volume of food if I cut down on fat calories. But, I also don't just want to eat buckets of green beans and broccoli either so I do have fat but I watch the amounts. I've never bought the omega 3 eggs but next time I get a craving for hard boiled eggs I'll look for them. -- Liz >> I agree with the survival part, but there's nothing wrong with >> healthy [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I've never bought the omega 3 eggs but next time I get a craving for > hard boiled eggs I'll look for them. I love devilled eggs (hard boiled eggs mashed with mayo). I use 3 eggs and throw two of the yolks away, then mash them it all down with Kraft non-fat mayo: it hits the spot... Looking at the nutritional info for Eggland's best, from Safeway, and each whole egg has only 1g of saturated fat (4g fat total), which is low by any standards. It's true that the cholesterol content is a tad high (175mg per egg) but I thought the conventional wisdom now is that the cholesterol you eat doesn't actually raise serum cholesterol much if at all (and not nearly as much as saturated fat does) so it's not really a consideration. The same reasoning applies to shrimp, I believe (reference?). So it looks to me like three eggs (even with the yolks) is actually still less sat. fat than, say, a single slice of cheese! I think they get an (undeservedly) bad rap... Losher |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.