According to a brand-new study, we common folks have a real problem with our diets: namely, we don’t appear to be letting bad scientists scare us away from real foods quite as much as we once did:
The public’s attention is beginning to drift away from the anti-cholesterol message that doctors have been preaching for 40 years, according to the authors of a review in the November 2010 issue of the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
“A widespread misconception has been developing among the Canadian public and among physicians. It is increasingly believed that consumption of dietary cholesterol and egg yolks is harmless,” Dr J. David Spence and colleagues state.
Hmmm … perhaps the public believes egg yolks are harmless because egg yolks are harmless. After years of making omelets with Egg Beaters and other frankenfoods, it could be that people are thinking to themselves, “You know, my grandma ate eggs every day, and she was 97 before the yolks finally killed her.”
The long-standing recommendation to limit dietary cholesterol is still important, especially for people at risk for cardiovascular disease, but a single egg yolk contains approximately 215 mg to 275 mg of cholesterol, more than the 200-mg daily limit recommended by the American Heart Association and National Cholesterol Education Program, and even more than some infamous fast-food items such as KFC’s Double Down or Hardee’s Monster Thickburger, the authors note.
Allow me to interpret that gobbledygook: Eggs are bad because a single yolk contains more cholesterol than the daily limit recommended by organizations that don’t know diddly about heart disease and believe Cocoa Puffs are good for your heart.
Also, eggs are bad because they contain more cholesterol than foods that don’t actually contain much cholesterol, such as chicken and hamburgers. This is akin to saying strawberries are bad because just 10 of them contain more fructose than 50 pounds of sausage.
“We have become increasingly concerned about the pervasive success of egg marketing propaganda,” including a brochure touting the benefits of eggs promoted by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, “quoting directly from the egg marketing propaganda,” Spence told HeartWire. “After I received that, I called the HSF and offered to meet with them to discuss the evidence, but I was brushed off as if I were someone they had never heard of.”
Oh, now, I don’t think they brushed you off as if you were someone they’ve never heard of. I’m guessing you were brushed off precisely because they have heard of you. I’ll bet the conversation in their offices went something like this:
“It’s Dr. Spence on the phone. Again.”
“Who?”
“You know, the nut-job who still thinks eggs are killers in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.”
“Oh, him. Uh … tell him we’re busy.”
“Despite widespread belief to the contrary, it is simply not true that dietary cholesterol is harmless,” because research over the past 40 years supports reducing dietary cholesterol to reduce LDL levels, which in turn reduces coronary risk, according to the authors.
Ah, yes … teleoanalysis in action. In case you didn’t watch the video of my Big Fat Fiasco speech, here’s how teleoanalysis works:
We cannot prove, in spite of many clinical-study attempts, that A (low-cholesterol diet) causes C (reduction in heart disease). But … if we can prove that A (low-cholesterol diet) sometimes leads to B (lower cholesterol in the blood) and B (lower cholesterol via statins) sometimes leads to C (reduction in heart disease), we can still claim that A causes C.
So that proves egg yolks will kill you … see?
The only trouble with Dr. Spence’s logic (besides the fact that teleoanlysis is utter hogwash) is that several studies have shown no connection between the amount of cholesterol you consume and the level of cholesterol in your blood — even Ancel Keys eventually admitted that fact. And of course, the link between high cholesterol and heart disease is about as statistically weak as you can get.
Epidemiological studies of egg consumption that failed to show a link between eggs and cardiovascular disease in healthy people were not powered to show an effect in healthy people …
Allow me to interpret again: dangit, if only we’d had a chance to crunch the numbers ourselves, we could have “powered” the data into producing the result we wanted.
… but did show an increased risk of cardiovascular disease with egg consumption among diabetics.
Or as a separate article in Science Daily about the same study explained:
The authors point out that in both studies, those who developed diabetes while consuming an egg a day doubled their risk of cardiovascular disease compared to those eating less than an egg a week.
We’ve covered those observational studies before. Eggs were associated with heart disease among people who also developed type 2 diabetes, but not among those who didn’t. In other words, the link only shows up in people with lousy diets overall.
Those would be people Dr. Mike Eades calls “non-adherers” and I call “people who don’t give a @#$%.” They don’t care if eggs are (supposedly) bad for them. They also don’t care if sugar is bad for them, or if smoking is bad for them. One of the studies noted specifically that the subjects who consumed more than one egg per day were also older, fatter, and more likely to smoke.
The studies also showed a significant increase of new onset diabetes with regular egg consumption.
Wowzers … such bad-science thinking, they didn’t even bother with the phrase “was associated with” this time. Read that sentence without knowing any better, and you’d think eating eggs causes diabetes. So let’s see how that idea holds up against actual evidence.
In the chart below, I plotted the rate of diabetes over the past several decades (in red), along with the per-capita consumption of eggs during the same period (in blue).
Hmmm … looks like back in the 1950s, when egg consumption was far higher than it is today, we had an amazingly low rate of diabetes. It would also appear that diabetes rates went up while per-capita egg consumption was going down. So what can we conclude from this? Thinking … thinking … aha, I’ve got it! — eggs don’t actually cause diabetes, or we’d see consistent and repeatable evidence that they do. No consistency, no scientific validity.
The authors conclude, “There is no question that egg white is classed as a valuable source of high-quality protein. Egg yolks, however, are not something that should be eaten indiscriminately by adults without regard to their global cardiovascular risk, genetic predisposition to heart attacks and overall food habits.”
The blogger concludes: the authors are lousy scientists.
If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
Maybe you’ve referenced this quote before:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
What’s ironic is that it’s from Upton Sinclair, one the very first nutritional do-gooders.
Cheers!
Bravo, Tom, I was really hoping you would comment on this egg nonsense. Very well written. I’ve sent it off to my skeptical family members and co-workers. And, the only time I take a day off from my breakfast eggs is to have an occasional (once or twice a week) can of herring fillets instead!
Your blog is by far my favourite internet site (besides CNN), and i visit it daily, and often pass it on to others.
Looking forward to your next post!
Thank you.
You are being too kind to call them lousy scientists. I’d call them pseudo scientists.
As Dr. Briffa pointed out, the speak with forked tongue.
“For a start, the authors are dismissive of these epidemiological studies (showing no correlation between eggs & CVD) ‘lacking statistical power’, but quote one of these studies as evidence of a link between egg eating and cardiovascular risk in diabetics (suggesting that the power here was sufficient).”
http://www.drbriffa.com/2010/11/05/still-no-good-evidence-that-eggs-cause-heart-disease-despite-what-some-may-say/
Dr. Briffa pointed out the authors are paid by the statin-makers, too. Figures.
Eggcellent post!
R. Dunn, LOL! Without bad science there would be no publishable science. We’d be forced to rely on our senses, jean fit and what we find in the toilet.
OT-Andrew Weill was on Dr. Oz…it’s a mercy to have a fill-in gig. It’s a good thing the PBS Dr. is so smart about nutritions as looking like Santa is only a livelihood a few weeks a year.
Tom, we need you doing more t.v., you’ve got all the right stuff!
I’d love to do more TV. Just have to convince the TV folks.
John W
your LDL can be calculated.
TC – HDL – (TG/5) = LDL
246 – 78 – (42/5) = 160
“Anti-cholesterol message” not science… I do believe I see the problem…
just had a head-banging conversation with an old doctor…
Doc: you have 246 total cholesterol, you need statins
JW: the HDL is 78 and triglycerides 42, I think that’s pretty good.
Doc: but the LDL is too high.
JW: but you didn’t measure it.
Doc: and I can’t understand why your heart rate is 45 and blood pressure good and you’re not overweight…
JW: because I eat a lot of good fat
Doc: well you need to change your diet and include some statins too
JW: but everything you measured in my body is good, you’re worried about the LDL that you didnt measure… here look at this Iranian reference for estimating LDL in healthy people…
Doc: I don’t have time, you need statins.
At least you know better. Think of the all people who are convinced.
Once on the http://forum.lowcarber.org message boards where I hang out there is a section for posting links to health and diet related articles in the media. Naturally someone posted a link to this one, but I especially loved the subject line she gave her post: “Newsflash from the intellectual darkages … cholesterol in eggs” LOL
That’s hilarious.
Today, most knowledgeable physicians are (or should be) aware that our livers have made the bulk of the cholesterol that is circulating in our bloodstreams. A causal connection between cholesterol and cardiovascular disease is open to question.
Dr. Uffe Ravnskov suggests, in his new book, Fat and Cholesterol are Good For You, that strategies to lower cholesterol in order to reduce cardio risk are similar to amputating yellow fingers of smokers in order to reduce risk of lung cancer. He believes that rising cholesterol is part of the body’s repair system going into action to repair damage to blood vessel walls. Recurring damage leads to dangerous build-ups but the cholesterol forms part of the “patch” that the body puts on the vessel wall to repair it.
Best Wishes,
Ron Hoggan, Ed. D.
co-author: Dangerous Grains
author: The Iron Edge
editor: Journal of Gluten Sensitivity http://www.celiac.com
editor/co-author: Cereal Killers http://tiny.cc/s7neg
That’s what they don’t seem to get: eat more cholesterol, your liver will just make less of it.
Consider yourself a hero, yet again. Thanks to your “Fathead” movie and your blog, you are saving two more people from the standard low cholesterol/high carb/whole grain diet advice. My daughter and son-in-law are team truck drivers crossing the country twice a week for 7-8 weeks at a time. As a nurse, they asked me how they would be able to eat that diet while on the road and avoid having to take medications that could take them off the road. One was borderline diabetic with high triglycerides and high BP, the other with total cholesterol high (at 221?), both overweight. I told them to toss the diet sheet and go with a low carb plan.
They have been creative about staying on this eating plan the last two months and are kind of jerking the doc around about why their labs look so much better and why they continue to refuse statins or meds for diabetes. They were pleased to know EGGS were OK. Most truck stops serve breakfast anytime. Leaving off the biscuits, gravy and hashbrowns was easier when they could double the bacon and eggs. The rest of the time they hunt down casinos with good buffets and truck parking. There they can load up on meat and red, green, and yellow veggies, leave happy and bypass the bread and anything else white.
They are believers. The poor doc is on his own to explain to his practice why he hasn’t prescribed anything to either of these patients, but everything is getting better on their labwork.
Outstanding. Here’s to their continued good health.
Will they ever learn? I think we all know that answer.
Just like San Francisco, who just banned toys in Happy Meals etc unless they meet certain criteria defined by the city. What.Are.They.Thinking?
They’re thinking it’s okay to legislate any cockeyed idea that comes along, never mind waiting for something like proof that it would work.
I find it heartening (ha!) that the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada is supporting eating the whole egg. Can they send some pamphlets to the American Heart Association?
That was good news, and a bit surprising to me.
Ha, given the time you published this, Tom, I was at around that time recording a video covering the same nonsense.
It’s item number 2 of 2.
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/11/bullshit-3.html
Hey, got your fiasco DVD today. Fast service.
The title of your post sums it up nicely.
Maybe you’ve referenced this quote before:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
What’s ironic is that it’s from Upton Sinclair, one the very first nutritional do-gooders.
Cheers!
Great example of a graph Tom! Where do you pull this info from? I’d love to see this graph compared to consumption of not only eggs but butter, red meat etc… All the foods that are being blamed for heart related diseases.
Through Google searches, I found and pulled the diabetes info from the CDC (already in graph form, with datasheet attached), egg consumption from the USDA. Created a second data series for eggs after finding the data.
It would make an interesting Excel/Graph project, creating similar graphs for butter, red meat, etc. And let’s toss vegetable oil in there and see how that looks, too.
Every morning I pop three eggs in my electric tea-kettle. Once the kettle is pouring some of the water gets poured out to make tea, the eggs are left to cook in the rest. When the tea is done brewing I fish out the eggs and eat them. Oh yeah, I put a scoop of coconut oil in my tea too. I don’t get hungry again until darn close to dinnertime. And no more midday doldrums. Yay eggs!
Now you’ve got me wondering if I can cook eggs in my coffee pot.
Had two whole (pastured) eggs (fried in COCONUT oil) for dinner this evening in honor of Canadian cardiologists everywhere. Bon appetit!
John W
your LDL can be calculated.
TC – HDL – (TG/5) = LDL
246 – 78 – (42/5) = 160
Ha, given the time you published this, Tom, I was at around that time recording a video covering the same nonsense.
It’s item number 2 of 2.
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/11/bullshit-3.html
Hey, got your fiasco DVD today. Fast service.
The title of your post sums it up nicely.
Great example of a graph Tom! Where do you pull this info from? I’d love to see this graph compared to consumption of not only eggs but butter, red meat etc… All the foods that are being blamed for heart related diseases.
Through Google searches, I found and pulled the diabetes info from the CDC (already in graph form, with datasheet attached), egg consumption from the USDA. Created a second data series for eggs after finding the data.
It would make an interesting Excel/Graph project, creating similar graphs for butter, red meat, etc. And let’s toss vegetable oil in there and see how that looks, too.
Every morning I pop three eggs in my electric tea-kettle. Once the kettle is pouring some of the water gets poured out to make tea, the eggs are left to cook in the rest. When the tea is done brewing I fish out the eggs and eat them. Oh yeah, I put a scoop of coconut oil in my tea too. I don’t get hungry again until darn close to dinnertime. And no more midday doldrums. Yay eggs!
Now you’ve got me wondering if I can cook eggs in my coffee pot.
Had two whole (pastured) eggs (fried in COCONUT oil) for dinner this evening in honor of Canadian cardiologists everywhere. Bon appetit!
I just went out this evening and bought 4 dozen free-range eggs and 3lbs of bacon (need the bacon grease to cook the eggs). Not sure they will last too long.
At least these “studies” keep the prices down. Imagine how much they would cost if everyone knew they were actually health food.
More eggs for the rest of us.
Whole eggs have the perfect combination of vitamins to prevent macular degeneration.
If you plotted macular degeneration along with egg consumption you would have the same chart as diabetes. As egg consumption has gone down, macular degeneration has skyrocketed
A recent study was done in a nursing home where macular degeneration was running rampant among almost all of the residents. Of course, some idiot dietitian withheld eggs from the residents due cholesterol hysteria.
By adding one egg each day to the diet of the residents, macular degeneration was halted in most of the residents.
The ignorance of the mainstream nutrition complex has meant needless blindness for millions of people around the world.
Hadn’t heard about that one. Very interesting.
I just went out this evening and bought 4 dozen free-range eggs and 3lbs of bacon (need the bacon grease to cook the eggs). Not sure they will last too long.
At least these “studies” keep the prices down. Imagine how much they would cost if everyone knew they were actually health food.
More eggs for the rest of us.
Whole eggs have the perfect combination of vitamins to prevent macular degeneration.
If you plotted macular degeneration along with egg consumption you would have the same chart as diabetes. As egg consumption has gone down, macular degeneration has skyrocketed
A recent study was done in a nursing home where macular degeneration was running rampant among almost all of the residents. Of course, some idiot dietitian withheld eggs from the residents due cholesterol hysteria.
By adding one egg each day to the diet of the residents, macular degeneration was halted in most of the residents.
The ignorance of the mainstream nutrition complex has meant needless blindness for millions of people around the world.
Hadn’t heard about that one. Very interesting.
Tom, thanks for an excellent article!
Re eggs:
If you take a fertilized egg and put in under a hen for three weeks you get a chicken.
What have you added to the egg through the eggshell during the three weeks?
Heat, water vapour and oxygen.
So everything else that is needed to produce a living chicken is included inside the eggshell. There is no excess nor deficit of any compound or the chicken will not make it to the outside world.
So there is just a perfect amount of e.g. cholesterol in each egg.
Thus eggs (of any species) must be the ultimately perfect food for us carnivores.
So the suggestion we should develop hens that lay low-cholesterol eggs would probably be a bad idea.
Great post again Tom. With regard to study ‘power’ or studies being ‘powered sufficiently’ this is fairly simple. If you are looking for a small difference you need lots of subjects to reveal this statistically. If you are looking for a big difference, you need less subjects.
So, if I decided to study the effect of parachutes on jumping out of a plane and surviving, I could probably do this study with two people. Although with a hundred I could get a fantastic p>0.00000001 kind of result. Also, I could wrap the entire study up in a single afternoon. One big plane and fifty parachutes.
If I wanted to study the effect of power lines on causing Leukaemia, and I thought this might have a one in a thousand causal risk over five years. I need an awful lot more people to study, and a lot more time. So, to ‘power’ the study sufficiently, I would need several hundred thousand subjects and, at least, five years.
I hope that’s clear.
Quite clear, thanks. I’ve gotten so used to bad scientists playing games with the data.
My new email and info buddy, Stephanie Seneff at MIT just posted this article on her blog…….She recommends EATING EGGS!!!!!!!!!
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/sulfur_obesity_alzheimers_muscle_wasting.html
‘Could Sulfur Deficiency be a Contributing Factor in Obesity, Heart Disease, Alzheimer’s and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome?’
I love the title and the phrase, ‘contributing factor’ and cautious avoidance of ‘CAUSE’.
Somewhere a few years ago on Doc Eades blog I read that the only place to get adequate essential-to-human-health sulfur, is from meat and dairy…..Vegans beware. We need animal protein (and good brain and heart healthy saturated animal fat and cholesterol) for biochemical enzymes, neurotransmitters, antibodies, protein hormones, Hemoglobin, muscles, other connective tissue….. Willfully choosing to eschew eating FATTY meat and eggs is a bad idea.
Just chiming in to say that breakfast for me is always 3 chicken eggs or 2 duck eggs from a local farm, fried in butter and coconut oil. Except for needing store-bought glasses for reading, my eyes were perfect at my check-up last summer. I’m in my late 60s.
Tom, thanks for an excellent article!
Re eggs:
If you take a fertilized egg and put in under a hen for three weeks you get a chicken.
What have you added to the egg through the eggshell during the three weeks?
Heat, water vapour and oxygen.
So everything else that is needed to produce a living chicken is included inside the eggshell. There is no excess nor deficit of any compound or the chicken will not make it to the outside world.
So there is just a perfect amount of e.g. cholesterol in each egg.
Thus eggs (of any species) must be the ultimately perfect food for us carnivores.
So the suggestion we should develop hens that lay low-cholesterol eggs would probably be a bad idea.
Great post again Tom. With regard to study ‘power’ or studies being ‘powered sufficiently’ this is fairly simple. If you are looking for a small difference you need lots of subjects to reveal this statistically. If you are looking for a big difference, you need less subjects.
So, if I decided to study the effect of parachutes on jumping out of a plane and surviving, I could probably do this study with two people. Although with a hundred I could get a fantastic p>0.00000001 kind of result. Also, I could wrap the entire study up in a single afternoon. One big plane and fifty parachutes.
If I wanted to study the effect of power lines on causing Leukaemia, and I thought this might have a one in a thousand causal risk over five years. I need an awful lot more people to study, and a lot more time. So, to ‘power’ the study sufficiently, I would need several hundred thousand subjects and, at least, five years.
I hope that’s clear.
Quite clear, thanks. I’ve gotten so used to bad scientists playing games with the data.
My new email and info buddy, Stephanie Seneff at MIT just posted this article on her blog…….She recommends EATING EGGS!!!!!!!!!
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/sulfur_obesity_alzheimers_muscle_wasting.html
‘Could Sulfur Deficiency be a Contributing Factor in Obesity, Heart Disease, Alzheimer’s and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome?’
I love the title and the phrase, ‘contributing factor’ and cautious avoidance of ‘CAUSE’.
Somewhere a few years ago on Doc Eades blog I read that the only place to get adequate essential-to-human-health sulfur, is from meat and dairy…..Vegans beware. We need animal protein (and good brain and heart healthy saturated animal fat and cholesterol) for biochemical enzymes, neurotransmitters, antibodies, protein hormones, Hemoglobin, muscles, other connective tissue….. Willfully choosing to eschew eating FATTY meat and eggs is a bad idea.
Just chiming in to say that breakfast for me is always 3 chicken eggs or 2 duck eggs from a local farm, fried in butter and coconut oil. Except for needing store-bought glasses for reading, my eyes were perfect at my check-up last summer. I’m in my late 60s.
Thank you, Laurie! That’s a VERY interesting article.
Thank you, Laurie! That’s a VERY interesting article.
I believe this is the study that Jake mentioned:
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/10/2519
I always like to see the references. 🙂 I’ve gotten awful skeptical about nutritional research too, and I know I have confirmation bias towards low carb / traditional diets. However, this study really does look pretty good (to my untrained, well-fed by eggs eyes).
Uh-oh … just read the footnotes to that study …
1 Supported by the American Egg Board, Egg Nutrition Center, Washington, DC (R.J.N.) and the Massachusetts Lions Eye Research Fund, New Bedford, MA (R.J.N.).
I guess the dieticians can dismiss it because it was funded by the egg board. 🙁
That’s the unfortunate position they’re in. With most funding being geared towards supporting the Lipid Hypothesis, the people producing the supposed villain foods have to fund their own studies.
Interesting discussion of this, ahem, published “review” at http://www.theheart.org/article/1143175.do
If you’re not already aware of this site, it should certainly make for lots of blog fodder (blodder?). Very pro-statin, and oriented towards medicos, but gives us laycreatures a little behind-the-scenes! Note our esteemed Dr. Kendrick has made the only comment necessary on this breathless exposè. I just can’t get riled up about it right now, though. Maybe tomorrow, after a few eggs….
Dr. Kendrick has a way of distilling these matters to their essense.
I believe this is the study that Jake mentioned:
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/10/2519
I always like to see the references. 🙂 I’ve gotten awful skeptical about nutritional research too, and I know I have confirmation bias towards low carb / traditional diets. However, this study really does look pretty good (to my untrained, well-fed by eggs eyes).
Uh-oh … just read the footnotes to that study …
1 Supported by the American Egg Board, Egg Nutrition Center, Washington, DC (R.J.N.) and the Massachusetts Lions Eye Research Fund, New Bedford, MA (R.J.N.).
I guess the dieticians can dismiss it because it was funded by the egg board. 🙁
That’s the unfortunate position they’re in. With most funding being geared towards supporting the Lipid Hypothesis, the people producing the supposed villain foods have to fund their own studies.
Interesting discussion of this, ahem, published “review” at http://www.theheart.org/article/1143175.do
If you’re not already aware of this site, it should certainly make for lots of blog fodder (blodder?). Very pro-statin, and oriented towards medicos, but gives us laycreatures a little behind-the-scenes! Note our esteemed Dr. Kendrick has made the only comment necessary on this breathless exposè. I just can’t get riled up about it right now, though. Maybe tomorrow, after a few eggs….
Dr. Kendrick has a way of distilling these matters to their essense.
I am encouraged to see, on the heart website, that this is being debated, at least.
Yes, I believe we’re starting to see some cracks in the wall.
I am encouraged to see, on the heart website, that this is being debated, at least.
Yes, I believe we’re starting to see some cracks in the wall.
This is what we are up against, part ???
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_46/b4203103862097.htm
Oh, my … “Power Vegans.” It’ll be interesting to see if the NFL tight end remains a vegan for more than a year or two.
This is what we are up against, part ???
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_46/b4203103862097.htm
Oh, my … “Power Vegans.” It’ll be interesting to see if the NFL tight end remains a vegan for more than a year or two.
“Today, most knowledgeable physicians are (or should be) aware that our livers have made the bulk of the cholesterol that is circulating in our bloodstreams.”
Obvious “Duh” Solution: Start removing those pesky cholesterol producing livers!
They already did the next-best thing by giving us statins.
“Today, most knowledgeable physicians are (or should be) aware that our livers have made the bulk of the cholesterol that is circulating in our bloodstreams.”
Obvious “Duh” Solution: Start removing those pesky cholesterol producing livers!
They already did the next-best thing by giving us statins.
Looks like Kiran was right about the “powered” term. As easy as it is to always assume the worst — and usually you’re right to do it — I’d rather know what they mean and only criticize the stuff that’s actually wrong.
When you don’t know their terminology it’s easier for them to dismiss you for not having the right credentials.
Yup, I jumped the gun on that one. I hadn’t previously seen “powered” used to mean “too small of a sample to reach statistical signficance,” but it’s in my mental dictionary now.
My employee, a Home Health Aide, reported that her patient’s new girlfriend had insructed her not to feed him any more eggs for breakfast. She was “killing him” with his breakfast! Give him oatmeal or cereal and toast instead!
Did I mention he is a veteran in his 80’s…with diabetes?
Lord help us! He’s been eating 2 eggs a day since he was a child. Let him eat what he enjoys!
My family of 4 consumes at least 3 dozen eggs a week, and I have lost 44 lbs this year on low carb. My 15 year old lost 12 lbs in the last couple of months, just by sticking to a low carb breakfast…eggs! Hopefully, he will continue this for his life-long health.
Congratulations on the weight loss … both of you. Keep eating those eggs!
Oatmeal, cereal and toast for a diabetic … lord help him.