Knuckleheads in The News!
Too many eggs are risky?
Too many eggs can kill you?
These are the questions that I have been seeing after this article, http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20080409/too-many-eggs-risky, was posted on WebMD last week. The article was reporting on a study of 21,300 male doctors, followed for 20 years after the age of 54. Each year the men reported their egg consumption, physical activity, smoking, alcohol use, consumption of vegetables and breakfast cereal, diabetes, high blood pressure, and use of asprin. “Participants weren't asked to change their diets. The typical participant reported eating one egg per week. Older, heavier, less active men who smoked, had high cholesterol, and had a history of diabetes and high blood pressure tended to eat more eggs.”
The study went on to conclude, “Even after adjusting for other risk factors, men who reported eating seven or more eggs per week were 23% more likely to die of any cause during the study; the risk rose among those with diabetes.
But egg consumption wasn't linked to increased risk of heart attacks or strokes, even among men who ate more than seven eggs per week.”
I haven’t seen the entire study, but after reading this article, there are several things I would question about the study, as it wreaks of stupidity:
1) How did they adjust for “other risk factors” when interpreting the results of this study.
2) Participants were not asked to change their diets. So that begs the question, “What else were they eating?” People are notorious for under-reporting their calories in studies where diet is not controlled for. It sounds like, from the article, that these individuals were not the “healthiest” of subjects to begin with either.
3) The participants reported their physical activity. While people are notorious for UNDER reporting their caloric intake, they are also notorious for OVER reporting their physical activity. Subjects typically say that get more activity/exercise than they really do and they over estimate the amount of calories burned during their workouts.
4) Older, heavier, less active men who smoked, had high cholesterol, and had a history of diabetes and high blood pressure tended to eat more eggs. I wonder if most of the subjects that this line is refering too were also made up the 5169 deaths counted by the researchers during the follow-up period. Honestly, I don’t know where the researchers were going with that statement. Was the idea to draw some sort of obtuse connection between fat people who smoke and have other health risks and egg consumption? How could you even conduct a study on people that are this unhealthy and come to the conclusion that only ONE of the things they are doing (or not doing) is what killed them?
5) The article also states, “But egg consumption wasn't linked to increased risk of heart attacks or strokes, even among men who ate more than seven eggs per week.” So, then what killed the men that led the researchers to conclude it was egg consumption? Maybe the men died of old age, or it was just their time to go. I just don’t get how they concluded that egg consumption was risky, when they were looking at people who were already out of shape, deconditioned, had other health risks, smoked, didn’t control for their diet and didn’t have some sort of exercise regime to follow. To then go on and say that the egg consumption did not increase the risk of heart attack or stroke (even amongst the men who ate higher amounts of eggs), what the heck were the people dying of?
As you can see, there seems to be some loop holes in this study. The sad part is that authors report on stuff like this and people read it and get scared. Pull up any health article on an internet news page (msn.com, google news, etc) or look at any health article in your daily news paper and you will be bombarded with articles from authors (most of whom have no idea about how research is conducted and no background in the health/science field) saying that “recent research states (insert some stupid new trend).” The problem is that the authors don’t understand the research any more than the general population who reads their article in the latest publication and yet, they are ones reporting on it! Like the blind leading the blind, these kinds of articles leave people asking lots of questions and being more confused and losing direction with their diet/health and wellness programs. It’s unfortunate, but the American media is doing a great job of helping people stay un-fit.
Question everything you read,
Patrick
Too many eggs can kill you?
These are the questions that I have been seeing after this article, http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20080409/too-many-eggs-risky, was posted on WebMD last week. The article was reporting on a study of 21,300 male doctors, followed for 20 years after the age of 54. Each year the men reported their egg consumption, physical activity, smoking, alcohol use, consumption of vegetables and breakfast cereal, diabetes, high blood pressure, and use of asprin. “Participants weren't asked to change their diets. The typical participant reported eating one egg per week. Older, heavier, less active men who smoked, had high cholesterol, and had a history of diabetes and high blood pressure tended to eat more eggs.”
The study went on to conclude, “Even after adjusting for other risk factors, men who reported eating seven or more eggs per week were 23% more likely to die of any cause during the study; the risk rose among those with diabetes.
But egg consumption wasn't linked to increased risk of heart attacks or strokes, even among men who ate more than seven eggs per week.”
I haven’t seen the entire study, but after reading this article, there are several things I would question about the study, as it wreaks of stupidity:
1) How did they adjust for “other risk factors” when interpreting the results of this study.
2) Participants were not asked to change their diets. So that begs the question, “What else were they eating?” People are notorious for under-reporting their calories in studies where diet is not controlled for. It sounds like, from the article, that these individuals were not the “healthiest” of subjects to begin with either.
3) The participants reported their physical activity. While people are notorious for UNDER reporting their caloric intake, they are also notorious for OVER reporting their physical activity. Subjects typically say that get more activity/exercise than they really do and they over estimate the amount of calories burned during their workouts.
4) Older, heavier, less active men who smoked, had high cholesterol, and had a history of diabetes and high blood pressure tended to eat more eggs. I wonder if most of the subjects that this line is refering too were also made up the 5169 deaths counted by the researchers during the follow-up period. Honestly, I don’t know where the researchers were going with that statement. Was the idea to draw some sort of obtuse connection between fat people who smoke and have other health risks and egg consumption? How could you even conduct a study on people that are this unhealthy and come to the conclusion that only ONE of the things they are doing (or not doing) is what killed them?
5) The article also states, “But egg consumption wasn't linked to increased risk of heart attacks or strokes, even among men who ate more than seven eggs per week.” So, then what killed the men that led the researchers to conclude it was egg consumption? Maybe the men died of old age, or it was just their time to go. I just don’t get how they concluded that egg consumption was risky, when they were looking at people who were already out of shape, deconditioned, had other health risks, smoked, didn’t control for their diet and didn’t have some sort of exercise regime to follow. To then go on and say that the egg consumption did not increase the risk of heart attack or stroke (even amongst the men who ate higher amounts of eggs), what the heck were the people dying of?
As you can see, there seems to be some loop holes in this study. The sad part is that authors report on stuff like this and people read it and get scared. Pull up any health article on an internet news page (msn.com, google news, etc) or look at any health article in your daily news paper and you will be bombarded with articles from authors (most of whom have no idea about how research is conducted and no background in the health/science field) saying that “recent research states (insert some stupid new trend).” The problem is that the authors don’t understand the research any more than the general population who reads their article in the latest publication and yet, they are ones reporting on it! Like the blind leading the blind, these kinds of articles leave people asking lots of questions and being more confused and losing direction with their diet/health and wellness programs. It’s unfortunate, but the American media is doing a great job of helping people stay un-fit.
Question everything you read,
Patrick
Post a Comment