Protein requirements- aka are eggs ok?

[steveoz]

After a discussion with my sister (who underwent bariatric surgery for weight loss) she mentioned how many eggs she eats to help keep up her protein intake. She also pointed out that I -as a 250lb man-was probably NOT getting enough protein!!
My response was that she might be thinner but her heart is gonna clog up with cholesterol- according to her that's no longer the case with eggs. So what is the consensus on egg intake, and as an overarching question how much protein do we actually need?

[ultraman6970]

IMO here in the states people eat way too many eggs. And I fall for it :D

In other countries the general rule is like 3 eggs tops a week.

The issue is that your liver is going to have problems (cholesterol production) if you eat way too many eggs every day. But again that debatable because im not a doctor and I like food way too much :P

[benb]

I think the egg/cholesterol thing (along with other foods with cholesterol in them like shrimp) was busted down thoroughly a while ago. Blood cholesterol doesn't come from dietary cholesterol.

Lots of nutritionists, doctors, etc.. are counseling people to eat more eggs.

[fignon's barber]

I believe the current thinking is that eggs are the perfect protein and are very good for you. It's the hash browns that'll kill you.

[biker72]

I haven't had a whole egg since my bypass surgery in 1987. I do eat egg whites however.

[Mzilliox]

people are so weird.

eggs are great for you, far better than meat. no need to worry about cholesterol, you can even cook them in butter.

you are most certainly consuming other things that are worse for you much more often.

OP, you probably dont need that much more protein, but if you do, there's beans and a whole bunch of other things besides eggs with proteins.

[ultraman6970]

Beans... that from where the Turbo comes from :P

[Octave]

Above posters are right about dietary cholesterol not actually impacting blood cholesterol - they are separately regulated.

Odds-ratio of developing type II diabetes is positively correlated with egg consumption, though. It's basically dose-dependent - i.e. more eggs per week is more positively correlated with higher risk of developing type II diabetes.

2-4 eggs/wk increases risk by about 18%
5-6 eggs/wk increases risk by about 45%

High-fat diets are known to induce hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia, and egg yolks specifically increase circulating plasma glucose levels.

There are lots of other good sources of protein and being part of the healthcare professional community I can tell you that true protein deficiency in the US is exceedingly rare, even amongst vegans/vegetarians. If you eat sufficient calories for your body via a generally well-rounded diet, you're probably getting enough protein. The protein craze/myth is largely a fabrication.

[Tandem Rider]

The current medical consensus is .8 gr of protein per kilo of body weight. Athletes and people with a very active lifestyle need a little more. I, actually MrsTR, just try to limit the frequency of beef and pork for dinner and keep it healthy on the plate.

Most people get way more protein than they need, maybe keep an honest food diary of everything that passes across your lips for a couple weeks and then do the math to see where you stand. ;)

[batman1425]

Essentially everything you eat has protein in it. The idea that we need to consume animal products to get enough protein is a fallacy.

[spoonrobot]

Above posters are right about dietary cholesterol not actually impacting blood cholesterol - they are separately regulated.

Odds-ratio of developing type II diabetes is positively correlated with egg consumption, though. It's basically dose-dependent - i.e. more eggs per week is more positively correlated with higher risk of developing type II diabetes.

2-4 eggs/wk increases risk by about 18%
5-6 eggs/wk increases risk by about 45%

High-fat diets are known to induce hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia, and egg yolks specifically increase circulating plasma glucose levels.

There are lots of other good sources of protein and being part of the healthcare professional community I can tell you that true protein deficiency in the US is exceedingly rare, even amongst vegans/vegetarians. If you eat sufficient calories for your body via a generally well-rounded diet, you're probably getting enough protein. The protein craze/myth is largely a fabrication.

What is the source for these numbers? Sounds like straight BS.

[NHAero]

This is totally news to me, wow. Wife and I eat a fair number of eggs, really easy to take one hard boiled for lunch. And easy to get local organic eggs here. My dad died from complications of Type II diabetes, onset at about age 50, so this got my attention. I'm 66, pretty different lifestyle and diet from Dad, how much do i need to worry about this? I'm in the 5-6 eggs/week range. In other dietary realms, I've fallen off the wagon a bit, but had pretty much given up on all sweeteners, and most flour products except pasta.


snip

Odds-ratio of developing type II diabetes is positively correlated with egg consumption, though. It's basically dose-dependent - i.e. more eggs per week is more positively correlated with higher risk of developing type II diabetes.

2-4 eggs/wk increases risk by about 18%
5-6 eggs/wk increases risk by about 45%

High-fat diets are known to induce hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia, and egg yolks specifically increase circulating plasma glucose levels.

[Octave]

What is the source for these numbers? Sounds like straight BS.
Djoussé et al., 2009. DOI:10.2337/dc08-1271 or PMID: 19017774.

Prospective study of 20,703 men and 36,295 women over 25 and 15 years, respectively.

[vav]

Dinner last night for me and the girls. Tortilla de patatas ( 8 eggs )
Our family of 4 easily consumes 2 dozen eggs a week :banana:

[Octave]

This is totally news to me, wow. Wife and I eat a fair number of eggs, really easy to take one hard boiled for lunch. And easy to get local organic eggs here. My dad died from complications of Type II diabetes, onset at about age 50, so this got my attention. I'm 66, pretty different lifestyle and diet from Dad, how much do i need to worry about this? I'm in the 5-6 eggs/week range. In other dietary realms, I've fallen off the wagon a bit, but had pretty much given up on all sweeteners, and most flour products except pasta.
Other studies, like Cai et al., 2019 (doi: 10.3177/jnsv.65.362) have seen the same in other populations (in this case, in the Xinjiang region) but have correlated it with common dietary accompaniments to eggs (salt and other fats). This might be an important factor, since it seems the US population shows the highest egg/T2DM correlation (Mah et al., 2019 for instance found that while globally eggs and T2DM show a weak correlation, its much more significant in the US than elsewhere)

Prior to getting into cannabinoid/endocannabinoid research, our lab did a lot of work on high-fat and fat-imbalanced diets. Low omega 3:6 ratio fat diets cause a whole host of problems, and increased resting glucose is one of them. Unless chickens are being fed DHA and EPA, their eggs are really rich in omega 6 with weak omega 3.

In the end there are so many variables to control, so don't freak out about it. My two-cents is that its an easy fix (focus on moderate, healthy fats and cut down on animal fats including eggs), but I know everyone approaches food differently. I'm not here to scaremonger or preach, sorry if that caused alarm - my father developed T2DM and did/does eat 2 eggs per day and would rather be on a host of pharmaceuticals than change his diet. I wanted to chime in because I think education is the biggest hurdle for most people, rather than the behavioral change itself, though obviously for some (like my father) this isn't sufficient.

[spoonrobot]

Djoussé et al., 2009. DOI:10.2337/dc08-1271 or PMID: 19017774.

Prospective study of 20,703 men and 36,295 women over 25 and 15 years, respectively.

More data dredging nonsense, less than worthless.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:
In this prospective study, we used data from two completed randomized trials: 20,703 men from the Physicians' Health Study I (1982-2007) and 36,295 women from the Women's Health Study (1992-2007). Egg consumption was ascertained using questionnaires, and we used the Cox proportional hazard model to estimate relative risks of type 2 diabetes.

Here's a contradictory study, with a better view of the research.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172166/

The risk of type 2 diabetes has been associated with modifiable lifestyle factors including diet [4]. Among dietary factors, high egg intake has been suggested to be associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes because eggs are high in cholesterol (≈ 200 mg/egg), and cholesterol has been related to an increased glucose level [5]. However, eggs contain various beneficial nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, proteins, and fatty acids [6,7], in addition to nutrients considered detrimental to health such as saturated fats and cholesterol [8,9]. Epidemiologic studies have explored the link between egg consumption and the risk of incident type 2 diabetes, but findings are inconsistent. Studies have found a negative association [10], positive association [11], or no association [12,13,14,15]. Virtanen et al. [10] reported that higher egg intake (> 45 g/d) was associated with a 45% lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes compared with lower egg intake (< 14 g/d) in Finish men aged 42–60 years. In a prospective study, however, daily egg consumption (≥ 7 servings/week) was associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared with no egg consumption in both men and women [11]. In a cohort study using data from the Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study, there was no association between egg intake and risk of type 2 diabetes [15].

[Likes2ridefar]

Beans have more protein usually per Serving as touched on already. And there are others that don’t have fat or cholesterol or are sourced from an animal.

I don’t understand the obsession over a singular food source to meet a dietary goal. Most likely it’s not sustainable and what gap are you creating elsewhere by this narrow focus?

[avalonracing]

What is the source for these numbers? Sounds like straight BS.

As a 50-year-old who has eaten about eleventy-billion eggs a year for the last 30 years and whose HDL, LDL and blood sugar is fine, I'm also curious about this research.

[spoonrobot]

As a 50-year-old who has eaten about eleventy-billion eggs a year for the last 30 years and whose HDL, LDL and blood sugar is fine, I'm also curious about this research.

That research is a form of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

It was rife in the scientific community in the early-mid 2000s and although the tide has turned somewhat it's still a huge issue. The study from 2009 is a very good example of bad statistical science leading to incorrect conclusions.

[echappist]

delete

[Octave]

More data dredging nonsense, less than worthless.Thanks for the link. I'm aware that there are inconsistencies in the data, and like I said in my last post, a lot of this probably comes down to modes of preparation and the other dietary correlates with high egg consumption. The study I posted was not "less than worthless" just as the review you posted isn't. This is the nature of science. The correlation between eggs and T2DM seems to be higher in the US than eslewhere, so global meta-analyses tend to differ from those that have been conducted solely on the US population for reasons I'm not aware of.

For instance, see this from the abstract of Tamez et al 2016 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27108219) Egg intake was associated with incident type 2 diabetes (risk ratio (RR)/egg per d 1·13; 95 % CI 1·04, 1·22). We identified study location as a major source of heterogeneity. For studies conducted in the USA, we observed a stronger association (RR 1·47; 95 % CI 1·32, 1·64), whereas results were null for studies conducted elsewhere.

or here from Wallin et al 2016 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26993632) Our findings in Swedish men do not support an association between egg consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes. In a meta-analysis, frequent egg consumption was associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes in US studies only. Egg consumption habits and associated overall dietary patterns may differ between populations and could potentially explain the discrepancies between reported results

or here from a meta-analysis also by Djoussé et al in 2016 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26739035)When stratified by geographic area, there was a 39% higher risk of DM (95% CI: 21%, 60%) comparing highest with lowest egg consumption in US studies (I(2) = 45.4%, P = 0.089) and no elevated risk of DM with egg intake in non-US studies (RR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.02 using the fixed-effect model, P < 0.001 comparing US with non-US studies).

[Bentley]

Above posters are right about dietary cholesterol not actually impacting blood cholesterol - they are separately regulated.

Odds-ratio of developing type II diabetes is positively correlated with egg consumption, though. It's basically dose-dependent - i.e. more eggs per week is more positively correlated with higher risk of developing type II diabetes.

2-4 eggs/wk increases risk by about 18%
5-6 eggs/wk increases risk by about 45%

High-fat diets are known to induce hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia, and egg yolks specifically increase circulating plasma glucose levels.

There are lots of other good sources of protein and being part of the healthcare professional community I can tell you that true protein deficiency in the US is exceedingly rare, even amongst vegans/vegetarians. If you eat sufficient calories for your body via a generally well-rounded diet, you're probably getting enough protein. The protein craze/myth is largely a fabrication.

Does this consider other dietary considerations like consumption of carbs, sugary drinks... other dietary no-no’s that contribute to an unhealthy diet?

Can you point to the study? Who footed the bill?

Really interesting if it’s really a good study....

[NHAero]

That settles it, we're moving to Sweden :)

[Ozz]

Dinner last night for me and the girls. Tortilla de patatas ( 8 eggs )
Our family of 4 easily consumes 2 dozen eggs a week :banana:

luv tortilla espanola! I like the addition of the tomatoes and avocado.

Well done!

[OtayBW]

Well since we're deep diving into eggs, I'll ask: if higher egg consumption results in 18%-45% greater risk of diabetes, what's the level of risk in the control group (normal egg consumers)?

Adam and Eve on a Raft:. SMASH 'EM! [emoji16][emoji16][emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[C40_guy]

people are so weird.

eggs are great for you, far better than meat. no need to worry about cholesterol, you can even cook them in butter.



Grass fed butter, of course, or preferably ghee!

[XXtwindad]

Dinner last night for me and the girls. Tortilla de patatas ( 8 eggs )
Our family of 4 easily consumes 2 dozen eggs a week :banana:

Do you ship? 😉

[Johnnysmooth]

I believe the current thinking is that eggs are the perfect protein and are very good for you. It's the hash browns that'll kill you.

And here I thought it was the bacon that got you...

[Clean39T]

And here I thought it was the bacon that got you...Depends on who is funding the study.......

Seriously.

Eat food, mostly plants. Move a lot.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[tuscanyswe]

I likely eat 40+ eggs every week.

[mtechnica]

Eggs aren’t really OK. Any animal based protein is going to increase your risk of getting cancer. It’s possible to get plenty of protein from plant based sources such as beans. Chances are you’re over estimating how much protein you need anyways.

[rnhood]

Eggs, meat, and fish are very nutritious, as well as being complete protein sources in that they provide everyone of the essential amino acids. Red meat in particular is full of nutrients such as B12 and iron. There is nothing wrong with these foods, and people would be healthier to include them in their diets. As with all foods, eat in moderation and maintain a healthy weight.

[Clean39T]

I likely eat 40+ eggs every week.

I will forever now picture you thusly..

https://i.redd.it/c9tteefgxtn01.jpg

[Clean39T]

Eggs aren’t really OK. Any animal based protein is going to increase your risk of getting cancer. It’s possible to get plenty of protein from plant based sources such as beans. Chances are you’re over estimating how much protein you need anyways.

Wasn't going to be the one to say it - but yeah, this.

[Seramount]

have been consuming at least one egg per day for the last half century.

also adhere to an omnivorous diet that includes a wide variety of food items consumed in moderate portions.

always pass annual physicals with excellent results, so not worried about the eggs at all.

almost time for cocktails now.

[Mikej]

For those of you that feel your cholesterol numbers are fine, those under 185 total, it’s not a guarantee that your heart arteries are fine. Has anybody ever had a calcium scan?

[skiezo]

Depends on who is funding the study.......

Seriously.

Eat food, mostly plants. Move a lot.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I also eat lots of ocean fish since I did 16 offshore trips this past year and have about 50/60 pounds of fish vacuum packed.

[AngryScientist]

almost time for cocktails now.

this is the ticket.

balance.

the red meat and eggies thicken up the blood, the booze thins it out.

harmony. :hello:

[Clean39T]

this is the ticket.



balance.



the red meat and eggies thicken up the blood, the booze thins it out.



harmony. :hello:I've got a good place for us to meet up next time you're in Portland.....

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Hellgate]

Eggs aren’t really OK. Any animal based protein is going to increase your risk of getting cancer. It’s possible to get plenty of protein from plant based sources such as beans. Chances are you’re over estimating how much protein you need anyways.What he said...

Anecdotal stories don't override major, valid, and reliable studies.

Take a look at this: https://www.netflix.com/title/81157840?preventIntent=true

[Hellgate]

this is the ticket.



balance.



the red meat and eggies thicken up the blood, the booze thins it out.



harmony. :hello:I traded meat for [emoji485]

[kingpin75s]

Eggs are delicious.

Eggs pay for my bikes.

Eggs are the Best!

[illuminaught]

If you can't tell me which transporter pumps dietary phytosterols back into your intestinal lumen... You might want to stop voicing opinions on diet (and the sources of protein).

These topics require expertise, which most people involved do not have. Tread carefully...

Eat what makes you feel the best... Which is different for everyone, and changes.

[steveoz]

I also eat lots of ocean fish since I did 16 offshore trips this past year and have about 50/60 pounds of fish vacuum packed.

Whatcha catch?

[steveoz]

Wow lot's of info to contemplate - I'm not solely focusing on eggs for my protein input - was more concerned as to how it would affect my sister. Her Dr. is the one who suggested eggs to increase protein input so there's that- apparently since her stomach is physically smaller after surgery she doesn't have room to spare for fiber, roughage etc. and protein deficiency could be a real issue.
She was the one who brought up my protein requirements(isn't that the way it goes -somebody gets into fitness and they start preaching to the crowd..) - it's too much to go into here but she plugged in what I typically eat into her "fitness app" and Im usually around 60-70 grams- she said I should be around 100....and my carb intake is too high ...probably explains the extra girth...I guess mankind hasn't died out yet from eggs so I'll throw a few extra in through the week in place of cereal.

[Hilltopperny]

I am 200-225 depending on the season and amount of activity I am doing. I eat a lot of eggs. They are organic and come from my father in laws farm. Both of my parents were diabetic. Mom type 2 and Dad type 1. I have never had blood sugar issues and if eating a lot of eggs caused such to happen my whole household would have type 2.

We try to eat whole foods at my house and while we would not qualify as super fit to most on here we have very limited health related problems if any. Balance seems to be the key. There are tons of fallacies about diet and nutrition as well as other scientific data based on who is paying for the study. Let your body tell you what it needs and fill it accordingly.

Sent from my LGL423DL using Tapatalk

[oldpotatoe]

If you can't tell me which transporter pumps dietary phytosterols back into your intestinal lumen... You might want to stop voicing opinions on diet (and the sources of protein).

These topics require expertise, which most people involved do not have. Tread carefully...

Eat what makes you feel the best... Which is different for everyone, and changes.

But, but, but, if it's on the internet it's gotta be true, right?

Reality, what a concept..

BTW-I like eggs, eat probably a dozen of so a week..had a fried egg onna grilled cheese last night..and
it
was
yummy
:)

[tuscanyswe]

I will forever now picture you thusly..

https://i.redd.it/c9tteefgxtn01.jpg

Hehe i like that pic. Im unlucky that im sensitive to a lot of foods esp gluten and anything thats been produced in its presence.

This limits my diet a lot. I like eggs because they are easily available and relatively cheap and easy to eat (for me at least). But they also have a shell which for me means they cant be contaminated with stuff i get a reaction from.

So for me its a safe food (well maybe not long time then or perhaps thats up for debate)

[illuminaught]

Onion ad: Fear of eggs, brought to you by the same people who brought you transfats, low fat diets, low carb diets, high fat diets, low protein diets, high protein diets, air only diets... etc.

Honestly, eggs are excellent. And if you're worried about your lipids, Google what choline does for your "lipids"... Eggs are an absolutely wonderful source of choline. Does that influence you liver's ability to distribute fuel to... Idk... Say... Your muscles?

Also, does dietary cholesterol lead to increases in "bad" cholesterol (ie ldl)? (Which is also a ludicrous designation). The same people talking **** on eggs have measure nothing of substance and should really recognize that their assertions about metabolism should stop.

FYI, your nutritionist doesn't have a degree-in or understanding-of biochemistry or metabolism... Oh, and they don't teach this kind of metabolism in medical school... The people you're listening to don't publish metabolism studies, they publish spurious correlations.

The real experts, don't tell anyone what they should eat because that is a very complicated answer that you can't have without a significant battery of tests...

[illuminaught]

Djoussé et al., 2009. DOI:10.2337/dc08-1271 or PMID: 19017774.

Prospective study of 20,703 men and 36,295 women over 25 and 15 years, respectively.

Excellent find. In this study, the only change that these 50k people implemented in their lives was the consumption of eggs... Nope.

Let me guess, egg consumption was measured with a self report survey?

[benb]

Almost all these pronouncements are to be taken with tons of skepticism.

The "everyone needs massive protein" and "carbs are the root of all evil" is also way overblown right now.

They've got sedentary overweight people thinking they need bodybuilder levels of protein every day. Almost nothing that's come out of bodybuilding is scientific or healthy and yet it feels like personal training/gym exercise/nutrition has been hugely influenced by bodybuilders.

If I up my protein intake via real food I seem to tolerate it and maybe it helps if I have a high volume/high intensity exercise phase going on. Maybe. But everyone is pushing protein supplements like mad.. personally I can tolerate almost none of them.. they're all way too high a concentration of protein all at once. Usually they push Whey protein like crazy... Whey protein has always made me kind of sick, I assumed it was cause supplements are poorly controlled and the Whey Protein had lactose in it despite every manufacturer claiming it doesn't. But then I tried a Vegan protein powder and it's just about as bad.

[Mzilliox]

Eggs aren’t really OK. Any animal based protein is going to increase your risk of getting cancer. It’s possible to get plenty of protein from plant based sources such as beans. Chances are you’re over estimating how much protein you need anyways.

nonsense.

maybe cafo meat and eggs which are hardly nutritious. but there is no increase to my cancer risk from eating the eggs my chickens lay every day.

[nicrump]

I just have to ask... when did eating for humans become so damn unintuitive?

eggs? Yes!
250lb man "you're probably not getting enough protein" No, you're likely getting too much of most things.

[XXtwindad]

I am 200-225 depending on the season and amount of activity I am doing. I eat a lot of eggs. They are organic and come from my father in laws farm. Both of my parents were diabetic. Mom type 2 and Dad type 1. I have never had blood sugar issues and if eating a lot of eggs caused such to happen my whole household would have type 2.

We try to eat whole foods at my house and while we would not qualify as super fit to most on here we have very limited health related problems if any. Balance seems to be the key. There are tons of fallacies about diet and nutrition as well as other scientific data based on who is paying for the study. Let your body tell you what it needs and fill it accordingly.

Sent from my LGL423DL using Tapatalk

Stop making sense :)

[Mzilliox]

I just have to ask... when did eating for humans become so damn unintuitive?

eggs? Yes!
250lb man "you're probably not getting enough protein" No, you're likely getting too much of most things.

its shocking to me every day. diets are so weird

[Ralph]

My personal view is most people eat too much....even of so called good stuff. I see very few lean or thin people. Even among folks who have a larger size frame. At the hospital a few weeks ago....wife was have a total knee replacement.....and I don't recall seeing one single person.....employee or patient with BMI of low 20's.

And I know....this is not scientific at all.

[William]

eggs? Yes!
250lb man "you're probably not getting enough protein" No, you're likely getting too much of most things.

You calling me fat!!??;):)

250 has been within my normal range (depending on work out focus) since HS. I honestly don't wory too much about calories or ratios. I've never been a big junk/sweets eater and I listen to my body. I just try to keep sodium intake low, don't eat a lot of high fat or processed foods. Eggs are good, on average about once a week they enter my gullet.





W.

[Blue Jays]

My sense is we generally eat too much. Skipping desserts and deep-fried dishes is an easy layup.
Nutrition is top-notch so there little chance of missing vitamins and minerals.
Protein intake seems hyped. Nobody will waste away from substituting salad in place of a big meal.

Look at historic pics from the 1940s and 1950s.
Men who were 6'0" and 145 lbs appeared to be rather common.
Women who were size 0 and size 2 was very regularly seen.

[benb]

My personal view is most people eat too much....even of so called good stuff. I see very few lean or thin people. Even among folks who have a larger size frame. At the hospital a few weeks ago....wife was have a total knee replacement.....and I don't recall seeing one single person.....employee or patient with BMI of low 20's.

And I know....this is not scientific at all.

The people with BMI low 20s... they are all over in Europe.

I was 23.2 based on my weigh-in this morning. But then I don't count cause I ride a bike regularly.

I felt normal to slightly chunky in Europe this summer. So weird. I'm more likely to be asked if I'm sick when I'm at home in the US.

In general I agree with this idea of "eating way too much". There is so much fixation on "what" is being eaten with all these diet/exercise fads and not enough on how much. Too much healthy food is too much healthy food.

[nicrump]

You calling me fat!!??;):)

250 has been within my normal range (depending on work out focus) since HS. I honestly don't wory too much about calories or ratios. I've never been a big junk/sweets eater and I listen to my body. I just try to keep sodium intake low, don't eat a lot of high fat or processed foods. Eggs are good, on average about once a week they enter my gullet.





W.

Keep in mind, anomalies aside(which fewer people have than think they do), to have a BMI below 30 at a weight of 250lb, you'd be 7' tall...

I'm fat too.

[XXtwindad]

Keep in mind, anomalies aside(which fewer people have than think they do), to have a BMI below 30 at a weight of 250lb, you'd be 7' tall...

I'm fat too.

Are you really fat?

BMI is a very poor barometer of health and fitness, as I've posted in several other threads. There is a huge difference between visceral fat and subcutaneous fat: http://www.drhirani.com/diabetes/difference-visceral-fat-subcutaneous-fat/

A quick and random search on the perils of using BMI as the ultimate gauge of health:

https://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/a19537796/the-problem-with-bmi/

https://www.newsweek.com/2017/05/19/obesity-childhood-obesity-body-mass-index-bmi-weight-weight-gain-health-595625.html

https://www.livestrong.com/article/13720362-bmi-and-body-composition/

https://www.rachaelhartleynutrition.com/blog/problems-with-bmi

A much more relevant question (not particular to the poster above): Are you really fit.? That question can't be gauged by the scale alone. And often times, not at all.

[mtechnica]

nonsense.

maybe cafo meat and eggs which are hardly nutritious. but there is no increase to my cancer risk from eating the eggs my chickens lay every day.

It’s not nonsense and you’re wrong because your eggs still have animal protein in them. I’m not saying you’re going to get cancer from eating them, but all else being equal, your risk for cancer and other illnesses is higher if you eat them regularly.

[steveoz]

My sense is we generally eat too much. Skipping desserts and deep-fried dishes is an easy layup.
Nutrition is top-notch so there little chance of missing vitamins and minerals.
Protein intake seems hyped. Nobody will waste away from substituting salad in place of a big meal.

Look at historic pics from the 1940s and 1950s.
Men who were 6'0" and 145 lbs appeared to be rather common.
Women who were size 0 and size 2 was very regularly seen.

^^this right here^^ Even up to the 60's and 70's people seemed to be "normal size" ...of the few articles on nutrition I've read the biggest correlation with weight gain was the increase in processed food consumption- wonder what those people considered a "normal" diet back then?

[zmalwo]

If you really want to take protein the cheapest, most effective way then go with the gold standard Whey. I did a calculation a while ago and their 5 pound jug comes out to be the most cost effective protein source out there except when compared to the very cheap, caged, non-organic $1.50 a dozen eggs. Any egg that cost more than $2.50 a dozen will automatically make gold standard Whey the most cost effective protein gram to gram compared to all protein sources, such as chicken, fish, beef, beef jerky, egg, and etc... Not to mention that Gold Standard Whey has a very low cholesterol level compared to other protein sources. The only complete spectrum protein that comes to my mind with lower cholesterol than Whey is soy protein.

[Octave]

Excellent find. In this study, the only change that these 50k people implemented in their lives was the consumption of eggs... Nope.

Let me guess, egg consumption was measured with a self report survey?
Of course that wasn't the only change they made, which is why you use statistical analyses to control for other variables. Dietary tracking wasn't done with a single question: "How many eggs do you eat per day?" With >50k people you are able to control for socioeconomic demographics, exercise, other dietary changes, family health history...etc. That's the point of large, prospective studies of epidemiological nature...

and the other studies that I posted which found the same thing in the US population, you don't trust those either? They were all funded by public academic funding from university grants or the National Institute of Health, conducted by educated scientists and then published in peer-reviewed journals. If you don't trust any epidemiological data then there is no point in having a conversation about scientific findings.


As I said elsewhere in this thread, the interesting thing to note is that this correlation is really found in north america but not elsewhere. This could be due to the type/quality of eggs consumed in north america, or the most common styles of cooking, or what people most often pair their eggs with.

For example, egg consumption here in France is ~216 eggs per person per year. US is closer to ~275. But here they are often soft boiled or in an omelet and very rarely eaten with meat (except in a quiche) whereas in the US they are often paired with bacon, sausage or ham. This could make a very significant difference, as the context of food is often a huge deciding factor in how our body treats it. Fat-soluble vitamins found in many vegetables, for instance, are most likely to end up in your urine than in your blood if you consume them without fat, which is why fat-free salad dressings are one of the dumbest inventions of modern culinary history. Similarly, many people here cook their eggs with fats that are high in omega-3 (Colza is very popular), rather than omega-6 (Rapeseed/canola/corn) which are more popular in the US. Since Omega 6 increases insulin production, paired with eggs which often do the same, this combination may mean that US egg consumers have a context-dependent effect occurring.

[Tandem Rider]

^^this right here^^ Even up to the 60's and 70's people seemed to be "normal size" ...of the few articles on nutrition I've read the biggest correlation with weight gain was the increase in processed food consumption- wonder what those people considered a "normal" diet back then?

A "normal" dinner meal for us in the '60s was a small piece of meat, small serving of potatoes, garden vegetables, and a small garden salad. The daily work was physical and dessert was reserved for birthdays and holidays. Water, coffee, or milk to drink. Dad would have a beer in the evening after everything was done. None of the food was processed from the store.

Lunch was a small sandwich, 1 thin slice of roast something, 1 slice of cheese and mustard/mayo. No chips or soda.

Breakfast was always 2 fresh eggs, no potatoes, bacon was reserved for Sundays.

I think the takeaway is to eat a wide variety of unprocessed foods, watch the portion size, limit the high calorie beverages, rarely eat dessert, and move around a lot.

[Ralph]

My Dad was 5' 11" and 135 lbs as a soldier in WW11. Tough as nails. Didn't gain much as he aged. Ate the standard diet of the times in the south. Lots of fried meat and gravy. Fresh veggies from the garden as available. Lots of milk and butter straight from the cows. And food cooked with lard. And died at age 59. Could have lived longer if they did bypass heart surgery in local hospitals then.

As I said above....I think most of us eat too much.....but also believe what we eat is super important. I'm fairly healthy as a 78 year old....have a mostly (but not entirely) plant based diet and is nothing like what my Dad ate. I believe what you eat is a big deal...starting very young. I limit eggs....they come from an animal. But do eat one boiled with fruit and veggies occasionally. They taste good. Limit sugar water also.....juices, soda's, etc......except when on the bike and I won't get an insulin response.

I suspect the main problem with an occasional egg is what else you eat along with them.

[benb]

[/B]

Are you really fat?

BMI is a very poor barometer of health and fitness, as I've posted in several other threads. There is a huge difference between visceral fat and subcutaneous fat: http://www.drhirani.com/diabetes/difference-visceral-fat-subcutaneous-fat/

A much more relevant question (not particular to the poster above): Are you really fit.? That question can't be gauged by the scale alone. And often times, not at all.

This always comes out and it's almost always silly.

Especially if we're using the marker of 30 for BMI.

It's a huge amount of weight, anyone who is healthy/fast cyclist BMI levels in the 19-23 range if we think about how much weight we'd have to gain to hit 30 it's very obvious. I'm 6'1" I would have to gain 50lbs to approach a BMI of 30. There's no conceivable way I could imagine gaining that weight in a healthy way.

A lot of the athletes that get held up as "they're fit and have high BMI!" are football and strength athletes that a) have taken drugs b) have been on a plan of eating MASSIVE calories for years and years and years to gain muscle weight. They can't keep it up and stay healthy in the long run, their bodies break down. Seems like there is some evidence it causes heart damage to be overly large too. They either lose a ton of weight and don't even look like the same person or they get really unhealthy and obviously very overweight after retirement.

Fit is also so variable as to be incredibly hard to quantify. An Elite gymnast is extremely fit but would perform very badly if dropped in a cycling race. Elite cyclists are extremely fit but if dropped into gymnastics probably couldn't even mount the apparatus.

The huge average weight gain in the population can't be explained away as massive muscle gains.

[XXtwindad]

This always comes out and it's almost always silly.

Especially if we're using the marker of 30 for BMI.

It's a huge amount of weight, anyone who is healthy/fast cyclist BMI levels in the 19-23 range if we think about how much weight we'd have to gain to hit 30 it's very obvious. I'm 6'1" I would have to gain 50lbs to approach a BMI of 30. There's no conceivable way I could imagine gaining that weight in a healthy way.

A lot of the athletes that get held up as "they're fit and have high BMI!" are football and strength athletes that a) have taken drugs b) have been on a plan of eating MASSIVE calories for years and years and years to gain muscle weight. They can't keep it up and stay healthy in the long run, their bodies break down. Seems like there is some evidence it causes heart damage to be overly large too. They either lose a ton of weight and don't even look like the same person or they get really unhealthy and obviously very overweight after retirement.

Fit is also so variable as to be incredibly hard to quantify. An Elite gymnast is extremely fit but would perform very badly if dropped in a cycling race. Elite cyclists are extremely fit but if dropped into gymnastics probably couldn't even mount the apparatus.

The huge average weight gain in the population can't be explained away as massive muscle gains.

Invariably, I think your answers are articulate and well written. And just as invariably, I find them oddly disconnected from reality.

At a shade over six feet tall, and at 200 lbs (without a belly) I'm "overweight" verging on obese according to the standard BMI. That's ridiculous. According to the BMI, if I wanted to be "healthy" weighing 140 or 145 would be just fine. Please. While that may be attainable and natural for a select few people (such as pro cyclists) that is totally unattainable for most people.

Your examples are also skewed. Fitness is not that hard to quantify. Can you walk at a good pace up a hill? Can you do a series of push-ups with good form? Are your muscles elastic enough to help mitigate the chances of injury? Is your balance decent? (A huge factor in an aging population)

In your example above, the elite gymnast (as well as professional dancers) would be fit by almost any yardstick. Musing on their potential performance in a Tour De France climb is silly. As for the pro cyclists, you have a point there. If you don't have the core strength to do a series of body weight exercises, your fitness is suspect.

I'm not arguing that there are many morbidly obese people in this country. It's clearly evident. But the paradigm you're hewing to is flawed. And not really not that helpful.

[benb]

Invariably, I think your answers are articulate and well written. And just as invariably, I find them oddly disconnected from reality.

At a shade over six feet tall, and at 200 lbs (without a belly) I'm "overweight" verging on obese according to the standard BMI. That's ridiculous. According to the BMI, if I wanted to be "healthy" weighing 140 or 145 would be just fine. Please. While that may be attainable and natural for a select few people (such as pro cyclists) that is totally unattainable for most people.

Your examples are also skewed. Fitness is not that hard to quantify. Can you walk at a good pace up a hill? Can you do a series of push-ups with good form? Are your muscles elastic enough to help mitigate the chances of injury? Is your balance decent? (A huge factor in an aging population)

In your example above, the elite gymnast (as well as professional dancers) would be fit by almost any yardstick. Musing on their potential performance in a Tour De France climb is silly. As for the pro cyclists, you have a point there. If you don't have the core strength to do a series of body weight exercises, your fitness is suspect.

I'm not arguing that there are many morbidly obese people in this country. It's clearly evident. But the paradigm you're hewing to is flawed. And not really not that helpful.

Who's skewed? You used BMI = 30 as your yardstick and you're greatly exaggerating. You're 25-30lbs short of being Obese.

I'd bet you couldn't gain 30lbs without your bodyfat skyrocketing.

Different sports have different BMI ranges that work. 25+ generally only works in strength sports that don't involve having to counteract your body weight or the force of gravity. That's just the way it is. Pretty much the only things where 25+ works well involve very short duration of activity and a 100% flat field of play. We're heavily biased towards those sports in the US, that's all. Basketball is the only sport we have that a bunch of excess weight is almost never tolerated in since there's more jumping and fewer players on the roster to allow tons of rest.

[XXtwindad]

Who's skewed? You used BMI = 30 as your yardstick and you're greatly exaggerating. You're 25-30lbs short of being Obese.

I'd bet you couldn't gain 30lbs without your bodyfat skyrocketing.

Different sports have different BMI ranges that work. 25+ generally only works in strength sports that don't involve having to counteract your body weight or the force of gravity. That's just the way it is. Pretty much the only things where 25+ works well involve very short duration of activity and a 100% flat field of play. We're heavily biased towards those sports in the US, that's all. Basketball is the only sport we have that a bunch of excess weight is almost never tolerated in since there's more jumping and fewer players on the roster to allow tons of rest.

Here's a BMI chart. According to this chart, if someone is 6'4 and weighs 156, they're "normal." At 205 lbs, they're "overweight." This is just too far removed from reality.

[benb]

If someone told me they were a hair over 6' I would never guess they were 6'4".

Body fat % tells the story generally. On the internet we can all say we have low body fat so BMI just doesn't work on us. In the real world I generally find it hard to believe unless the person in question clearly has body fat % less than 10%, which I don't think I see very often.

Also with respect to 6'4 & 156, the chart is not based on idealized american body image.. it's based on health correlations.

[jimbolina]

Fascinating thread! Informative as well. I aapteciate all the intelligent and thoughtful responses. Makes one think...

On a semi-related topic, it seems rather vexing to me to try to make any real heads or tails of the saturated fat issue.

Apparently the jury is still out on whether or not it is truly bad or good (think coconut oil, for example). The science is pretty clear on trans fats being very bad, so no questions there.

Anyway, I'd love to hear folk's opinion on this interesting topic. Primarily, if saturated fat isn't indeed the 'bad guy' in our modern diet, or simply not quite the villain it is often painted as.

Btw, as I'm fairly underweight (and have been virtually all of my 66 years of life) I try to keep my weight on by eating as absolutely healthy as possible, without loading-up on any 'bad', unhealthy food. Makes it tougher, mind you! I strictly minimize my carb intake and 'eat to the meter' (primarily because I am pre-diabetic. Hereditary issue) and try to focus on consuming more good fats and lean proteins (lots of nuts, avocados, chicken, fish, three raw eggs per day, and the like). I have been a very dedicated distance runner and cyclist since 1981 (mostly running these days) so that probably contributes to my low weight, especially at this age. I'm not giving up running, so I would love another way to help keep my weight up!

The data I have gathered so far advises to keep these 'good' fats intake under 18 to 20 total grams total, per day. Any ideas on that front as well?

[tuscanyswe]

Its an interesting topic the bmi discussion.

I have always been skinny and have always had trouble gaining weight even when i wanted to and have always been able to consume ridiculous amount of stuff that would make other ppl look like balloons.. Was suprised when i thought i would be really close to unhealthy low on the bmi scale some years ago and it turned out i was pretty much just below the center of normal in bmi.

It made me think about the scale and realize that a lot of ppl perhaps even most ppl i know are over weight and quite a few of them are obese. Its just that its now normal to be like this so we dont dont think of ppl from a perspective of a lean animal or similar our perspective is usually just wether someone is thinner or fatter than somebody else.

Granted words like fat and or obese are so negatively charged that they dont to the discussions any good either. Pity tho since i would tend to agree that a lot of ppl who see themselves as normal could likely benefit health wise from loosing a bit of weight. Personally i would love to gain some but dont see that happening any time soon with allergies and the likes.

[joosttx]

At 6’1 175lb my BMI is in the normal range. 175-178 is in the fat range for me. Of course I think the BMI is fine. If I were 200lbs I would think differently. Kinda hard to objectively argue the merits of the BMI when the BMI is calling you fat is my point.

[XXtwindad]

At 6’1 175lb my BMI is in the normal range. 175-178 is in the fat range for me. Of course I think the BMI is fine. If I were 200lbs I would think differently. Kinda hard to objectively argue the merits of the BMI when the BMI is calling you fat is my point.

I've seen plenty of "skinny" people who are not fit or healthy. I've seen people with a gut with a good base level of fitness. The BMI is an almost useless indicator of health and fitness. By your own unassailable logic, you're a mere three pounds from being considered "fat."

[54ny77]

this thread is making me hungry.

https://natashaskitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Easter-Egg-Chicks-5-600x900.jpg

[oldpotatoe]

It’s not nonsense and you’re wrong because your eggs still have animal protein in them. I’m not saying you’re going to get cancer from eating them, but all else being equal, your risk for cancer and other illnesses is higher if you eat them regularly.

Correct, higher but not "high"...all things in moderation. Some other regions eat quite a lot of animal protein and have much lower levels of serious illnesses. Lots goes into that, very complicated.

[Mikej]

What about whey protein? Still wondering about the calcium scores if anybody has had the heart scan?