Eggs are Making a Comeback!

I've never understood why or how it became a common belief that eggs were evil... well, not eggs, but egg yolks.  It never made sense to me that people would be helping themselves out by trashing the yolks and only eating the whites, how this worked in any diet plan just didn't enter into my comprehension.  I mean, sure all the fat is in the yolk, all the cholesterol, but so are all the nutrients.  Aside from some protein, there doesn't seem much sense in only eating the whites.

But... that was common knowledge, it was generally accepted as medically sound advice.  Even my doctor once told me that I would be better off getting "egg beaters" and tossing the cereal out the window.  Not too long ago egg producers started a campaign "the incredible, edible egg", and it was determined that we could eat eggs again.  However, it was still a common practice to advise people to only eat the whites of the eggs to prevent heart problems, after all, it's conventional wisdom, it's common knowledge.

It also used to be common knowledge that smoking increased athletic performance and was healthy and good for you.  It also used to be common knowledge that women should not and could not run.  Aside from the moral and social implications of a woman running for her health, it was medically sound advice that if she were to run any long distance her uterus would certainly fall out.  And just for those keeping score, it wasn't all that long ago that this belief prevailed.

We're not asking the right questions when we've been given this medically sound advice.  Where's the research?  Did anyone actually conduct good research with integrity before they made these claims or did they just use the armchair theoretical approach.  Philosophically it makes sense that eggs would hurt your heart, I mean, there's fat and cholesterol in the yolk... so it must be bad for you.  So, where's the research?

Runner's World, April 2012 issue has an article that sites several research studies that conclude the following:  Whole eggs are good for you if you want to slim down, their good for you to protect your heart, they help fight inflammation, they help maintain bone strength, and they help to keep your vision sharp.  The article goes on to say that whole eggs are the perfect food for runners because the protein is so simple that it absorbs into the muscles quicker.  Here's the best part, 60% greater weight loss was observed through research.

I don't need an article to tell me any of this.  I've experienced it.  I've never given up egg yolks as a part of my egg eating habits.  I tried and hated "egg beaters".  I noticed a long time ago that if I ate eggs in the morning for breakfast, I didn't have to use the restroom nearly as much throughout the day, any teacher reading this will understand what I mean.  I also noticed that I wasn't hungry as much, and that I felt better. It makes perfect sense that fat and cholesterol in the yolk wouldn't harm you because of all the other nutrients contained in it- plus, not all fat and cholesterol are bad for you.  

The problem is, just like with oleo, fat free/low fat foods, highly processed and enriched foods, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, etc the research is either not conducted well or completely ignored.  I got my cholesterol checked years ago and it was a little over 200, but my "good" cholesterol was very high, so there was no concern.  I explained that the blood test was done on a whim, ordered by the doctor, and I hadn't fasted, and that, in fact, I had eaten ham and eggs just hours before the test was done.  Nevermind the fact that I had, a week before, had my cholesterol done by my Life Insurance company but was still awaiting the results (when they came a little later after this incident, it was well below 200).  They still sent me information regarding eating a low fat diet that included all the stuff that I have since cleansed from my body.  Because none of it was healthy... furthermore, none of it has been really researched.

Seriously, next time someone recommends something medically to you, ask to see, or at least be directed to, the research.  Then read it.  Here's what you need to look for:

(1) Who is conducting the research and where is it being published?  Are they just trying to prove themselves right, sell a product OR was this published in a third party, peer-reviewed research journal?

(2) sample size and the make up of the participants of the study.  Ask:  Is this based on a few, a few hundred, a few thousand participants?  Is this made up of one group of people or does it represent a wide range of people?

(3) how was the research conducted?  Was there a control group (this is the group that is measured, but nothing has been done to alter behavior- basically this answers the question of whether the change happened as a result of the intervention or would it have happened anyway)?  Was this based on surveys?  What interventions were done?  Was there a pre-test, post test?  Was this in a lab?

(4) what were the results?  How are they represented?  Is there any obvious bias in how the results are presented?

(5) what are the conclusions?  Do you agree that the results and conclusions match up?  Is there any bias?

These are just simple questions you can ask.  I know I've been told by many people that distance running will tear up my knees, hips, and ankles and will actually cause arthritis- and this has been a common assumption for years.  But actual, peer reviewed research has shown that distance running improves joint health and can prevent arthritis- so, what should I believe?

I'm all about the research, but I'm very critical.  I know that no two doctors are alike, they are simply human and medical science changes all the time, so sometimes they make mistakes.  When a doctor gives me "sound advice" I always take it with a grain of salt, because I know that it's possible that he's just wrong.  It's always possible and has been the case many times over many years.  No, I'm not bashing doctors- they've got pressure coming from the AMA, insurance companies, and drug companies.  They don't always have a choice in what they can recommend, so I try to read between the lines.

I'll never forget when I wanted to try taking a Vitamin C supplement (I practice I no longer do) and I went to the vitamin section of a drug store.  The pharmacist came out and asked if he could help (poor guy).  I was holding a bottle that had 1000mg of Vitamin C and one that had 200mg of Vitamin C.  I asked him how much Vitamin C the human body can absorb at one time.  He said he didn't know, I said that I thought the human body can only absorb 200mg at a time, he went back to check.  He came back and confirmed that between 200-250mg at one time was about right.  I asked why someone would want to buy the 1000mg for more money if their body can't absorb it all.  He said, "Well, it can't hurt you.  You'll just pee out whatever you don't absorb."  I looked at him and said, "That just doesn't make any sense.  Why would I pay more for pee?"  He agreed, even though I felt it a bit unethical to sell something your body can't absorb, but this is just an example of how we just tend to go with "whatever" so long as it seems like good advice without really ever questioning it.

So, my advice today?  If you want to run and eat simply for life, become a bee in someone's bonnet.  Ask a lot of questions, do some of your own research, and for goodness sake, think for yourself.