Not necessarily. Looking before crossing the street is inversely correlated with getting hit by a truck. Getting trucked is inversely correlated with getting mauled by a lion (most places with wild lions are light on road traffic). Doesn't mean that looking both ways will increase your odds of becoming lion chow though.
> In addition, to evaluate potential bias because of unmeasured systematic differences between consumers and nonconsumers, we conducted a sensitivity analysis excluding vegans. Vegans comprised a substantial portion of the zero egg consumption group, which could disproportionately influence this group, and they often differ in other lifestyle or health-related characteristics.
So they eliminated vegans from the sensitivity analysis despite them comprising a substantial portion of the no-egg group.
If the analysis doesn’t hold with vegans included, it’s probably saying a lot about dairy rather than eggs.
They said it held up with and without vegans, getting the same result.
> Results from the sensitivity analysis excluding vegans remained very consistent with the primary findings (Table 3). The HR for consuming eggs 5 or more times/wk, compared with never/rare consumption, was 0.73 (0.60, 0.89).
Quality of this study aside, and n of 1 here, my own state of mind, clarity of thought, and sleep are all noticeably better when I'm eating 2 or 3 eggs a day, 3 to 5 days a week. (I might go 7 days, but an independent value placed on dietary variety prevents that--perhaps foolishly when I notice what I'm eating on off days instead of the eggs.)
Regardless, this whole eggs-are-evil thing has probably done more to harm the health of Westerners than any other dietary advice, with the possible exception of the fat-is-evil nonsense.
To the egg lovers among us: what percentage of the mass you ingest over the lifetime do you think eggs total up to? Shall we say 5%?
Suppose the remaining 95% is healthy vegetables, or a ludicrous amount of junk food. Do you think you can attribute any effect to eggs over the course of a lifetime?
Of course not. However that is how dietary research works, and together with the blatant conflict of interest in this case, still call themselves a science whose findings get readily published in social media and newspapers.
If I were king of this place, the first thing I would do would be to ban papers on nutrition, and nothing of value would be lost.
15 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 40.4 ms ] threadPhrased another way, egg consumption is correlated with cancer.
So they eliminated vegans from the sensitivity analysis despite them comprising a substantial portion of the no-egg group.
If the analysis doesn’t hold with vegans included, it’s probably saying a lot about dairy rather than eggs.
> Results from the sensitivity analysis excluding vegans remained very consistent with the primary findings (Table 3). The HR for consuming eggs 5 or more times/wk, compared with never/rare consumption, was 0.73 (0.60, 0.89).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48038873
> Caveat:
> > Funding [...] The analyses in this study were supported by an investigator-initiated grant from the American Egg Board. [...]
Regardless, this whole eggs-are-evil thing has probably done more to harm the health of Westerners than any other dietary advice, with the possible exception of the fat-is-evil nonsense.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10697-z
Suppose the remaining 95% is healthy vegetables, or a ludicrous amount of junk food. Do you think you can attribute any effect to eggs over the course of a lifetime?
Of course not. However that is how dietary research works, and together with the blatant conflict of interest in this case, still call themselves a science whose findings get readily published in social media and newspapers.
If I were king of this place, the first thing I would do would be to ban papers on nutrition, and nothing of value would be lost.