New Study Finds Eating Eggs May Not Increase Cholesterol Levels - eviltoast
A new study suggests that eggs may be a heart healthy addition to the diet, even for people with cardiovascular disease or at risk for it. The study was small, so additional research will be needed to confirm the results.

Some excerpts from the article below. I almost didn’t post it when I saw it was funded by an egg company, but it’s interesting.

Researchers randomly assigned people to eat either 12 fortified eggs per week or to eat fewer than two eggs of any kind per week. People could cook the eggs however they liked.

In the study, after following participants for four months, researchers did not see any adverse effects on cardiovascular health among people who ate 12 fortified eggs per week.

For example, blood cholesterol levels were similar between people who regularly ate fortified eggs and those who ate few or no eggs.

People in the fortified egg group also had a reduction in their total cholesterol level, insulin resistance scores, and high-sensitivity troponin (a marker of heart damage). They even saw an increase in their vitamin B levels.

In addition, “there were signals of potential benefits of eating fortified eggs that warrant further investigation in larger studies,” Nouhravesh said in the release.

In particular, there were possible benefits of eating fortified eggs among older adults and those with diabetes, including a rise in HDL (“good”) cholesterol and a decrease in LDL (“bad”) cholesterol.

The results of the study, which was funded by Eggland’s Best, have not been published yet in a peer-reviewed journal, so should be viewed with caution.

  • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    121·
    9 months ago

    It’s a subject I’m always curious about - not eggs specifically, but cholesterol intake, serum cholesterol, and heart disease.

    A few years ago, I had a physical and my doctor said my cholesterol was high, but he also said there was a contraindicator, and he didn’t want to put me on statens unnecessarily, so he had my get a coronary calcium scan, which is like a CT scan of your torso and they can measure how much buildup is in your arteries. The ranges are:

    • 0 = no calcified plaque detected (risk of coronary artery disease is very low – less than 5%)
    • 1-10 = calcium detected in extremely minimal levels (risk of coronary diseases is still low – less than 10%)
    • 11-100 = mild levels of plaque detected with certainty (minimal narrowing of heart arteries is likely)
    • 101-300 = moderate levels of plaque detected (relatively high risk of a heart attack within 3-5 years)
    • 300-400 = extensive levels of plaque detected (very high risk of heart attack, high levels of vascular disease are present)

    I was in my late 50s, so something like 50 would be typical, but it came back as zero. I had relatively high cholesterol, but zero plaque buildup in my arteries relatively late in life.

    I’m told that the relationship between cholesterol intake and heart disease isn’t well understood, and that there’s certainly a genetic component. Articles and studies like this one always catch my eye.

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      Cholesterol, low density lipoprotein and atherosclerosis are three separate topics. Trying to take shortcuts may result in getting the wrong idea of what’s going on. Cholesterol does work as a decent indicator, but it isn’t guaranteed to work every time. Apparently you are one of the many exceptions to the general rule of thumb.