So I do a lot of mealprep

Eggs are extremely high in methionine. Methionine is a sulfur containing essential amino acid that is proven to shorten life expectancy.

There is scientific evidence that restricting methionine consumption can increase lifespans in some animals.[21]

A 2005 study showed methionine restriction without energy restriction extends mouse lifespan.[22]

A study published in Nature showed adding just the essential amino acid methionine to the diet of fruit flies under dietary restriction, including restriction of essential amino acids (EAAs), restored fertility without reducing the longer lifespans that are typical of dietary restriction, leading the researchers to determine that methionine “acts in combination with one or more other EAAs to shorten lifespan.”[23][24]

Several studies showed that methionine restriction also inhibits aging-related disease processes in mice[25][26] and inhibits colon carcinogenesis in rats.[27] In humans, methionine restriction through dietary modification could be achieved through a vegan diet. Veganism being a completely plant based diet is typically very low in methionine, however certain nuts and legumes may provide higher levels.[28]

A 2009 study on rats showed "methionine supplementation in the diet specifically increases mitochondrial ROS production and mitochondrial DNA oxidative damage in rat liver mitochondria offering a plausible mechanism for its hepatotoxicity".[29]

You don't eat foods with added sugar?
If so than you need not to worry about cholesterol.
But, if you eat higher fat keep your carbs about 200-300 gr, depending on your activity level.

> some animals
> mouse
> rats

Do we look like rodents to you?

fucking thank you

Nope, just stating some facts. It's good enough for me to avoid eggs. Eggs have the highest concentration of methionine of any food. Not a big loss to me to only eat eggs every once in a while. I've had 12 in the last 6 months. I used to be a 4 eggs every morning guy.

No need to get defensive and sarcastic though. It's just information.

I use cinnamon as a spice in the oats because I'm not a machine, but I don't add sugar to anything.

you fucking idiots. tests on rodents are standard because "their genetic, biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans, and many symptoms of human conditions can be replicated in mice and rats" you motherfucking children.

well gaston eats 5 dozen eggs everyday and hes roughly the size of a barge

Don't be a brainlet.
Reading wiki articles is not optimal for knowledge gains.

Every amino acid shortens your life, but the doses need to be fucking hyuuuge.

Did you know cholesterol is used in the cell membrane of every cell of your body and is a precursor molecule for testosterone?

>Eat less of it goyim

Your body can create cholesterol

Your body produces DMT also, but people don't go around flying on dragons all day because of that.

>colon cancer

I am guessing this is what they found:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8061589

"(B)iological plausibility" isn't really damning. Those same people could have been eating tons of Skittles too.

...

I didn't say anything about amino acids. I said that it's a stupid thing to say it has no significance because it's on a mouse and not a man. i thought that was common knowledge.

Ive been eating 4 eggs a day for 4 years n nothing yet but thn again my workout regimen is cray cray

>Methionine is a sulfur containing essential amino acid

>an essential amino acid kills you

>PCRM is a vegan shill group

True, but that doesn't make them wrong.

PCRM actually sent a lawsuit to the USDA over this, since many members of the dietary guidelines committee were or have in the past been affiliated with the egg industry.

eater.com/2016/1/7/10732202/dietary-guidelines-lawsuit-eggs-cholesterol

The guidelines still removed the specific limit on cholesterol, but it was written in a way that strengthens the message to eat a low-cholesterol diet by recommending people simply eat "as little cholesterol as possible"

Here's the lawsuit itself if you want to give it a read. It's pretty fucked up how much influence food industries can have.

foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Physicians-Committee-USDA-HHS-Lawsuit-1.6.16-2.pdf

Have they shown a single shred of evidence that the amino acids in humans are actually linked to health risks?

Of course, cholesterol is a vital substance in the body. That's why your body makes cholesterol. What's bad is having a level of cholesterol well beyond what your body requires. The amount of circulating cholesterol required to produce testosterone (or estrogen, or cortisol) is very small, and the excess doesn't become more testosterone, it just builds up in your blood and clogs your arteries.

>Eat 1 cup of oatz (mixed w/ two cups of 2% milk) 2 whole eggs, and 4 strips of bacon every morning
>Have 6-pack cut like a diamond

How does he do it, ladies and gentlemen, how does he do it?

I'll tell you.

Say it with me now.

AVOID. ADDED. SUGAR.

Any amount of added sugar in your diet prevents you from having visible abs?

> sugar instantly makes you fat

cals in vs cals out

>The Egg Nutrition Center’s funding establishes financial relationships with key researchers at major universities and supports studies designed to portray eggs in a favorable light. These research funds are not dedicated primarily to elucidating scientific issues or promoting good health. Rather they are used to fund studies designed in pursuit of the American Egg Board’s mission “to increase demand for eggs and egg products.”
>In the past two decades, the American Egg Board and the Egg Nutrition Center have become increasingly active in using research to increase demand for eggs.
>Of the 41 studies on dietary cholesterol included in a 1992 meta-analysis, 29% were paid for by industry, mainly the egg industry. Nine years later, in a 2001 meta-analysis, that figure had risen to 41%. Two decades later, in a 2013 review, the figure was 92%. This single source now dominates research on dietary cholesterol.
>In 2013, two Tufts/USDA Center researchers, John Griffin and Alice Lichtenstein, published a review on dietary cholesterol, which, intentionally or not, used the methods above to hide the negative effects of cholesterol containing foods. As noted below, Dr. Lichtenstein was that same year appointed Vice Chair of the DGAC and Chair/Vice Chair Representative of the DGAC subcommittee that dealt with the issue of dietary cholesterol.
>The Tufts/USDA Center researchers excluded all studies published prior to 2003. Of the 12 studies that they included, eight were funded by the American Egg Board through the Egg Nutrition Center. Two were funded by British or Australian egg industry associations, and the eleventh was funded by the fish industry in defense of prawn consumption. In other words, 11 out of the 12 cited studies were designed to arrive at a specific pro-industry result.

fug

Nah bro, regular consumption of shit like soda or ice cream does.

When did I even imply that?

>In 2015, Tufts/USDA Center researchers published a new report, citing funding from the Egg Nutrition Center. As was the case in Dr. Lichtenstein’s earlier report, nearly every study included in the meta-analysis described in the report was funded by the American Egg Board or other industry-related sources. Specifically, in the analysis of the effect of dietary cholesterol on LDL cholesterol concentrations, 13 of the 15 included studies (87%) were industry-funded.
>Prior to publication, the Tufts/USDA Center researchers requested $101,268 from the Egg Nutrition Center “to determine if the evidence supports the current recommendation of limiting cholesterol to < 300 mg/day.”
>In other words, the Tufts/USDA Center researchers sought Egg Nutrition Center funding for the sole purpose of undermining Defendants’ prior Dietary Guidelines’ recommendation that Americans limit dietary cholesterol to no more than 300 milligrams per day.

> Say it with me now.
> AVOID. ADDED. SUGAR.

Implying all you need for visible abs is to avoid sugar
And not simply having a low bodyfat percentage

added sugar is literally just wasted calories. It has no nutritional value and no satiation. it adds "flavor" to shit food, but it is a waste of calories. replace the added sugar calories with healthy protein, or a complex carb? then you are golden.

Regardless of whether those stats are true, they're incredibly misleading.

People are dumb. If you tell them your chance of say, prostate cancer, is increasing by 81%, they interpret that as it being a set 81% chance of developing.

One in 10000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer a year. That's a 0.01% chance of developing prostate cancer. The actual chance of dying from prostate cancer is 14%. So, if I did my math correctly, the average male has a 0.00071% chance of developing lethal prostate cancer in his lifetime. To put that in perspective, you have a 1 in 3000 chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime, or a 0.033% chance.

Even if your risk of prostate cancer goes up 81% from consuming eggs, your risk is only going from 0.00071% to 0.00131. You are still statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to die from prostate cancer caused by eggs.

100% of an incredibly small percentage is still an incredibly small percentage. This is also assuming a lot of things;

>Assuming that the vegans are right about eggs being the devil
>Not calculating in other life factors that could increase/lower risk of these diseases
>Assuming that I did my math right (Although I think I did)

You get a low bodyfat % by habitually putting what you consume to use.

It's incredibly hard to use simple sugars before they can be converted to fat.

>One in 10000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer a year. That's a 0.01% chance of developing prostate cancer.

Per year, and apparently per egg. I'd rather eat foods that lower my risk of developing cancers and other diseases.

>Per egg

You mean that your chance of developing lethal prostate cancer increases by 81% per egg you eat?

If that were true than eating more than a dozen eggs would automatically give you cancer lol

Again though, you're still more likely to get hit by lightning than you are to ever develop prostate cancer. So why are you so concerned about eggs when you should be walking around in a rubber suit whenever you go outside?

>You mean that your chance of developing lethal prostate cancer increases by 81% per egg you eat?

That number comes from comparing 1 egg per day to less than 1 egg per week

>If that were true than eating more than a dozen eggs would automatically give you cancer lol

What happened to all that math you were doing?

My bad, it's not 1 egg per day, it's 2.5 eggs per WEEK or more

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21930800

>Men who consumed 2.5 or more eggs per week had an 81% increased risk of lethal prostate cancer compared with men who consumed less than 0.5 eggs per week (HR: 1.81;

>that feel when used to have 4 eggs 3 days a week, but having them so often I got sick of them and never eat them anymore
Now I'm eating chicken instead.
I feel like the eggs lost all flavor.

so if you believe the data, youve got a bit under twice the chance of developing lethal prostate cancer as someone who eats .5 eggs per week, if you eat more than 2.5 per week. the chances are still extremely small. its just slightly less extremely small if you eat 2.5 eggs per week instead of .5 eggs per week.

Cook them with coconut oil

The dozen eggs was an oversimplification.

>Men who consumed 2.5 or more eggs per week had an 81% increased risk of lethal prostate cancer compared with men who consumed less than 0.5 eggs per week

Again though, that's still an incredibly low number. That's a 0.00131% chance of getting prostate cancer.

You realize that you have a 1% chance every year of dying in a car accident? That's thousands of times higher than getting prostate cancer, so naturally I'm certain you avoid automotives and roads, right?

You could argue that cars are necessary in our world, whereas eggs are not. So are you avoiding other unnecessary stuff?

Dying while playing a field sport is a 0.004% chance, quadruple your chance of prostate cancer. So I'm assuming you don't play soccer or other field sports?

Saying "I'd rather eat foods that lower my risk of developing cancers and other diseases" is such bullshit. You're tipping the scales in your favour a micrometer. You're not making any significant impact in avoiding cancer just by not eating eggs.

If less than 1 egg a day is enough to double your chances of dying of prostate cancer, it doesn't seem like a good food to make a staple of your diet is all I'm saying. People on this board are eating 6+ a day thinking it's no big deal.

>That's a 0.00131% chance of getting prostate cancer.

Each year, for every 2.5 eggs a week. And that's JUST looking at prostate cancer.

>You realize that you have a 1% chance every year of dying in a car accident?

Would you willingly double it just because "2% is still a small number"?

numerically, it is no big deal. .00071% multiplied by 1.81 is still only a .001285% chance of dying from prostate cancer. practically nothing.

Take an elephant
Now double it

That's a lot of elephant, right?

Now take a grain of sand
Double that grain of sand

You're still not near close enough to building a sand castle

Loaded statistical language like "doubling", "tripling" and so on has absolutely no meaning until you add context. Doubling an extremely small number does not make a large enough difference to even be perceived outside of calculations.

If you have a one in a million chance of winning the lottery, doubling that to two in a million is still shit odds.

> Vegans.

> Idiots

Pick 2.

Let's look at it more in terms of absolute risk

mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer/art-20044092

>an American man's absolute risk of developing prostate cancer in his lifetime is about 16 percent. Put another way, about 16 out of every 100 men will develop prostate cancer at some time in their lives.

If 16 out of 100 men develop prostate cancer in the US and 14% of those men develop lethal prostate cancer, that's 2.25 out of 100, or 2.24%.

2.24% x 1.81 = 4.0544% of developing lethal prostate cancer in your lifetime, from eating just 2.5 eggs per week. WHY would you choose to do that?

*2.24 out of 100

>Each year, for every 2.5 eggs a week. And that's JUST looking at prostate cancer.

That doesn't matter! The 0.000131% is baseline risk factor plus an 81% increase. That 81% of the original 0.00071% chance of prostate cancer is 0.0006%. Eating 2.5 eggs a week for a year will increase your chance of prostate cancer by 0.0006%. You can multiply that over an 80 year lifespan, eggs will increase your chances of getting prostate cancer by 0.048%. That is laughably low.

>Would you willingly double it just because "2% is still a small number"?

You cannot compare one percent with one one-hundredth of a percent. It's not anywhere on the same level.

Again, look at the chance of dying on a sports field. It's more than quadruple your chance of getting prostate cancer. Most activities you do in your daily life that you consider to have acceptable risk levels to them are hundreds of times more likely to kill you than eating eggs, or even getting prostate cancer in the first place.

its not a flat statistic over all men. before the age of 40 its 1 in 10000 that even developing prostate cancer. after the age of 60 it turns to 1 in 14 men. youre interpreting the data in a way that doesnt apply to most people.

Do you plan to live past 40?

See

sure, but the chances of developing prostate cancer at 40-59 is 1 in 38, meaning the chances of dying from it are .00368%.

so to put it into context, eating 2.5 eggs per week until you are 40 carries less of a risk of death by prostate cancer than SIMPLY EXISTING at ages 40+

Cancer has a gestation period. Being diagnosed with prostate cancer when you're 40 means you began developing prostate cancer in your 20s-30s. Regardless, why would you compound the problem of age-related increases in prostate cancer risk? It doesn't make sense to say that since you already have something making you more likely to develop prostate cancer, therefore you might as well do everything else that raises prostate cancer risk too.

because youre taking a hardline stance on something that almost certainly wont kill you, and even if it does kill you it probably wouldve killed you whether or not you bothered to try and lower your chances because they were practically non-existent to begin with.

there are plenty of things that are somewhat likely to kill you and avoiding them actually might be worth your time. eggs are not one of those things.

to add to this, by the time youre 60+ the chances of everything going wrong with your body increases, not just prostate cancer. something will kill you eventually. if youve made it to that age its time to accept the inevitable reality of death and stop worrying so much about the little details of how its going to happen.

AMERICA

I recognize the nutritional value of eggs but I just cant enjoy the taste, smell, or texture of them. Can anyone recommend some ways to hide my eggs in other meals?

Wow. I'm just gonna eat my damn eggs. Gonna die anyway.

Tfw you've been eating at least six raw errday for close to a year.

So there are two possibilities:
1. You have a standard american diet with a lot of animla products. Then you must not be concerned about your health if you eat six eggs a day. They are not going to make it much worse. You already get way to much cholesterol and saturated fat and you will get your first heart attack in your 50's/60's like most people.

2. You eat a super healthy diet and mainly eat plant based, maybe 2-3 times a week animal products. Then adding six eggs a day to your diet will make it much worse

have you ever read a science article or taken a science class ever

Dietary cholesterol has little (if any) impact on serum cholesterol. The saturated fat in eggs, however, will likely raise your serum cholesterol and generally tend it towards LDL. This should not be an issue if you are young, physically active and not genetically predisposed to heart disease.

examine.com/nutrition/are-eggs-healthy/

examine.com/nutrition/will-eating-eggs-increase-my-cholesterol/

>Dietary cholesterol has little (if any) impact on serum cholesterol

It depends. Saturated fat raises cholesterol more linearly, whereas dietary cholesterol's effects on serum cholesterol tends to max out and show less change at higher intakes.

Thanks for clarifying.

I was, indeed, assuming that OP was a true red-blooded American patriot that gets his Big Mac quota in every day.

>so I just need to consume less than 300mg, no big deal
>I wonder how much cholesterol an egg has
>184mg
>a single egg

What the fuck
And that's just the eggs
I probably eat even more cholesterol from other foods on top of that

I am happy to see that not all people on Veeky Forums are retarded! Thank you

never met anyone who's neutral on cinnamon - either you think it's delicious or you hate it

why raw? you get less bioavailable protein because heat denatures a compound humans can't break down

raw eggs are one of the oldest memes in the book

I think I'm not understanding the graph fully.
Is the Serum Cholesterol axis an increase per day, or the expected level?

Like, does that mean that if I eat 500mg of dietary cholesterol a day I'm going to be at a CONSTANT 200mg of circulating serum, or does that mean that for every day I eat 500mg of dietary cholesterol there's going to be an INCREASE of 200mg of serum?

>What the fuck
>And that's just the eggs
>I probably eat even more cholesterol from other foods on top of that

Yep! That's the reason why I stoped eating eggs. You already get more saturated fat and cholesterol from a three egg omlett. So fuck it. I don't want to have diabetes and CVD like most men older than 50 in my family.

You can see the baselines for 0-500 mg of cholesterol. One the x axis you see the increase in dietary cholesterol and y is the increase in serum cholestrol.
For example if you eat 0 cholestrol (no animal products) and you add 500 mg to this diet, you will have an increase in 0,7 mmol/l which is huge.
If you already ate 500 mg of cholesterol and add another 500 mg you will have an increase of only 0,05 mmol/l which is really low.

That's the increase to your starting serum cholesterol upon ingesting an amount of dietary cholesterol. Whatever your serum cholesterol was prior to eating it, the amount on the Y axis is how much it would be expected to increase.

> going off topic and not staying on point

>caring about cholesterol in 2016
do you want natty gains or not??

thanks mom

Hardcook and slice them

so scrambling 6 eggs a few days a week is bad for me? h-how will i ever make it?

This.

There are people who smoke and drink everyday and live past 100.

It's all about GENETICS.
If you developed cancer because of eggs, then you would've developed it anyway. Simple as that.

And if eggs would be bad then the governement wouldn't make it get sold in such quantities.

Also: guns in burgerland killed way more people than eggs did, so fuck off

you're fine. dietary cholesterol has zero bearing on blood cholesterol.

Dietary cholesterol isn't as closely linked to blood cholesterol as we used to believe.

it doesn't make them wrong, but they are.

Big Egg.

The classic satirical headline 'Vegan man lives to age 100, says it wasn't worth it' comes to mind.
If you fucking love eggs and live a relatively healthy lifestyle then having eggs is probably worth it.
If you're fairly indifferent to eggs and can either replace them altogether or reduce your intake slightly per week it may also be worth it.
All about comparing the risk to potential reward.

Amen m8, but you're wasting your time with retarded teenagers in this board

>rubber suit

still better than me eating a fuckton of canned tuna
>mfw i love eating them protons and mercury

Exactly none of these, except maybe the first in sitosterolemics. are Hill causal. You can find similar nonsense by replacing eggs with with various astrological signs.

>2016
>he still eats eggs
>he won't be around when age reversal nanomachines are invented
>he will never be immortal

ishygddt