Can you eat too many egg whites?

No Way wrote:

I don't understand where you come up with half the stuff you say.

Critical thinking.

Humans have not consumed vegetables in large quantities until very recently, from an evolutionary perspective. So claims that they're some kind of imperative for good health should be taken with more than a few grains of salt.

Particularly considering the presence in many regions, particularly subarctic, of people who eat no vegetables at all but are healthy with normal lifespans.

I love egg whites on salads. :)

http://therealfoodrunner.blogspot.com/

I am looking at Egg White Carton (not eggbeaters) and ingredients list one item: 100% egg whites.

Name one culture that doesn't eat any vegetables.

Bad Wigins wrote:

No Way wrote:

I don't understand where you come up with half the stuff you say.

Critical thinking.

Humans have not consumed vegetables in large quantities until very recently, from an evolutionary perspective. So claims that they're some kind of imperative for good health should be taken with more than a few grains of salt.

Particularly considering the presence in many regions, particularly subarctic, of people who eat no vegetables at all but are healthy with normal lifespans.

egg wife wrote:

I am looking at Egg White Carton (not eggbeaters) and ingredients list one item: 100% egg whites.

If you need to opt for a nearly pure protein source for some reason, I'd opt for drinkable dairy proteins--whey, milk protein isolate, micellar casein such as

or various blends. Easier to consume, higher quality protein, better taste and often cheaper. Eggs are best consumed whole, as egg yolk is a "superfood" containing choline, vitamin A, zinc, phosphorus, calcium, etc.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Can I get free super-saver shipping with your bullshit?

Vitamin K2, incidentally, is one of the nutrients most difficult to obtain from food on a low-fat diet. Unlike vitamin D, which can be created via sun exposure, K2, with which vitamin D has a symbiotic relationship, must be obtained from diet or supplementation.

Foods high in vitamin K2

Natto

Hard cheese

Soft cheese

Egg yolk

Butter

Chicken liver

Salami

Chicken breast

Ground beef

10/10

Bad Wigins wrote:

No Way wrote:

I don't understand where you come up with half the stuff you say.

Critical thinking.

Humans have not consumed vegetables in large quantities until very recently, from an evolutionary perspective. So claims that they're some kind of imperative for good health should be taken with more than a few grains of salt.

Particularly considering the presence in many regions, particularly subarctic, of people who eat no vegetables at all but are healthy with normal lifespans.

No, not critical thinking you are simply repeating verbatim the flawed paleo talking points which have apparently appealed to you. Problems with the paleo "logic"-

1) there is evidence we've been eating "evolutionary novel" foods like grains for more like 100,000 years, not 10,000 as is usually parroted.

2) the peoples of the paleolithic era ate a wide variety of foods, and a wide variety of diets depending on the part of the globe they were living in. So there is absolutely not one "paleo diet" to mimic. So trying to mimic a "paleolithic diet" is a waste of time because we don't know exactly what they ate, and it varied a LOT. There is no paleo diet really to follow.

3) we have had time to adapt to recent changes in our diet. The genes that allows one to digest lactase has increased rapidly throughout the globe, showing that being able to drink milk was important for survival, and those that could passed on their genes.

4) recent studies show that dogs have much higher amounts of the enzymes that allow them to digest carbs compared to wolves, demonstrating that over the last 10,000 years, as they spent more time around humans, they quickly adapted to the diets that humans were eating (i.e., again, those that had those genes, survived and passed them on). If they can do it, surely we have been able to

5) humans have been eating meat for aeons. Therefore, based on your "paleo diet logic", it must be ESSENTIAL for a healthy human diet. But of course this is not true. Many vegetarians/vegans are extremely healthy and have low mortality (usually much lower than meat eaters) rates without consuming ANY meat. How could this be possible from a paleo diet perspective?? What we ate in the past is absolutely what we should eat now, correct?? Clearly our brains have evolved (at least some of us) to understand that we can get the same nutrients we get from meat from other sources, and without some of the negative effects of high meat consumption (high sat content).

You are not "critically thinking". You are parroting flawed paleo diet "logic".

lol lol lol lol wrote:

In human beings, low-carb diets improve heart health parameters more than moderate or high carb diets.

1) ALL diets (when they are restricting calories) that produce weight loss improve heart health parameters

2) it is NOT true that "low-carb diets improve heart health parameters more than moderate or high carb diets." You can cherry pick studies all you want to "prove" this, while I can do the same in the opposite direction. What is true is: in general, yes, low carb diets do tend to produce better results with hdl and triglycerides, but worse with total cholesterol and ldl. So for those fairly gross measurements, it is somewhat of a "wash" (both show some advantages). HOWEVER.....recently the advantage of having a high hdl is being strongly called into question:

so the low-carb proponents have been touting the raising of hdl as a great result from high fat/low carb diets, and it may not be after all. On the other hand, contrary to the paleo/atkins/taubes crowd's talking points, the negative health correlations related to having high ldl and total cholesterol measurements have been found to be stronger than ever. And low carb/high sat fat diets ALMOST ALWAYS raise ldl/total cholesterol

3) more acute measurements of vascular health such as arterial blood flow usually demonstrate advantages from higher carb low sat fat diets.

4) high sat fat diets almost always result in negative effects on insulin resistance

5) the study I posted the abstract from showed that there very well could be deleterious effects on vascular health that are not picked up by the normal tests doctors do and that diet studies report on (serum cholesterol, inflammatory media- tors or infiltrates, or oxidative stress). And in the case of this study, it was a high fat and high PROTEIN / low carb diet that produced the most vascular damage, more than the western diet (high sat fat, high refined carbs) and MUCH MORE than the high carb, lower fat/lower protein diet. Yes, this is an animal model, but one that accurately mimics what occurs in humans.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

lol lol lol lol wrote:

In human beings, low-carb diets improve heart health parameters more than moderate or high carb diets.

1) ALL diets (when they are restricting calories) that produce weight loss improve heart health parameters

2) it is NOT true that "low-carb diets improve heart health parameters more than moderate or high carb diets." You can cherry pick studies all you want to "prove" this, while I can do the same in the opposite direction.

If you look at the studies on actual human beings, health parameters consistently improve more on LC diets.

lol lol lol lol wrote:

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

1) ALL diets (when they are restricting calories) that produce weight loss improve heart health parameters

2) it is NOT true that "low-carb diets improve heart health parameters more than moderate or high carb diets." You can cherry pick studies all you want to "prove" this, while I can do the same in the opposite direction.

If you look at the studies on actual human beings, health parameters consistently improve more on LC diets.

Just because you repeat what you wrote before, without evidence, and something I already refuted WITH evidence (see part about hdl not being as good a marker of cardiovascular health as previously thought), doesn't make it true.

Re-read what I wrote in the previous post. There are two sides to the story. There are SOME possible better heart health parameters on low carb, but there are ALSO some worse outcomes. Furthermore, one of those heart health parameters considered better on low carb high fat diets (increased hdl), is now being doubted as a very reliable measurement of improved heart health.

Excessive levels of protein can cause kidney problems. Excessive amounts of anything are excessive.

A couple of egg yolks a day isn't a problem for someone with an active lifestyle. The calorific content is pretty high though.

From what I've read, high cholesterol is more likely to be caused by genetic factors, fast food, smoking, obesity and diabetes, rather than than ingestion of cholesterol.

Run... wrote:

Excessive levels of protein can cause kidney problems. Excessive amounts of anything are excessive.

A couple of egg yolks a day isn't a problem for someone with an active lifestyle. The calorific content is pretty high though.

From what I've read, high cholesterol is more likely to be caused by genetic factors, fast food, smoking, obesity and diabetes, rather than than ingestion of cholesterol.

You are more or less correct.

Eating high amounts of dietary cholesterol can negatively influence blood cholesterol levels, but yes, the other factors you listed are often bigger influences.

The largest single influence on raising total and ldl cholesterol is high sat fat intake.

So egg yolks should be consumed in moderation because of the high caloric count? What? An entire egg has 75 calories and the white co gains 20 of those. Eating 4 egg yolks equals 220 calories, hardly qualifying as high calorie.

People need to get past their fear of saturated fat. Some of the healthiest foods have high saturated fat profiles. Coconut oil is a good example. Did you know that half of the calories in Mothers milk consist of saturated fat? Why would something so terrible for us be the building block of the most nutritious food a human will ever consume?

Lighten up Francis wrote: Did you know that half of the calories in Mothers milk consist of saturated fat? Why would something so terrible for us be the building block of the most nutritious food a human will ever consume?

Because babies can not get to Mickey D's by themselves?

Lighten up Francis wrote:

So egg yolks should be consumed in moderation because of the high caloric count? What? An entire egg has 75 calories and the white co gains 20 of those. Eating 4 egg yolks equals 220 calories, hardly qualifying as high calorie.

People need to get past their fear of saturated fat. Some of the healthiest foods have high saturated fat profiles. Coconut oil is a good example. Did you know that half of the calories in Mothers milk consist of saturated fat? Why would something so terrible for us be the building block of the most nutritious food a human will ever consume?

Old theories die hard. Advertising works. For 30 years or so, Americans were lectured that fat = bad, and that saturated fat = very, very bad. Eggs were portrayed as especially horrific because they contained not only fat but cholesterol, and in large doses. Dr. Michael Eades shows the cover of TIME from 1984 in a great blog post:

When bad theories are debunked, some previous adherents admit they were wrong, correct their mistakes and move on, but it is more typical for new theories to take hold as the upholders of the old ones simply die out.

No, mostly wrong

1) high intakes of foods high in Sat Fat AND cholesterol are harmful to one's health. They raise total and ldl cholesterol, and contrary to the kool aid you've been drinking, that often leads directly to arteriosclerosis. (Of course moderate intakes are fine). For instance:

Finland has had a remarkable reduction in CVD over the last 40 years, despite increases in BMI (less active). the MAJOR intervention was cutting down on saturated fat. If sat fat is sooooo good for people, shouldn't this intervention have led to worse health, not extremely reduced CVD mortality rates?!

2) coconuts are one of those foods that has its pluses and minuses (not everything is black and white). High sat fat content is not particularly good, but no cholesterol and it does have fiber and anti-oxidants. This will lessen its potential negative effect on the arteries, and give some positive nutrition. It is not the same as a bacon double cheeseburger

Firstly the nutrient profile of human milk differs depending on the time it is given, the stage of breastfeeding, and the person's diet.

Secondly, women who eat less sat fat will have less sat fat in their milk (Good thing).

3rdly, newborns have different needs than do adults. So you are saying we should all eat like newborns? An all liquid milk diet? Oookay. Not quite.

4th: Typically (as I said, it is different depending on a lot of factors), a mother's milk actually contains a fairly high amount of carbs, in the form of lactose sugar, and fairly low protein.

So..... based on YOUR logic, to quote you:

"Did you know that (nearly) half of the calories in Mothers milk consist of LACTOSE SUGAR? Why would something so terrible for us be the building block of the most nutritious food a human will ever consume? "

Aren't you paleo types usually railing against lactose as bad, since drinking milk as adults wasn't really a thing until the evil agricultural revolution? And of course you think high carb/high sugar and low protein diets are bad. But that is what is mother's milk!

Your logic has been turned on its head.

lol lol lol lol wrote:

Old theories die hard. Advertising works. For 30 years or so, Americans were lectured that fat = bad, and that saturated fat = very, very bad. Eggs were portrayed as especially horrific because they contained not only fat but cholesterol, and in large doses. Dr. Michael Eades shows the cover of TIME from 1984 in a great blog post:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cardiovascular-disease/you-bet-your-life-an-epilogue-to-the-cholesterol-story/

When bad theories are debunked, some previous adherents admit they were wrong, correct their mistakes and move on, but it is more typical for new theories to take hold as the upholders of the old ones simply die out.

The theory that high sat fat diets are "very bad" is more strongly supported than ever. It is you and the paleo/Taubes/Atkins cult that need to "correct their mistakes and move on....to new theories." But you won't, no matter how much evidence smacks you up side the head to prove you are wrong. I guess when one eats enough pig (bacon) fat, they become pig headed.

(actually, there is a quite a big evidence that high sat fat diets negatively effect the brain, potentially leading towards early dementia. this might explain the inability of the paleo/Taubes/Atkins cult understand science and evidence that contradicts their preconceived notions)

50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct3CcR3c4oM

Just don't be like that guy who used to be on here who used to claim he ate 20-30 bananas for a meal - that can't be healthy.