Are Eggs Really Bad For You?

Mmmm, you forgot one important nutritional fact about eggs: they have an NPU =1. That's net protein utilization, and the 1 means 100% useable protein. Same score for the more sophisticated measures of protein quality (PDCAAS).

Eggs are also high in lecitin, which allows the fats and water to mix and reduces the harmful effects of the less healthy fats in the yolk.

Rib sticking and hearty breakfasts of eggs, bacon, sausage, ham, or scrapple, grits or homefries, and wholegrain toast rock.

Pssshh on the doomsayers and naysayers, I just loving working in The Albany and Harrisburg areas where I can still get a working person's breakfast serve 24 hours a day. None of the pasty crap like the chains serve.

Actually, you can get that nearly anywhere in the US (at least anywhere with a highway or more than about 10,000 population), it is called Denny's.

Hi gag,

I am total vegi non egg eater, so no problem for me. My breakfast contains Corn Flakes with milk, Whole Wheat Bread Toast with little butter spread and cup of tea. Better to eat less but more frequently than fill your belly early in the morning.

Suresh Sharma.

So what is the difference between an egg and milk? They are both products of a animal.

My Grand daddy, a farmer, woke up each morning about 4 AM and, after milking the cows, would sit down to a hearty breakfast of 6 eggs and a slab of bacon, with home-made biscuits coated in gravy derived from the bacon fat. If I remember rightly, he generally ate a bit healthier later in the day.

He never even came close to approaching obesity. He lived to be 96 years old, farming for all but maybe the last six months of his life. When farming was hard work (no air conditioned tractor in those days). He had spent so much time out in the direct sun that he had a permanent tan.

What killed him? The family got worried he was going to outlive them, and they wanted to realize the gains to be had from selling the farm while they were still young enough to enjoy the windfall. So, they forced him in to an early retirement, buying him a cute little cottage in the small town close by. Six months later, he was dead- from boredom...

I'm with you. Having a purpose in life is worth more than anything else.

That old man got up every day because he knew that he had something that needed to be done.

Lyn

If I remember rightly, he generally ate a bit healthier later in the day.

I would suggest that there was nothing unhealthy about his breakfast with perhaps the exception of the biscuits.

Not unhealthy: Eating a balanced breakfast with protein, fat and carbs is good, and just right to consume those calories early during an active day.

The worst thing to do is to get your main meal in the evening. You're starving yourself of the energy you need in the day, then you make up for it at supper and afterwards laze around then sleep.

Ain't that the truth, I seen the same thing in the old steel workers and miners here, along with the farmers. Ah, flaky lard laden biscuits, I am going down to Kentucky this week and Tudors for breakfast every morning, all of the killer stuff.

I look back and only remember the women being a tad "overweight' as they approached full maturity, but it was the fashion of an attractive woman of the day.

Gonna leave later today and approach all of that "fat" food in Huntington, WV. recently named the fattest city in the US,

I started to write the same issue, and then stopped. but after after reading this,

When I was 16, I wake up 5:00 the morning, and before I went out to milk cows, I would eat 3 lasrge bowls of Rice Crispies (Almost the whole box) and (2) cups of coffee just to hold me till breakfast.

I come in at about 8:00 and have 6 scrambled eggs, (if fried, I could only eat 2 eggs) , 1/2" a loaf of bread and a pound of butter not to forget the jam, plus 4-6 cups of coffee.

My twin sister would tease me, sitting next to me at breakfast is like living next door to a grain elevator.

And this should tie me over till lunch which hopefully was before 1:00. If I was stuck out in the woods, or fields and could not make it in, I'd get cranky amd a headacke. Nurse said it was my metabolism, something to the effect of blood sugar. Am not a diabetic.

I'm just glad at 49 yo now 6'-4" - 220 lbs and not on the farm alot but still active, I am glad I do not have that kind of appetite anymore.

I believe my dad was simuliar, Also eat alot (overendulged) of things in season strawberries or reaspberries and cream with fresh bread., lettuce and cream, corn....... Not well balanced,

but hes 85 yo old now and still works/helps my brother on the farm. Not a big eater he use to be, but is sharp, not quite as sprie or flexible as he use to be, but at 85, more that some people I see 1/4" of his age.

Theree must be something to it.

p911

How sad... to be taken from what you love to do. A virtual prison

We buy eggs up our way for $2.40/dozen avg. That's 20 cents /egg.

Tonight I made my wife and I omelets for dinner with a side of pasta out of a box that cost $1.50 and produces 3 servings and a microwaved mix of fresh broccoli and cauliflower. I made the omelets from 4 eggs, 2 slices of cheese chopped up, about a quarter pound of pre-cooked mushrooms chopped up and a few sprinkles of salty Feta cheese. I slow fried each 2 egg omelet in an 8" skillet with a bit of olive oil. Pour the already scrambled 2 egg mix in the pan, let it cook for a few seconds to solidify the bottom and sprinkle the half the mushroom and cheese filling on one half of the omelet in the pan. Fold the other uncovered half of the cooking omelet with the spatula over the top of the filling and cook for a few more seconds before taking the half circle shaped omelet out of the pan with the help of a spatula and a fork on the part the spatula wouldn't support.

I figure the costs per serving were $.40 for the eggs, $.50 for the mushrooms, $1.25 for the cheese, $.50 for the pasta, about $.50 for the veggies and maybe $.25 worth of olive oil. Total $3.40 each or $6.80 for dinner for 2. The most nutritional component was probably the eggs. Note the cost of the eggs. A penny pincher could save a lot on the omelet filling if needed. What you want there is something that will add taste and variety to the omelet. An omelet is like a burito. Almost anything you wrap the egg around will work as long as that food stuff tastes good to your "victims".

Ed Weldon (nobody has yet died from this camp cook's meals)

Interesting post again Jaxy.

I went through most of my adult life buying into the belief that eggs were not healthy. Also as a child didn't really care for the taste....funny, I loved the smell of my father's sunny-side-up eggs and coffee....but to this day don't like the taste of either (but still like the smell). It wasn't until about 10 years ago I read some research that questioned the notion eggs caused high cholesterol and fortunately this is becoming more mainstream.

I was a research scientist and was required to have a complete physical every year.

My cholesterol was 180 every year, as I plotted all my data. I wanted to see what effect eggs had on cholesterol, so I ate 8 to 12 eggs every day for 10 days before my physical. Two weeks after the physical, when I went for the results, my cholesterol was still 180. Our company doctor, who was a heart specialist, chewed my butt for 2 hours for doing such a stupid thing.

PEbob

Eggs from commercial egg "factories" of course are not nearly as good for you as eggs from unstressed free range chickens that are allowed to eat bugs and do all the things that chickens are supposed to do. I get most of my eggs from a fellow locally who does it right and they have bigger darker orange yolks and there is no comparison in how they taste. When I can't get these I go for the organic eggs. They are more expensive but the cost is not that great and the quality and taste difference is very apparent. I generally eat two eggs every day and the doctor tells me I have the cardiovascular system of a thirty year old.

I have a batch of chickens at home, currently we have 6 full grown and 6 new chicks. The eggs they produce truely seem to taste better than any store bought ones. The yolks are vibrant instead of pale. The shells stick to the eggs when boiled, according to my long dead mother, this is a sign of true freshness. (When I was a child she would only by eggs from a local farm, go figure). During the winter months when egg production is down I just can't get my self to eat many store bought eggs. When production is up however.......

I never calculated the actual cost of raising this flock, but there is also joy in having pets that can provide back for thier care.

I would be very interested to know if the cost of raising chickens offsets the cost of eggs. I recently bought eggs at a local farmers market for $2.75/dozen (for large; as size increased, price increased) and noticed the difference in appearance and freshness of the eggs. I have also noticed that the shells are more fragile and thinner when cracking them. I am seriously considering raising chickens, although I am a beginner. I remember collecting eggs when I went to my aunts house. The coop really stunk, but the fresh eggs were a prize to be had!

Raising chickens is not hard at all. You should consult your local code to see if they are allowed in your area. My first coop was a simple shed like structure set inthe back yard. I made it tall enough to stand in, I am 6 feet, with a 3 foot wide door and a built in window. The base was set on cinder blocks to keep it off of the ground. I had 2 "shelves" that the girls could sit on aas well as some dowels set at about 4 feet. The girls seldomly used the shelves. I made a gangway for the girls to get to the ground. They free reanges and did not travel very far. I lived on a main street at the time and never did the bird enter the street. I used cedar shavings for bedding and used regular egg layer pellets for supliment. Water was supplied via a poulrty watering system sold at the local farm store.

When we moved I converted a garden shed into the coop. I also enclosed the chickens in a 40 x 20 foote wire enclosure, this was because we moved to the "country". Even with the enclosure we had a few wild life induced massacers. Raccoons mostly.

The biggest time consuming period is winter. Keeping the pen clear of snow and fresh water every day. I installed electricity for both lights and water thawing. Chickens require a certainamount of light tin order to lay eggs. I think it is about 14 hours.

Try it they are easy and fun.

I had a buddy that rented a farmhouse and feeling "farmerish" he decided he would raise chickens.

He was a carpenter, so he constructed a chicken coop that would make any chicken proud.

He was excited when the chicks arrived and after a few weeks the farmer he rented the house from stopped by.

The farmer remarked that about a third of his chickens were roosters and that "You should only have one rooster".

To re-mediate this situation, another friend suggested a "chicken fry".

So, we had a chicken (young rooster) fry and he wound up with a lot of traumatized hens, as they had witnessed the mass execution. I remember a pair of resident domestic ducks suddenly "having to be somewhere else" when the slaughter started. Boy, the looks on their faces!

I never stop eating eggs as I could not believe that they were that bad for you and my cholesterol had always be low. Some of great-grand parents lived into their 90. Had farms and ate fresh eggs for breakfast every morning. Just like in the 60's when they said butter was bad never stopped using it. Didn't care for the taste of margarine. Studies since then say its no better for you and don't have the nutritional value that real butter does. I remember grand dad would pile it on his toast. My parents are in their 80's both have consumed eggs all their life's.

I think you'll find that all 'research' is statistical and we know the relationship between statistics and lies. Besides, eggs are goog again, as is red wine (or any grog) coffee and many fats. The latest fad is anti-sugar. How did our forebears live at all?

The latest fad is anti-sugar. How did our forebears live at all?

Without so much sugar. Not that they didn't eat sugar, but not to the extent we do today. According to Gary Taubes in his book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" sugar intake in the US went from approx less than 15 pounds per person per year in the 1830s to 110-120 pounds per person per year by the 1920s and began to inch up in the 1960s (along with the introduction of fructose-enhanced corn syrups). Then increased substantially with the introduction of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS-55). According to the USDA statistics between 1975 and 1979 Americans consumed an average of 124 pounds of sugars per person. By 2000 that number jumped to almost 150 pounds per person.

Also, there is the low-fat craze where products are lower in fat and higher in sugar like in ice cream and many other products to make up for the taste loss. People are under the impression that all low-fat products are created equal.

Wel a few questions arise when some "health" experts try to do statistics. First how did they account for all the sugar intake. Table sugar is just a plant product, not even chemically enhanced, just dissolved separated from the other plant components, purified and concentrated into a crystaline form (pretty similar to the method of getting salt from sea water). However, in the 1800s, there were other common sources like molasses, maple syrup, honey, etc. that were also regularly extracted from plant tissues. Plus any fruit based products, most tuber and root based products, products of corn, etc. all have substantial sugar contents. So how did they monitor how many apples and apple ciders, which are extremely high in sugar content and have about the same concentration ratio of glucose to fructose as HFCS-55 (maybe slightly higher even). Honey alone is comprised of predominantly fructose, glucose and sucrose, with a glucose (blood sugar) to fructose (fruit sugar) ratio consistent with HFCS-55 (essentially very cheap honey without the impurities), without the sucrose (table sugar). How would you evaluate that accurately from the extremely limited data available for the general populations consumption from the 1830's or even the 1970's, comparable with the same method of calculating sugar consumption currently.

I suspect it really doesn't have as much to do with the sugar as what the sugar is associated with. If you could do a real accurate accounting, you might find the consumption of sugar overall has not increased as much as indicated, but rather it comes associated with fewer other nutrients. though ther eis the case also that in the 1830s starvation and huge nutrient deficiencies were common place amongst the general population, so, maybe it is really a reflection of the overall consumption. I would ponder what is the comparison of thepercentage of calories intake today is from mono- and di-saccharides versus the 1830s, if the statistics are comprehensive.

I think it's always healthy to question statistics and your comment about data collected on diets in the 1800s is legitimate.

Sometime over the past 9-12 months I read something along the lines of the typical American diet based on doctor's logs. I thought it was in a book I had read, which I have been skimming through to find the details, but have not had any luck. I may have to re-read the book to find it which is something I planned to do one day anyway....but it's a rather long book, so it's not something I've got high on my list at this point in time.

Regarding sugar consumption data:

Data can also be gleaned by looking at how much sugar (and other goods) was imported, exported, etc. Keep in mind that sugar was a luxury and quite expensive until not so very long ago which means that the vast majority of societies used very little if any at all. Thus the amount of sugar in the diet would be from what was consumed by way of fruits and veggies.

While one might question the accuracy of the the final number being touted, if one applies a generous tolerance to it (i.e. 50 lbs/year +/- 50%) one would still arrive at a sugar consumption much lower than that observed today.

110 lbs per year in the 1830s +/- 50% for inaccuracy of data set places the high end of the range at 165 lbs per year, which is higher.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Where did you get 110 pounds per year for 1830s? Your original post questioned the accuracy of data taken from so long ago. I chose a well above what researchers have claimed and gave a generous tolerance.

Hi Ca-Vin,

In your remark: "relationship between statistics and lies" I want to add there is no lies, just extremism. Some people are real vegetarians, some people drink too much alcohol every day, some people don't smoke at all, some people go every day to church or other religious places. Like Confucius said, there is nobody in the middle, one is infront and the other one is a laggar. These people are the problem. They are against this or that, at choice. They are disagree with everyone logical or not. Also, we have two words, "poor" and "rich", and no one in between, let say Bill Gates and you or me. Statistics are collected numbers, only their interpretation can become a lie, depending of the interests.

After my opinion, sugar in any form is the enemy of humans. We have too much of it everywhere from soft-drinks, hamburgers, cookies, and other prepared meals.

I eat a dozen eggs per week, drink two dozens of espressos per week, don't smoke, drink alcohol, and don't use sugar no-where. If I am another extremist with my eating, drinking, and living habits, tell me, and tell me what to do to be happier and healthier, Gil.

"After my opinion, sugar in any form is the enemy of humans. We have too much of it everywhere from soft-drinks, hamburgers, cookies, and other prepared meals"

Hamburgers? Granted the bun is mostly carbohydrates, is hamburger a good example of too much sugar in modern Western diets? I generally order mine without the bun.

Really seems a bit rash to claim sugar in any form is the enemy of humans. However, I would like to see you try to survive without any sugar in any form. A few things to consider first The energy on which your body works is a serious of sugars, your DNA is composed of a sugar, your RNA is composed of a sugar, etc.. Starch is just polymerized sugars which are easily hydrolyze (cellulose is also, but not easily hydrolyzed by humans). Corn syrup is nearly pure blood sugar. Nearly every fruit and many vegetables contain high concentrations of fructose naturally (as in not added by man). Even the alcoholic beverages you consume have substantial amounts of sugars as sugar is the basis for the formation of ethanol (unless it is extremely high purity ethanol in which case the majority of the sugar has been filtered out and you have a very clear 199 proof beverage). As a matter of fact nearly everything you enjoy the taste of, except some meat products, will contain substantial amounts of sugar. If you want to cut all sugar based compounds out of your diet be my guests, that would mean that you could no longer consume any fruits, vegetables, anything with blood, any roots or tubers, (honey is nearly >99% sugar), etc.. You could still consume air, purified salt and well many rocks. By the way purified table sugar is just extracted and purified from either sugar cane or sugar beets generally.

It's probably easier for your body to do without sugar than without proteins or fats. Some societies have essentially no sugar in their diets (Inuits of Canada come to mind).

It's a strange drive. I really don't understand it, but there is a peculiar little cult that loves to propagate the idea that food is bad for you. It's like the person who bumps his shin on the coffee table and blames the table and the furniture industry for his injury.

Food isn't bad for you; gluttony is. This has been known for millenia.

Goes along with "Everything in moderation", which is not as much fun as "Nothing exceeds like excess".

Of course food is bad for you.....every person who has ever died ate food for the better part of their life...hence food = death. But the problem is that the cure (not eating) is worse than eating (i.e. you die sooner).

Hopefully the sarcasm is of this statement is obvious.

There is NO comparison to "naturally" fed/ranged chickens and their eggs. The eggs taste at least twice as good, and are brighter and no doubt fresher. I get a kick out of the folks that watch the expiration dates on store-bought eggs and throw out what is left! None of them realize that they often sit in a warehouse for a month or more before shipping to the store where they may sit in an open refrigerator for a week or more.

If you get them from the farm, they are less than two days old (usually), and you have them in your refrigerator from day three until you eat them (which you are usually more apt to do when they taste so yummy)! You could let them sit in your refrigerator for a month and a half and they will be fresher than the ones you just brought home from the store. And I concur that the peeling of the boiled ones is tougher, but that is a sign of freshness. Have you ever bought store eggs that were that hard to peel?

One final note: If you come across a farm with a few geese or better yet, turkeys on the farm with the chickens, beg borrow or steal a turkey egg from the farmer. They usually keep them for themselves, because they are twice the size and they are AWSOME tasting. If you can get your hands on them, they are very good, and I recommend you give them a try.

I have never had an ostrich egg, but if they are like a chicken egg, they must be somewhat similar to eating a dozen or more eggs in one sitting, but it would be funny to see a fist sized yolk frying in the center of a sea of whites that fills the 12" frying pan! You probably need to throw a whole can of pepper on it to season it right.

All things in moderation, but you are better off eating a hearty breakfast than a hearty dinner. You also have to remember that you need to work hard during the day to work off that breakfast, so cut back if you plan on a lazy day of laying around the house!

I raise chickens and guineas and sell the eggs. There is nothing like eggs from range free chickens. I feed an additional portion of flax seed for the omega-3 proteins and my customers appreciate the add on, even at the additional price. I am expanding my flock dramatically to accommodate the growing demand. What most of you do not know is that when an egg is laid it is laid wet. That coating is there to protect the egg from bacteria. An egg that is unwashed will keep almost indefinitely in the fridge without spoiling. Unfortunately most if not all commercially sold eggs have been washed and that is why you may see the "best if eaten by xx/xx/xx". There is no protection on the outside of the egg. The inside membrane does a good job of keeping out bacteria but it is not perfect and thus renders the egg susceptible to bacteria. If you can find a farm that sells unwashed eggs, that is where I would go. Please wash them before breaking in to the pan, that way there will be no possibility of bacteria on the outside of the egg getting in to your breakfast.

I didn't know that eggs were laid wet. I would never have known that they existed. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

Eggs do not need to be refrigerated- if they have not been refrigerated before. From my sailing days- "fresh" eggs ("fresh" meaning the day purchased from the equivalent of a local farmer's market) will last approximately 2 weeks without refrigeration. When the yolk breaks when you crack the egg and dump it in the fry pan, the eggs are starting to go off. Of course, after they have gone off, the smell will let you know it is not a good idea to eat them...

Un refrigerated eggs will attempt to develop but will eventually fail. If they are not washed they will last almost indefinitely without rotting. They may not be 'good' to eat but they will not rot in the shell as will eggs that have been washed and left out. Again it a bacteria thing. The FDA has very liberal guidelines about eggs. They may be sold with 'meat' and blood spots that are starting to develop. Did you know that eggs are kosher food? They require no special certification about being kosher.

And I remember the double yoked eggs form the heavy breeds my Gram let run free range. Barred Rock, Rhode Island Reds, and others, she seemed to know which ones were double when I was a tyke, and it was a so special treat to get one on Sunday Morning. Of course now I know she wasn't a magician at all, just a herb witch who knew by heft and actual hand candling.

"If you decide to make scrambled eggs at home, be sure to eat quickly after making them." ...and don't forget to slather them with salsa.

My 2-bits: I got fed-up a few months ago, trying to stick to a "healthy" diet. Energy going down the tubes; eczema flaring big time.

Said "To heck" with the diet, started eating a 3-egg omelet with sausage for breakfast 7-days a week (topped with about 2/3 cup of Pace salsa) ... and I'm feeling MUCH better. Told the family recently via email:

Side-effect noticed: that big ugly 'liver spot' on the side of my forehead that was getting progressively worse ... to the point of "scabbing"... guess what?

Within a couple months it was for all intents and purposes GONE! "Go figure"

He gave us all we need ... we just gotta figure it all out...

A similar post on another blog I wrote some time back:

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2008/01/on_the_state_of.html

And my memory failed me, it was 4% reduction in 6 weeks, mea culpa.

Good Answer and a very thorough response. Some support for not taken statins was from a local doctor who rejected them and opted to high doses of Vitamin C (+10x daily recommended dosage) and claims good results. I take statins (Crestor) and Vitamin C, E, and other antioxidants to hedge my bets. I like your comments about keeping the BP under control. I would add that weight control is also essential to good health. Try to keep a Body Mass Index (BMI) of less than 25.

It is a bit sinister to think pharmaceutical companies would withhold good discoveries that would help to maintain health. Don't they think that there can be profit in selling things that actually work

I ate eggs as a kid most every day and they were usually fried in bacon fat. Taste good but not sure if it helped. The anecdotal evidence of eggs and cholesterol in this thread is akin to smoking and cancer. You can eat a lot of eggs and live long as well as smoke and live long but it does not work for the majority. The news from nutritional doctors is that eggs are no longer the big taboo they were once portrayed. As stated they are nutrient loaded and some cholesterol is needed for maintaining bodily functions. I eat eggs about once every 1 or 2 weeks and they are poached or boiled. Everything in moderation.

Again well done.

"Does this mean that if a cure for leukemia or AIDS was known and all it required was a vaccination or pill the cure would be withheld if there was a greater profit to be made by selling traditional treatment drugs?"

Yes! It does and it is!

The antidote to HIV has been known for centuries, and is in effective use in some societies even today.

Because of it's simplicity it's widely pooh-hooed, most especially by all of those who can't see a way to make a buck out of it.

But it works. Always has and always will.

Go to: http://www.tewahanui.info/pdfs/10/twn10pg02.pdf

Same thinking with the humble hens egg.

People who started the 'cholesterol' scares didn't really know about 'cholesterol'.

It's my considered and practised opinion the a really healthy diet will include two eggs daily, served any way but fried, preferably for breakfast.

Stu.

Stu,

I like the holistic approach, but the article only implies that lemons are or may be useful in preventing HIV infection, not curing those already infected. While simple prevention is needed, it's a far cry from an antidote to HIV. If we are talking about prevention, there is an extremely simple method.....abstinence. But neither abstinence, condoms or lemons are going to protect against infection via some methods of transmission other than intercourse. Or is there more to it than what's in the article?

Regarding cholesterol

you say "People who started the 'cholesterol' scares didn't really know about 'cholesterol'."

I agree. What's sad is that now more is known about cholesterol (it's importance to cell structure and body repair and the lack of cause and effect between heart disease and cholesterol) we still have doctors using total cholesterol numbers as a gauge of one's health.

I always wondered what the point was of people who only ate the egg whites. The yolk is where most of the nutrition and protein is. If you're going to remove the yolk then why even bother?

The point is simple for those with a desire or need for a quality protein but not so much fat.

1 Whole Egg contains - 6g protein, 1g carbs, 5g fat

1 Egg White contains - 3.5/4g protein, 0g carbs, 0g fat

"The yolk is where most of the nutrition and protein is" - Not exactly true.

I have 3 meals per day in which my main source of protein comes from eggs. 7 egg whites per meal and 1 or 2 whole eggs tossed in depending.

Sure I could eat 21 whole eggs everyday across 3 meals. But do I want to eliminate all other healthy fats in my diet across my other meals? No.

What do you do with the yolks, or do you just buy the egg white?

my girlfriends daughter had a friend over night. the next morning her friend order eggs for breakfast, but not the yolk only the white. Well, I knew of one her friends was a vegetarian may had something to do with it, but she was a guest so I made her fried egg white, of coarse my girlfriend daughter had to have it that way too.

When they were eating it, I asked, if she was on a special diet. She said no,

I asked why just the egg white, she said always wanted just the white but her dad would never make her just the white, Always the whole egg, too much of a waste.

Then I teased her, oh, I see, you just go to the neighbors house when you want to place special orders huh?

guess who ate the yolks.

I get asked that a lot.

I separate the yolks (which I honestly hate doing) and becasue they really start to stink in a very short period of time I keep them in the freezer until garbage day.

But let me say I would love to be able to afford fresh cage free eggs but I opt for buying my eggs by the case (15 dozen per case) from the local Sams Club. Egg Beaters and similiar egg white products can get $$ in my situation.

My parents live next door and raise chickens. However they have aged (the chickens) and can no longer keep up with "my consumption". Perhaps I should drop off a couple dozen chickens as a Mothers Day gift?

OK, I could see why you don't want to eat 21 whole eggs a day but I wouldn't want to eat 21 whites a day either.

I still stand by my previous statement about the yolks being the best part and that natures foods should be eaten as intended. (If eggs were ever meant to be eaten by us in the first place?). Here is an article on the subject, although I'm sure articles could be found arguing both sides of it.

Are Whole Eggs or Egg Whites Better for You?

I admit I am not the "average" person and have no desire to be. I have a reason for eating 21 egg whites a day - not that I love too but at the same point I am not hating it either. I actualy enjoy eating them.

Maybe the yolk is the best part, they sure add some taste to the whites. But the healthiest part is certainly up for debate. But everything is up for debate, just as you said there are arguments for both sides.

But if I were to eat 21 yolks per day rather than 21 whites I would certainly see it and feel it and hear about it from my Dr. too.

And what is the reason for eating 21 eat whites a day?

Looks like another case of media mis-information... I would rather have the effects of eggs whether good or bad than eat food that is genetically alterd...

And where is the watch dog FDA? shouldn't they also be held to accountability?

Well i think it depends on the context of the genetic alterations and the source code for the alterations. What if it is just hybridizing something we eat with something else we already eat to express some component of the gene source into the new product. You know like mixing two fruits to get a new fruit product. Oh wait, they have been doing that for centuries. So I guess we already know that you would eat food that has been genetically hybridized, or you'd be dead of starvation in nearly any part of the world.

On this particular issue I can supply a little empirical data. Four about the last nine months I've been on an Atkins style diet. My typical breakfast for a while was four eggs. My cholesterol never ran extremely high even post diet however my triglycerides post diet were at a suicidal 1072. Besides losing 60 pounds there were other considerable benefits.

My Dr. Had a unusually thorough series of lab tests run about a month ago. My cholesterol had fallen from approximately 210 to approximately 170, and my triglycerides had dropped to about 170 which is just about 20 points above the Normal Range.

Without going through the complete list which was several pages long all test minus good cholesterol showed ideal readings.

The medical establishment is almost as prone to fads as the general public, they condemn foods or diets at one point only to reverse their decision later. I would not necessarily recommend a high protein Low-Carb diet for everyone, I chose this particular dietary regime because I'm also diabetic.

The American diabetic association has previously recommended a diet high in complex carbohydrates. Without exceeding the scope of the thread basically proteins can be hard on the kidneys. A competing theory suggested that the kidney damage was collateral to the higher blood sugars and contingent on the blood sugars being controlled a higher protein lower CARB diet was the correct approach.

In my particular case this seems to have been proven out. The human metabolism is quite complex. A study several years back linked heart disease to iron levels. Typically heart disease is higher in men, the study also found that post menopausal, a woman's iron level and heart disease rate correspondent to the typical male levels.

This particular Dr. Was unconcerned with the traditional cholesterol levels and recommended donating blood (basically the only way to lower iron levels) on a regular basis as part of a heart healthy lifestyle.

Eggs are just a prime example of something being branded as unhealthy and later being vindicated.

I'm currently taking a nutrition/ weight control class. It amazes me that there isn't even continuity and agreement within this structured class. at one point the nutritionist cited small amounts of caffeine as being good for you, at a another caffeine was to be avoided.

Every day, it seems, "experts" are coming out with statements that the food we eat is bad for us. Almost immediately afterward, an new artificial substitute is introduced on the market, promoted to be better for our health. Meanwhile the US is suffering from an epidemic of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Is this a result of the food that we were evolved to eat, or the crap that has been sold to us by big agrabusiness.