It is a debate that we have surely heard countless times, that of how good or bad that eggs result for our health. It is a setback, the evidence that eggs are “bad” is limited and has been refuted by various studies, but still the issue remains the subject of new studies.
Studies that continue to insist on the usual consumption of eggs does not represent an additional risk.
Another study on the list. A recent study of mortality associated with egg consumption has not observed indications of an increase in mortality associated with egg consumption. Moreover, the study found an inverse relationship between the regular consumption of this food and the risk of deaths linked to cardiovascular diseases.
The study carried out 8,756 over 70 years of age, which gave information about their diets. Based on this information, the team separated the participants in three groups: who did not consume eggs or did it shortly, those who consumed eggs between one and six times a day, and those who consumed eggs daily.
Verdict. The study results indicated that people in the moderate consumption group had a risk of mortality by 15% lower than those of the low consumption group, controlling other factors. They also observed a 29% reduction associated with specific mortality due to heart disease.
Of egg aspirin. The study was framed in the ASPREE project (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly), curiously, a project dedicated to the study of the effects of aspirin in preventive medicine. The details of the study have been published in an article in the magazine Nutrients.
But they didn’t have cholesterol? “Eggs are a dense food in nutrients, they are a rich source of protein and a good source of nutrients, such as B vitamins, folate, non -saturated fatty acids, liposolubes vitamins (E, D, a, and k), hill, and numerous minerals and trace elements,” he explained in a press release Holly Wild, co -author of the study.
However, the eggs won a bad reputation due to their cholesterol content. Each egg has about 275 milligrams of cholesterol, which would represent almost the entire recommended amount of cholesterol, they explain in an article for The Conversation Lauren Ball and Karly Bartrim, experts from the University of Queensland, in Australia.
The trick is in absorption, Ball and Bartrim point out. And it is that the fact that we consummate a food with high cholesterol content does not mean that our body will absorb that cholesterol and make it end in the bloodstream, where it can imply a risk.
This is the advance. The debate on the hypothetical damage that eggs may be a health risk has been perpetuated for years has often been used to discredit advances made in the field of nutrition.
And it is true that the science that studies nutrients and their effects on our body is complex: the varied of the human diet and the immense complexity of our body are two factors that make extremely difficult to measure the effects of some foods on our health. It is not surprising that we can occasionally run into this type of debates.
The contradictory results are not alien to any field of science: there are many reasons why a study can yield erroneous results, such as methodological failures, calculation errors or even by mere statistical chance. That is why relationships must be studied several occasions, by different teams and following a variety of methods, this is how failures and erroneous relationships have been detected on several occasions. It is how the method itself should work.
In WorldOfSoftware | White eggs have disappeared from our supermarkets: the story of how brown was commercially imposed
Imagen | Morgane Perraud
