Eating just THREE eggs a week 'increases chance of men getting prostate cancer'

  • Thread starter Thread starter LiE
  • Start date Start date

LiE

LiE

Caporegime
Joined
2 Aug 2005
Posts
26,377
Location
Milton Keynes
lololol daily mail...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...gnificantly-increases-risk.html#ixzz1ZLAFmwlC

Eating three eggs a week could significantly increase a man’s chances of dying from prostate cancer, researchers have warned.

Experts in the U.S. claimed that men who consume more than two and a half on a weekly basis were up to 81 per cent more likely to be killed by the disease.

They suggested the damage may be done by the large amounts of cholesterol or choline – a nutrient that help cells to function properly – that are found in eggs.

er what?

The average Briton consumes an estimated 182 eggs a year – roughly three and a half per week.
Sorry guys looks like most of us are dead..
 
I eat 5+/day... come at me prostate cancer.

edit: i don't usually do this... but I clicked the link :(

Men who ate the most eggs also more likely to have a poor diet, be overweight, smoke and take less exercise

Never visiting that site again.
 
Last edited:
I gave the whole smoking thing a miss and I tend to steer clear of places where I think there might be harmful levels of background radiation (chernobyl, couple of places in Japan, a couple of islands in the pacific, inside nuclear reactors) tbh that's about the limit to the concessions I'm willing to make to my lifestyle without some cast iron proof.
 
This is an observational study attempting to test for ‘cause and effect’ when it is not designed to do so. With this type of study, it is impossible to separate egg consumption from all the other factors which might impact on prostate cancer risk. Indeed, the researchers noted that men who consumed more eggs were fatter, less physically active, more likely to smoke and to have family histories of diabetes and prostate cancer, were less likely to eat poultry and fish, and more likely to eat red meat and dairy foods compared with those who ate few eggs. This suggests that egg consumption was a marker for other more important lifestyle factors which influence prostate cancer.
The Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) is an inaccurate tool for estimating habitual dietary intake. Men completed this every 4 years and the average from three FFQs in 1986, 1990 and 1994 was used to represent 'usual diet'. The portion sizes were not weighed, which represents another source of error. It is notable that, when the researchers took into account FFQs from later years, the association between eggs and prostate cancer mortality became non-significant (P=0.14).
199 men out of the total sample of 27,000 went on to die from prostate cancer with only 55 of these (0.2% of the total sample) consuming more than 2.5 eggs per week. This is a very small sample size for estimating the impact of dietary patterns on disease risk. Certainly, dietary advice should not be given to the wider population based on this sample. Interestingly, egg consumption measured after diagnosis of prostate cancer was not associated with risk of mortality.
The statistical analysis did not take into account other dietary factors, e.g. total fat, saturated fat, sugars, which may be linked with prostate cancer development.
As noted by the authors, only three previous studies have examined associations between mortality from prostate cancer and egg consumption. One showed a positive association, one showed no association, and a third showed an inverse association! Therefore, the evidence is highly inconsistent, suggesting that eggs in themselves are probably not related to cancer risk but are a marker for other associated factors.
The authors blamed the cholesterol content of eggs for the association. Yet, controlled trials show that a high intake of eggs does not significantly increase blood cholesterol levels. This means that the cholesterol in eggs has a negligible impact on blood cholesterol levels, and is unlikely to impact on cancer risk. Choline was also suggested as a potential mechanism, yet there are no controlled trials to confirm this – only one observational study.

My source for that being of course completely unbiased
 
Back
Top Bottom