Friday, June 17, 2016

What’s wrong with eggs?

A common question I hear as a dietitian (second only to “Where do you get your protein?” of course) is “What’s wrong with eggs?”

Where to begin? Let’s start with the obvious egg facts. Eggs have zero dietary fiber, and about 70 percent of their calories are from fat—a big portion of which is saturated. They are also loaded with cholesterol—about 213 milligrams for an average-sized egg. For reference, people with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or high cholesterol should consume fewer than 200 milligrams of cholesterol each day. (Uh oh.) And, humans have no biological need to consume any cholesterol at all; we make more than enough in our own bodies.

Why so much fat and cholesterol in such a tiny package? Think about it: eggs hold every piece of the puzzle needed to produce a new life. Within that shell lies the capacity to make feathers, eyes, a beak, a brain, a heart, and so on. It takes a lot of stuff to make such a complex being.

In addition to these excessive (for humans) natural components of an egg, other human-health hazards exist. Because eggshells are fragile and porous, and conditions on egg farms are crowded, eggs are the perfect host for salmonella—the leading cause of food poisoning in the U.S.

Those are some facts and figures. But how do eggs affect real people in real life? Luckily, researchers have conducted good studies to help answer that question.


In a 1992 analysis of dietary habits, people who consumed just 1.5 eggs per week had nearly five times the risk for colon cancer, compared with those who consumed hardly any (fewer than 11 per year), according to the International Journal of Cancer. The World Health Organization analyzed data from 34 countries in 2003 and found that eating eggs is associated with death from colon and rectal cancers. And a 2011 study funded by the National Institutes of Health showed that eating eggs is linked to developing prostate cancer. By consuming 2.5 eggs per week, men increased their risk for a deadly form of prostate cancer by 81 percent, compared with men who consumed less than half an egg per week. Finally, even moderate egg consumption tripled the risk of developing bladder cancer, according to a 2005 study published inInternational Urology and Nephrology.


A review of fourteen studies published earlier this year in the journal Atherosclerosisshowed that people who consumed the most eggs increased their risk for diabetes by 68 percent, compared with those who ate the fewest.

In a 2008 publication for the Physicians’ Health Study I, which included more than 21,000 participants, researchers found that those who consumed seven or more eggs per week had an almost 25 percent increased risk of death compared to those with the lowest egg consumption. The risk of death for participants with diabetes who ate seven or more eggs per week was twice as high as for those who consumed the least amount of eggs.

Egg consumption also increases the risk of gestational diabetes, according to two 2011 studies referenced in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Women who consumed the most eggs had a 77 percent increased risk of diabetes in one study and a 165 percent increased risk in the other, compared with those who consumed the least.

Heart Disease

Researchers published a blanket warning in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology,informing readers that ceasing egg consumption after a heart attack would be “a necessary act, but late.” In the previously mentioned 14-study review, researchers found that people who consumed the most eggs increased their risk for cardiovascular disease by 19 percent, and if those people already had diabetes, the risk for developing heart disease jumped to 83 percent with increased egg consumption.

New research published this year has shown that a byproduct of choline, a component that is particularly high in eggs, increases one’s risk for a heart attack, stroke, and death.

Animal Protein

Inevitably, this discussion also leads to another question: “Even egg whites?” Yes, even egg whites are trouble. The reason most people purport to eat egg whites is also the reason they should be wary — egg whites are a very concentrated source of animal protein (remember, the raw material for all those yet-to-be-developed body parts?). Because most Westerners get far more protein than they need, adding a concentrated source of it to the diet can increase the risk for kidney disease, kidney stones, and some types of cancer.

By avoiding eggs and consuming more plant-based foods, you will not only decrease your intake of cholesterol, saturated fat, and animal protein, but also increase your intake of protective fiber, antioxidants, and phytochemicals. Be smart! Skip the eggs and enjoy better health!


shared from

Friday, June 10, 2016


Monday, June 06, 2016


It is very common to hear in the plant-based community that you can eat as much food as you want without any consequence. I agree to a certain point because I promote intuitive eating, which basically just means eat when you’re hungry till you’re full. There are plenty of people who when they switch to a plant-based diet and eat intuitively, they get immediate results and lose weight effortlessly. I also understand that everyone is unique with a unique history and this can really make a difference.

In Japan, there is a practice called ‘hara hachi bu’, which means eat until you are 80% full. Many of us are so used to force feeding ourselves till we are stuffed and even if we are eating a plant-based diet, it can still be causing weight gain because our satiety and hunger mechanism is broken. Here is how you practice hara hachi bu. Eat half of what you normally would eat and check in with yourself. Are you still hungry? Can you eat some more? If you are then eat some more.

Once you begin to feel some stomach pressure, you are at the 80% full stage. It may take 15-20 meals in order to reset the muscle memory of your stomach to get used to eating less food. A lot of times when people think they are eating till they are satiated, they are really eating until they are stuffed. You will have to trust this process as it may be scary at first but over time you will become more in tune with exactly how much your body needs. Be mindful of how much you are eating. Check in with yourself to see whether or not you’re overeating.

This isn’t necessary for everyone but if you are used to stuffing yourself then this is a great practice for you. Something to be mindful of is how much salt you are consuming. Salt can act like a stimulant and can cause overeating. If the food is less stimulating then you are less likely to overeat.

The Bible Argument

The Bible Argument:

"The Bible says we shall have dominion over the animals and I take that to mean that we can eat meat and use animals however we want.  Therefore, we can eat meat."

Objection 1:    If one wants to take what the Bible says to support one's position, one will have to believe that a wife must submit to her husband, homosexuals are immoral, one must not eat cloven-hoofed animals, rebellious sons must be taken to the center of town and stoned to death, etc.  One cannot pick and choose between points in the Bible without being unfair and arbitrary. If there are any points or even one point in the Bible with which one does not agree, one has to be able to justify why that one point should not be accepted but that every other point should.  What that justification will amount to is to be some other argument for eating meat that is not in the Bible (see the other arguments below, e.g.).  Because people do tend to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they like and dislike, it may show that people have their own ideas of right and wrong regardless of what the Bible says.  It also might show that most people think that the Bible is fallible.

Objection 2:    What is intended by "Man shall have dominion over the animals" (paraphrased from Genesis 1:26) is subject to interpretation.  Maybe what is intended is not, "Do whatever you want to the animals, like torturing, eating, bestiality," etc., but, "Since I made humans with more reason than the rest of the animals on earth, it will be up to you to see that they are well cared for - do not harm (or kill) them unless it is necessary."; So someone who likes this argument needs to tell me why we should interpret the argument in the former way rather than the latter. (See Objection 4 below.)  It would seem that parents would have dominion over their children; but this does not imply that we can torture and kill them in order to eat them, right?

Objection 3:    For anyone who does not believe that every word of the Bible is true, it is not convincing.  Why are all of the other Holy Books such as the Qur'an, Rig-Veda, Dhammapada, Taoist texts, Book of Mormon, etc., wrong?

Objection 4:    First, it would seem that God wants us to eat only vegetables:  In Genesis 1:29, God says to Adam and Eve, "I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [sic] is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."; It says that man shall have dominion over the animals, but it does not say there that we shall have them for food, as it does of fruits and vegetables. (It is true that the Old Testament does have laws for meat-eating after this Genesis passage, but then we have an inconsistency to address.)  Second, there are Biblical passages which actually say that we should care for animals:  For example, we should help an ass get up if it falls down (Exodus 23:5), you must rest on the seventh day so that your ox and ass can rest too (Exodus 23:12 and Deuteronomy 5:14), you must leave a mother bird and her eggs alone - you may take her brood, but you must leave the mother bird alone (Deuteronomy 22:6-7) the just man takes care of his beast (Proverbs 12:10), if you have livestock, look after them, if they are dependable, keep them (Sirach 7)  Therefore, it is very unclear just what a defender of eating meat can glean from the Bible.  Also, in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, it says, "Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" (Sect. 89.12-13). This text suggests that meat be eaten sparingly, but ONLY in winter, cold, or famine.  This was written when there were no other options available, and certainly does not seem to apply to warm climates such as Arizona, California, etc.  But even in Vermont, non-meat alternatives are available aplenty, so would this text not pretty much ban meat-eating in about 99% of North America?