eating 2 eggs everyday? bad or good?

Samui said:

I eat 5-8 raw eggs a day. Had blood tests taken last Wed, and everything were in healthy/optimal range. Eggs have been demonized for no good reason.

Woah woah woah. Back up the truck. You eat 8 RAW EGGS A DAY? Why is this noone talking about this? 

How do you deal with the whole eating raw eggs sensation? I have enough trouble eating my eggs when there even a little bit undercooked, not to mention over easy, which Ive never eaten. But 8 raw eggs? You must be hardcore dude.

Seabird said:

Woah woah woah. Back up the truck. You eat 8 RAW EGGS A DAY? Why is this noone talking about this?.......You must be hardcore dude.

This only seems sensational to you because you can't even eat them over easy.

But yeah, that's pretty gross man.

i eat 3-4 whole soft boiled eggs as pre workout.. eggs are okay

I eat 4-6 boiled hard eggs a day, the body cannot properly digest raw egg, you get the best protein from fully cooked eggs. Worried about fat? Do some cardio. Cholesterol ? Physical activity lowers your cholesterol. I don't take supplements or vitamins, I eat food.

Eggs are the perfect food.  

I was getting a flat of pastured eggs per week for $6, straight from the farm.  After eating 30 eggs per week for a year, with lots of lab tests along the way, I've never been healthier. 

Wieland Gmeiner said:

This paper suffers from the usual problems. The data it tries to analyze are from an observational study, they were obtained by food questionnaires ("How many eggs did you eat last year") what is a proven method for a flawed data base, it's original purpose was something completely different, there were many factors that were "corrected" by statistical methods, what basically means that, based on former papers (that may have obtained their conclusions the same way) the data were "weighted" to relativize the facts that the egg eaters were older, smoked more, drank more alcohol, had more diabetes, etc., what in the end means that the authors adjusted their data until they showed what they wanted them to show. And in the end they could show some weak associations, what is completely meaningless at all. Association is not causation.

The bottom line is, don't trust any studies like that, they say nothing, or they say what the people that paid for it want to read. But they really never prove their claims.

What I would do indeed, I would assure that my eggs are from pastured hens whenever possible, because the food they eat affects a lot the composition of the fatty acids of their eggs (and meat, btw).

This study is full of confounders and draws conclusions, that werent the original purpose of the study, yet there are still People, that take it for serious... cant understand that. Please educate yourself in interpreting studies. Take a statisticscourse or dont fear people with inconclusional, poor designed so called studies.

You cannot draw a conclusion about data, that your nullhypotheses is not about. That requires another analysis and the suggestions made here just are NOT backed up.

Eat your eggs. They contain B Vitamins in the yolk which are too rare in the common grain based diets. Also the saturated fats are healthy for you. Stop being afraid of cholesterol, gosh. Main problem in modern diet is the too high omega 6 fatty acids, which are much more likely to cause inflammation (artherosclerosis, CHD, stroke, fibromyalgisis, maybe even Crohns, arthrosis and others), in the relations modern society consums them. Up your saturad fats acids, up Your Vitamins. Eat eggs (but please not from cagehens), period.

Question time:

I've believed for a while now that the only thing that causes cholesterol is excessive carbohydrates.  [citation needed]  I've also been a strong supporter of eggs ever since I found out about Choline, and how your brain uses it as a neurotransmitter.

Then I read this: "Intestinal microbiota metabolism of choline and phosphatidylcholine produces trimethylamine (TMA), which is further metabolized to a proatherogenic species, trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO)"

This is from wikipedia, but the source link simply takes you to the editing page for the article.  So: Is this true?  Am I, once again, going to have to change my beliefs about eggs?

Eggs are only a part of your diet.  You need to look at the whole context prior to worrying about a small portion of it.  Whether something is good or bad can depend on whether it is part of a diet that is hypercaloric compared to your needs, how the eggs are prepared, what else you eat, your current activity levels and health status.  While it is well intentioned to provide advice on nutrition what works for one person may not work for others and you need to look at the whole context of how eggs fit into your plan.

Brad Mifsud said:

Eggs are only a part of your diet.  You need to look at the whole context prior to worrying about a small portion of it.  Whether something is good or bad can depend on whether it is part of a diet that is hypercaloric compared to your needs, how the eggs are prepared, what else you eat, your current activity levels and health status.  While it is well intentioned to provide advice on nutrition what works for one person may not work for others and you need to look at the whole context of how eggs fit into your plan.

This is a great post.

I want to add that "egg" is too broad of a term. Are you eating eggs from chickens fed ground flax? They will likely have more oxidized cholesterol, which is atherogenic. Are you eating eggs from chickens that are running around eating bugs and seeds outside, with some fresh vegetable scraps? They're going to have a much more favorable nutrient profile and less (if any) oxidized cholesterol. Where your eggs come from is just as important as where your spinach or beef comes from, which includes how it was raised.

Just because something individually is atherogenic does not mean it will lead to atherosclerosis. We are incredibly complex systems.

In the past people have used the excuse that "exercise causes an increase in free radicals!" to avoid exercise due to health concerns about free radicals. Of course they completely missed the fact that this transient increase actually primes our bodies to CONTAIN free radical damage, and results in overall more favorable regulation of damaged cells, as well as increased protection against damage in the first place.

We are not simple creatures, despite what many salesmen want you to believe.