/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.16403048]

Is eating six eggs in the morning ok or is it too much?

[Anonymous No.16403062]

It depends on how fat you are

[Anonymous No.16403076]

>>16403048
Depends. Scrambled is just fine, sunnyside seems like too much.

[Anonymous No.16403079]

>>16403048
Are you forcing yourself to eat that many? If yes, then it's too much.

[Anonymous No.16403084]

>>16403062
I'm fat as fuck, but I heard eggs are a health food that you can gorge down as much as you want and it'll only be good for you.

[Anonymous No.16403101]

>>16403084
Eggs are good for you but overeating isn't. It's probably better than eating a bunch of sugary junk food but overconsumption of anything isn't good.

[Anonymous No.16403103]

>>16403048
Eat until satiety so long as you are eating good whole foods (fish, veg, meat, eggs, etc)

[Anonymous No.16403295]

>>16403048
You are gonna have some paint-peeling braps my friend.

[Anonymous No.16403302]

>>16403048
test

[Anonymous No.16403313]

>>16403048
C: Not enough

[Anonymous No.16403322]

>>16403048
>>16403101
aaaa 425 calories i'm going insane my stomachs about to burst noooooooo aàaaaagggh *crunch* *squelch* *splat*

[Anonymous No.16403354]

>>16403048
There's literally nothing wrong with eating 12 or more eggs a day.

[Anonymous No.16403356]

>>16403322
Eggs aren't as high in calories as a lot of people think, but that doesn't mean you can just mindless binge on them especially for someone who is overweight and needs to eat a bit less.

[Anonymous No.16403430]

>>16403356
In Cool Hand Luke Paul Newman ate 50 eggs straight. But modern "males" can't handle it?

[Anonymous No.16403442]

>>16403048
>Is eating six eggs in the morning ok or is it too much
Is that all your eating? Don't lie fatso. You probably cook it in bacon grease and add pork and corn beef with six servings of pancakes, 2 muffins a 2 liter coke and maybe a fucking banana drenched in maple syrup.

if its just 6 eggs then that's okay (@ 80 kcals an egg), might need to keep an eye on your cholesterol levels, but eating eggs tends to usually improve good cholesterol level.

[Anonymous No.16403463]

>>16403442
>good cholesterol/bad cholesterol
Why are nutritionists retarded?

[Anonymous No.16403466]

>>16403463
brainlet detected

[Anonymous No.16403468]

>>16403048
Yes that is too much. Eat boiled rice, you can have unlimited.

[Anonymous No.16403508]

>>16403048
Do you work out ? If so fine. If not then you're probably a fat fuck

[Anonymous No.16403531]

>>16403468
Why can't I fry it?

[Anonymous No.16403553]

>>16403508
And what if he's not?

[Anonymous No.16403556]

>>16403354
holy based

[Anonymous No.16403618]

>>16403430
Eat ten, and see how you feel "macho man".

[Anonymous No.16403765]

aside from breast milk, eggs are the most efficiently absorbed protein source at a whopping 70%!

[Anonymous No.16403775]

>>16403765
Do you know how that compares to the numbers from fish or red meat? Thanks.

[Anonymous No.16403795]

>>16403084
eggs are really fatty. So if you're fat, dont eat tonnes of them. Honestly they are high in cholesterol so I try not to eat more than about 2 a week, but that shits up to you

[Anonymous No.16403801]

>>16403442
I would welcome the research that suggests eggs raise good cholesterol. I bet any such thing you find is funded by the egg industry...

[Anonymous No.16403811]

>>16403801
and anything that claims the contrary is funded by big pharma/sugar you fucking doofus

[Anonymous No.16403842]

>>16403811
Actually, I'm sure big pharma is happy to let everyone think eating a shit ton of cholesterol doesn't raise bad cholesterol. Then they can come begging for cholesterol lowing drugs. Smart thinking, anon.
Besides, you failed to show the research like I asked, so I will assume you have none.

[Anonymous No.16403848]

>>16403084
you can eat as much whites as you want but more than like 5-6 yolks a week can be harmful

[Anonymous No.16403862]

>>16403811
capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16403863]

>>16403048
not if you want to be roughly the size of a barge

[Anonymous No.16403925]

>>16403765
here you are friend.

protein efficiency: egg 3.9; beef 2.9; chicken 3.6; fish n/a; milk 2.5; soy 2.2; whey 3.2

[Anonymous No.16403942]

>>16403842
excess sugar intake is linked to high cholesterol this is common knowledge in 2021. sugar companies massively funded anti fat research during mid 20th century notice how low fat yoghurt always have added sugar in them (more money for the sugar companies) sugar is added to everything, makes money for big pharma by causing diabetes and obesity. if you want a source just google this shit, it's literally common knowledge

[Anonymous No.16403952]

>>16403618
I could easily eat ten. I was dialing in soft boiled eggs and ate 6 the other night. it was a little much but 4 more wouldn't be a problem

[Anonymous No.16403953]

>>16403842
from jewgle
Diets high in sugar make your liver synthesize more “bad” LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol. A sugary diet lowers your “good” HDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol. Excess sugar profoundly raises your triglycerides (a type of blood fat)

[Anonymous No.16403957]

>>16403842
spoonfed retard here you go

"The misperception that dietary cholesterol determines blood cholesterol is held by many consumers in spite of evidence to the contrary. Many studies reported over the past 2 years have shown that dietary cholesterol is not a significant factor in an individual's plasma cholesterol level or cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Reports from the Lipid Research Clinics Research Prevalence Study and the Framingham Heart Study have shown that dietary cholesterol is not related to either blood cholesterol or heart disease deaths. In a similar manner, 10 clinical trials (1994 to 1996) of the effects of dietary cholesterol on blood lipids and lipoproteins indicate that addition of an egg or two a day to a low-fat diet has little if any effect on blood cholesterol levels."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9430080/

[Anonymous No.16403961]

>>16403953
carbohydrate raise vldl and triglycerides Goffmann worked this out back in the 50s but he got fucked by Ancel Keys

[Anonymous No.16403971]

>>16403957
and here's another looking at relevant dietary cholesterol literature and a recovered one that was hidden

"There was a 22% higher risk of death for each 30 mg/dL (0.78 mmol/L) reduction in serum cholesterol in covariate adjusted Cox regression models (hazard ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.32; P<0.001). There was no evidence of benefit in the intervention group for coronary atherosclerosis or myocardial infarcts. Systematic review identified five randomized controlled trials for inclusion (n=10808). In meta-analyses, these cholesterol lowering interventions showed no evidence of benefit on mortality from coronary heart disease (1.13, 0.83 to 1.54) or all cause mortality (1.07, 0.90 to 1.27)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4836695/

[Anonymous No.16403979]

>>16403971

"Advice to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats is a key component of worldwide dietary guidelines for coronary heart disease risk reduction. However, clinical benefits of the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega 6 linoleic acid, have not been established. In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit. These findings could have important implications for worldwide dietary advice to substitute omega 6 linoleic acid, or polyunsaturated fats in general, for saturated fats."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23386268/

[Anonymous No.16403995]

>>16403953
>Diets high in sugar make your liver synthesize more “bad” LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol. A sugary diet lowers your “good” HDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol. Excess sugar profoundly raises your triglycerides (a type of blood fat)

Wow... sugar? I thought we were talking about eggs... way to tangent.

>>16403957
>Framingham Heart Study
Ok... so lets looks at the framingham heart study...
" the risk of CVD was significantly greater when elevated triglycerides (30% higher risk), elevated LDL (30% higher risk), or elevations in both (60% higher risk) were present."
This to me shows that cholesterol is a significant factor for CVD risk, but basically it shows that there are other important factors too, like triglycerides. Unless I am reading it wrong???
https://www.cooperinstitute.org/2018/05/18/framingham-heart-study-shows-that-hdl-cholesterol-levels-should-not-be-interpreted-in-a-vacuum

[Anonymous No.16403999]

>>16403048

[Anonymous No.16404000]

>>16403957
>10 clinical trials (1994 to 1996) of the effects of dietary cholesterol on blood lipids and lipoproteins indicate that addition of an egg or two a day to a low-fat diet has little if any effect on blood cholesterol levels."

Great... so, what was the baseline cholesterol? What was baseline egg consumption? Thats one way these studies will trick chumps like you. Take people who eat tones of cholesterol, add a TINY increase to the cholesterol and then use this to state that eating cholesterol makes no difference.

Well guess what, repeat the same study but on someone with LOW baseline cholesterol and see what happens...

[Anonymous No.16404005]

i also eat 6 eggs when i eat eggs, but i have been told this is many

[Anonymous No.16404010]

>>16404000
They literally removed most if not all cholesterol and saturated fat from their diet in the study and replaced with PUFAs which could be a problem for other reasons.

[Anonymous No.16404017]

i also tend to think about "historical" humans, which were in many ways healthier than modern humans, i think
i think that it would be an extreme luxury to eat 6 eggs every day
so maybe have like 2 or 3 instead

[Anonymous No.16404018]

>>16404000
Once again there's no good evidence to suggest dietary cholesterol raises blood cholesterol concentrations and plenty of evidence to the contrary but by all means believe whatever you want the facts will remain.

[Anonymous No.16404019]

>>16404000
not to mention, the American Heart Association has suggested that high protein diets may have detrimental effects on liver function. This is primarily the result of a concern that the liver will be stressed through metabolizing the greater protein intakes. However, there is no scientific evidence to support this contention. Jorda and colleagues did show that high protein intakes in rats produce morphological changes in liver mitochondria. However, they also suggested that these changes were not pathological, but represented a positive hepatocyte adaptation to a metabolic stress.

Protein is important for the liver not only in promoting tissue repair, but to provide lipotropic agents such as methionine and choline for the conversion of fats to lipoprotein for removal form the liver. The importance of high protein diets has also been acknowledged for individuals with liver disease and who are alcoholics. High protein diets may offset the elevated protein catabolism seen with liver disease, while a high protein diet has been shown to improve hepatic function in individuals suffering from alcoholic liver disease .

[Anonymous No.16404026]

i am a literal scientician epidemiologist and honestly don't trust 99.99999999% of shit that's published
go with your gut for the most part and don't be an idiot
string things together from multiple threads of evidence, not just a single paper, not even single reviews or meta analyses

[Anonymous No.16404036]

>>16404026
What is the effect size of relative risk at which causal information can be inferred from an epidemiological study? Now compare that with the effect sizes from nutritional epidemiology studies that get shouted from the roof tops whenever they show an association of a tiny risk increase with dietary cholesterol or saturated fat.

[Anonymous No.16404037]

>>16404026
I strongly agree with this. Much of it can be heavily biased / industry funded. They can be literally flawed by design to give the result the scientists are funded to get. I barely trust it either, unless I sit and read the full study...
It interests me that you say not even meta analyses though. I thought they were rather solid even on their own!

[Anonymous No.16404159]

>>16403048
Sure. I don't care if you live or die.

[Anonymous No.16404202]

anyone here ever looked in to dietary habits of centenarians? would be pretty based to find out some guy lived to 107 years old or some shit eating a carton of eggs a day

[Anonymous No.16404214]

>>16404202
Every time there's a report on one of those people there's always an "oh it's because I always eat X" comment, and X is always a different thing.

[Anonymous No.16404231]

>>16404017
also, considering chickens looked like this only 60 years ago, would eggs be more nutritious back in the day?

[Anonymous No.16404332]

>>16404036
>What is the effect size of relative risk at which causal information can be inferred from an epidemiological study?
the strength of a causal inference isn't dictated by effect size. no single study can make causal claims, and i believe this well established among thoughtful epidemiologists. causal inference is degrees. causality is a grey area. we can become increasing confident that x causes y, but never know for sure (in the true 100% case). also, well defined causal contrasts are usually pretty difficult to specify. and the evidence we have that directly pertains to those causal contrasts is often slim. but i guess quite a bit more simply, effect sizes larger than 4 or 5 ought to be suspect. in life, few single causal factors have a strong impact on any specific outcome.
>>16404037
industry funded is the easiest concern to spot, but what i believe is far, far, far more insidious is careerism in science. it's trite, but true, that you need findings to get funded. everyone wants to get funded. everyone wants to publish the cool study. everyone wants to push their pet beliefs or topics, in the direction they prefer. environmental epis want to demonstrate a chemical is harmful, sports science epis want to show their methods improve fitness, etc. as for engineering studies to fit your desire, that is fairly easy, as you say. more often it is in the analysis phase than the study design phase. a mortally flawed study design is usually easy to spot, whereas a flawed analysis is not. the other angle is, when you cant find something that you wanted, to just tweak your interpretation and pick the results you present carefully. soften your interpretation, play up your limitations, "we found suggestive X but more research is needed".
also, i mean no disrespect, but even if you sit and read the primary papers front to back and are very well informed, the people who conducted the study can still slip thigns by you. peer review is a joke, by the way.

[Anonymous No.16404337]

>>16404231
Those would be meat chickens not laying ones.

[Anonymous No.16404369]

>>16403076
those two are the same egg. why would it matter

[Anonymous No.16404372]

>>16403430
https://www.newsweek.com/cool-hand-luke-eating-challenge-kills-man-1469656
>Thinks a movie is real life

[Anonymous No.16404374]

>>16403084
if you're trying to lose weight you need to eat less calories than you burn. You might be able to do that on eggs. I have a hard limit of 12 eggs when I occasionally do a 24 hour egg mono. But honestly, just count your fucking calories you fat fuck

[Anonymous No.16404380]

>>16403999
T H I S

[Anonymous No.16404408]

>>16404372
>jewsweek

[Anonymous No.16404447]

>>16404408
>Implying the same story wasn't also reported at some other source you don't meme about

[Anonymous No.16404575]

>>16403048
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16404586]

>>16403048
I mean I guess that might be okay if you wanna be a fucking twink, otherwise you're gonna wanna bump that number up by at least 3.

[Anonymous No.16404600]

>not eating a gross of eggs
NGMI

[Anonymous No.16404603]

I just read that don quixote recovered from his second Sally by eating 600 eggs.

[Anonymous No.16404622]

>>16404332
Thanks for this reply

[Anonymous No.16404706]

Sometimes I keep leftover shells from my morning eggs and bake them on a tray, then crush em up and sprinkle it on my evening eggs.
p good.

[Anonymous No.16405835]

Eat egg.

[Anonymous No.16405840]

>>16404706
Why not keep your evening egg shells and use them in morning

[Anonymous No.16405846]

tl;dr thread-wise, hit up /fit/ and you'll get about the same answer as here.

[Anonymous No.16405899]

>>16403048
Not enough to be honest. You need at least ten eggs per day, or else you'll be an estrogen filled soi boi.

[Anonymous No.16406057]

>>16403999
woman to the left used to be minister of health in clown capital of the world, Belgium.
if you wanna have a laugh read her blogposts about having slow metabolism and being big boned causing her obesity kek

[Anonymous No.16406132]

>>16403048
It's never enough.

[Anonymous No.16406142]

>>16403531
Refined oil is just as bad as refined sugar or refined glutamate or refined protein, same goes for any of them being processed.

[Anonymous No.16406147]

>>16403048
a bit too much

[Anonymous No.16406153]

>>16403048
Tell me about your farts, OP

[Anonymous No.16406163]

>>16403295
this

[Anonymous No.16406166]

>>16404018
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9001684/
This has been studied for almost a century. The only time you don't see a raise in cholesterol is when the baseline consumption or level is already high

[Anonymous No.16406168]

>>16403848
>whites are harmless and healthy
eh

[Anonymous No.16406174]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.16406186]

Eggs are actually a great way to boost your body’s immune system against jewish tricks, especially when combined with a processes pork product

[Anonymous No.16406190]

>>16403084
if youre doing keto then its fine

[Anonymous No.16406251]

>>16403084
there's no such food on earth

[Anonymous No.16406649]

>>16406251
>he doesn't know about raisins

[Anonymous No.16406665]

>>16406251
broccoli

[Anonymous No.16406841]

>>16406186
If you can get your bacon nitrite free. It should literally only be pork, salt and/or smoke

[Anonymous No.16406903]

>>16404369
I'm not him but I always have to add cooking fat or butter when I fry eggs so they don't stick, meanwhile I don't really add anything if I'm making healthier scrambled eggs. If I don't care then I add a blob of butter to them

[Anonymous No.16406918]

>>16406903
I kind have the opposite (but not really) problem where scrambled eggs stick for me even with some oil or butter. I'm sure fried eggs would stick even worse without oil, but they're fried eggs so I've never even tried.

[Anonymous No.16406924]

>>16403048
>Is eating six eggs in the morning ok or is it too much?
Depends on your physical activity. If you're lifting for real then it's a good breakfast. If you're browsing 4chan all day its way too much. One egg would suffice.

[Anonymous No.16406933]

>>16406918
I had that problem but I got a silicone spatula, that basically fixed it for me. 10/10 would recommend

As for fried eggs I don't eat them enough to buy a specific implement for them but I believe you basically have to lift it out of the pan as soon as it's solid which will prevent it sticking

[Anonymous No.16406945]

>>16406918
Lower the heat. Only a fool would rush scrambled eggs.