ApoE4.Info

Along this line of discussion about trust in publications, is anyone familiar with the Omics investigation in the last few months?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... ws-problem

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_I ... hing_group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements ... ng-science

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new ... and-profit

Jan wrote: trust in publications

Jan,

I believe it's important to evaluate the strength of the scientific evidence. That's the safe criterion.

As Plumster pointed out, it helps to know what gains are available to someone from promoting a particular scientific theory. This does not over-ride the strength of scientific evidence, but it does tend to put wise readers on their guard. They may still choose to go along with the commercially motivated theory until it's replaced by something more solid.

Searcher wrote:

Jan wrote: trust in publications

Jan,

I believe it's important to evaluate the strength of the scientific evidence. That's the safe criterion.

As Plumster pointed out, it helps to know what gains are available to someone from promoting a particular scientific theory. This does not over-ride the strength of scientific evidence, but it does tend to put wise readers on their guard. They may still choose to go along with the commercially motivated theory until it's replaced by something more solid.

Yes, indeed, seems like we all agree - except with the studying scientific evidence 'blind' practice.

Fc1345linville wrote: the "gospel according to fill-in-the-blank".

Fc described the dangers of that practice well.

Scientific evidence is a more reliable and safe criterion. It works best when considered independently of WHO is saying something. A commercially motivated theory may be correct, it just tends to make people more cautious. A theory free from commercial motives may be wrong, even though it tends to make people less guarded.

That's why I give first place to strength of evidence, as fc and many others here appear to do.

Do rely on primary evidence when possible; ideally, that which has taken the E4 genotype into account. I rarely rely on author's conclusions because they are often steeped in bias and misleading.

For instance, the authors of Searcher's study conclude that non-diabetic men who eat >7 eggs per week have a doubled risk of all cause mortality vs. those who eat 5-6 eggs per week, but the most telling statistic can be found in comparing those who had the highest vs. the lowest egg intake; 581 vs. 971. It appears to be much more dangerous to eat no eggs at all. Does Dr. Greger mention that one?

Once again, when the data is available, weigh the evidence for our genotype. Given the vital role that choline plays in neuroprotection, it's harmful to rely on general evidence when more specific evidence is available. Choline is a precursor to the brain chemical acetylcholine, which plays a key role in memory and other cognitive functions. Low acetylcholine levels are associated with Alzheimer's, therefore it's no surprise that the study I linked earlier found that those with the highest egg intake had the strongest cognition. That associated remained for our genotype. And, egg intake of up to one per day (even for E4 carriers) was not associated with an increased risk of CAD.

Hi Julie,

I don't know if Dr. Greger addresses the assumption that it "appears to be much more dangerous to eat no eggs at all" (is this your assumption or someone else's? If someone else, please do cite!). But Dr. Barnard does: https://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/t ... edible-egg

However, Dr. Gregor does address choline, a lot, noting how too much choline is not a good thing (there is choline in plant foods too, just not as much): https://nutritionfacts.org/?fwp_search= ... type=video

Julie G wrote: the most telling statistic can be found in comparing those who had the highest vs. the lowest egg intake; 581 vs. 971. It appears to be much more dangerous to eat no eggs at all. Does Dr. Greger mention that one?

Julie,

That particular statistic shows a 22% HIGHER risk of all-cause mortality among those with the highest egg intake compared to those with the lowest.

From this data, it's possible to reassure people who abstain from eggs that they do NOT thereby lay themselves open to premature death.

I switched from 21 eggs per week to 7 per week because of this evidence. That's 1 egg per week more than strictly advisable, but some of us like to live dangerously.

Searcher wrote:
I switched from 21 eggs per week to 7 per week because of this evidence. That's 1 egg per week more than strictly advisable, but some of us like to live dangerously.

on the edge huh.... the adrenaline rush....
<giggle>

I accept that data that more than a certain threshold of eggs suggests higher incidence of bad things. Its possibly a classic J-shaped curve?
But I don't eat consistently the same number of eggs each week. Some weeks none, some weeks 10 if I make a huge veggie quiche for my work lunches (my main meal). I wonder if an average is ok over a fortnight for instance? a week is such an arbitrary time frame...could it be eggs per fortnight? per month? all of which are arbitrary too....

ugh. Too many questions.

Yes, I can see here that there is a risk that people might see something saying large amounts of something are not good and come away thinking"Oh I better not eat eggs (or whatever it was) and totally cut it out- but it is Ok just not in such large amounts. Especially when stressed or a bit anxious (well, I am like that at times anyway and overthink things) Which would be a shame. And also possibly detrimental. There is a balance, isn't there.

I am finding a lot of the advice from these doctors is quite contradictory and trying to step back a bit and think- does this suit me? Is it meaning in large amounts / just for some people? what evidence do they have of this? where are they coming from with this? (is it their background, where they are from, etc?) before following anything. There might not be a 'right' answer, just what is 'right' for you...

Stavia wrote:some weeks 10 if I make a huge veggie quiche for my work lunches (my main meal). I wonder if an average is ok over a fortnight for instance? .

Stavia,

If you eat 10 eggs all at once, you'll know that it's definitely too much if you start clucking whenever you try to speak.

More seriously, the half life of most egg molecules is relatively short compared to the time scale of weeks, apart from the fat-soluble molecules. So 7 eggs in one week vs 14 over a fortnight probably makes little difference.

The data cited show a statistically significant linear dose-response gradient for all-cause mortality with the number of eggs per week, in non-diabetic as well as diabetic. No evidence of a J-shaped response in these data.