HARD BOILED EGGS
Options
Replies
-
0
-
And most of the other nutrients found in an egg.roanokejoe50 wrote: »
0 -
Eggs are yummy and good for you. Egg whites on their own are kind of bland and tasteless unless whipped up with a bunch of sugar and tartaric acid into a meringue.0
-
I really wish we could hide entries that are incorrect or we will never use. There are so many in there that are wrong, and it gets annoying scrolling through them especially when logging on the phone. I log eggs as raw, and then log whatever I add to them.0
-
sheepotato wrote: »I really wish we could hide entries that are incorrect or we will never use. There are so many in there that are wrong, and it gets annoying scrolling through them especially when logging on the phone. I log eggs as raw, and then log whatever I add to them.
god... that would be amazing.0 -
sheepotato wrote: »I really wish we could hide entries that are incorrect or we will never use. There are so many in there that are wrong, and it gets annoying scrolling through them especially when logging on the phone. I log eggs as raw, and then log whatever I add to them.
god... that would be amazing.
Very much so!
0 -
This site would benefit with a 'rep' option - sheep just earned +1,0000
-
So basically just a more in depth version of what I stated.neanderthin wrote: »
Harvard.......when you think we've progressed and learned a thing or two, just read Harvard. lol
You do realize that the way you google something creates certain results right? Google high cholesterol leads to higher risk of heart disease and post your results then.KJoubert1966 wrote: »Pretty sure most medical journals disagree with you on high cholesterol. But hey what do they know, they are just a collection of studies done by scientists with PhD's. Morons the lot of them.
You mean like these studies? (Oh wait.. not those. They state the opposite)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18609060
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615352
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560285
Etc. etc.
Let's try this...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=myth+lipid+hypothesis
Or more directly...
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth.html
Cholesterol *MIGHT* be correlated with heart disease, and even that is greatly debated by "scientists with PhD's" as to the amount and the type, but it most certainly NOT causal.
If you really want to get to the nitty gritty, high levels of LDL (bad cholesterol) can be the cause of some serious problems.
Here is an excerpt from the Harvard book on lowering cholesterol. Give it a read, you might actually learn something
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Understanding_Cholesterol.htm
I particularly liked the part where they say the problem is plaque, the cause LDL, the remedy HDL and they actually said HDL to the rescue...
Reminds me of this quote " Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
0 -
KJoubert1966 wrote: »Chloesterol is an anti-inflammatory, produced by your body, to deal with something ELSE that's bad for you. Blaming the cholesterol as "bad", doesn't address the actual source of the problem. Taking a statin or something like that, and forcibly lowering your cholesterol, does nothing to abate the inflammation in your system. High cholesterol is an indicator of a problem... its not THE problem.
High cholesterol can cause build up in arteries. If this build up breaks apart it can cause either stroke or heart attack. I am 100% correct in saying that high cholesterol is bad for you. It may not actually cause anything to happen, but there is always that possibility.
It depends on why your overall cholesterol numbers are high. My cholesterol tends to be on the high side according to the over all number but based on the individual breakdown of HDL/LDL/Tri's I'm in the right range. If your "bad" cholesterol and your tri's are high as well as your over all cholesterol then yes, there is an obvious problem. But to just make a blanket statement that "high cholesterol is bad" isn't necessarily true if you don't have all the numbers.
0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »KJoubert1966 wrote: »Chloesterol is an anti-inflammatory, produced by your body, to deal with something ELSE that's bad for you. Blaming the cholesterol as "bad", doesn't address the actual source of the problem. Taking a statin or something like that, and forcibly lowering your cholesterol, does nothing to abate the inflammation in your system. High cholesterol is an indicator of a problem... its not THE problem.
High cholesterol can cause build up in arteries. If this build up breaks apart it can cause either stroke or heart attack. I am 100% correct in saying that high cholesterol is bad for you. It may not actually cause anything to happen, but there is always that possibility.
It depends on why your overall cholesterol numbers are high. My cholesterol tends to be on the high side according to the numbers but based on the individual breakdown of HDL/LDL/Tri's I'm in the right range. If your "bad" cholesterol and your tri's are high as well as your over all cholesterol then yes, there is an obvious problem. But to just make a blanket statement that "high cholesterol is bad" isn't necessarily true if you don't have all the numbers.
I amended that statement a few posts up. Basically said exactly what you did.
0 -
KJoubert1966 wrote: »Pretty sure most medical journals disagree with you on high cholesterol. But hey what do they know, they are just a collection of studies done by scientists with PhD's. Morons the lot of them.
You mean like these studies? (Oh wait.. not those. They state the opposite)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18609060
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615352
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560285
Etc. etc.
Let's try this...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=myth+lipid+hypothesis
Or more directly...
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth.html
Cholesterol *MIGHT* be correlated with heart disease, and even that is greatly debated by "scientists with PhD's" as to the amount and the type, but it most certainly NOT causal.
This is quoted from your last link.
"Atherosclerosis is largely driven by the degeneration of lipids which infiltrate the blood vessel and thereby cause inflammation"
Have a good day0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »KJoubert1966 wrote: »Chloesterol is an anti-inflammatory, produced by your body, to deal with something ELSE that's bad for you. Blaming the cholesterol as "bad", doesn't address the actual source of the problem. Taking a statin or something like that, and forcibly lowering your cholesterol, does nothing to abate the inflammation in your system. High cholesterol is an indicator of a problem... its not THE problem.
High cholesterol can cause build up in arteries. If this build up breaks apart it can cause either stroke or heart attack. I am 100% correct in saying that high cholesterol is bad for you. It may not actually cause anything to happen, but there is always that possibility.
It depends on why your overall cholesterol numbers are high. My cholesterol tends to be on the high side according to the numbers but based on the individual breakdown of HDL/LDL/Tri's I'm in the right range. If your "bad" cholesterol and your tri's are high as well as your over all cholesterol then yes, there is an obvious problem. But to just make a blanket statement that "high cholesterol is bad" isn't necessarily true if you don't have all the numbers.
I amended that statement a few posts up. Basically said exactly what you did.
Sorry. I didn't see it.
0 -
-
goddessofawesome wrote: »It depends on why your overall cholesterol numbers are high. My cholesterol tends to be on the high side according to the over all number but based on the individual breakdown of HDL/LDL/Tri's I'm in the right range. If your "bad" cholesterol and your tri's are high as well as your over all cholesterol then yes, there is an obvious problem. But to just make a blanket statement that "high cholesterol is bad" isn't necessarily true if you don't have all the numbers.
There's more to it even than that. Even LDL numbers can be broken down to large and small components, of which only small LDL can be correlated on any level with heart disease. But these tests are more expensive, and not routine. Of course, "High cholesterol is bad" is just so simple and easy to grab on to, usually by people unwilling to challenge what they think they already know, the specifics get ignored. The subtle difference between "cause" and "symptom" or "proximate cause" and "root cause" are tossed right out.
Some people don't even understand what cholesterol is and what your body uses it for, and they simply refuse to educate themselves on this point. Its a response to a problem. Ignoring that, and treating it like the root of the problem itself, you never address the health issue that is causing the generation of this response.
Makes for great pharmaceutical sales though.0 -
KJoubert1966 wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »It depends on why your overall cholesterol numbers are high. My cholesterol tends to be on the high side according to the over all number but based on the individual breakdown of HDL/LDL/Tri's I'm in the right range. If your "bad" cholesterol and your tri's are high as well as your over all cholesterol then yes, there is an obvious problem. But to just make a blanket statement that "high cholesterol is bad" isn't necessarily true if you don't have all the numbers.
There's more to it even than that. Even LDL numbers can be broken down to large and small components, of which only small LDL can be correlated on any level with heart disease. But these tests are more expensive, and not routine. Of course, "High cholesterol is bad" is just so simple and easy to grab on to, usually by people unwilling to challenge what they think they already know, the specifics get ignored. The subtle difference between "cause" and "symptom" or "proximate cause" and "root cause" are tossed right out.
Some people don't even understand what cholesterol is and what your body uses it for, and they simply refuse to educate themselves on this point. Its a response to a problem. Ignoring that, and treating it like the root of the problem itself, you never address the health issue that is causing the generation of this response.
Makes for great pharmaceutical sales though.
^^ Agree. And lots of times the cholesterol -- or heck any problem -- is the result of wonky hormones. Statin drugs are the worst thing anyone can be on yet they're heavily pushed and people take them without doing further investigation on their or seeking alternate ways to fix the problem own because "my doctor prescribed them".
0 -
Here you go, this should makes complete sense to you.
So basically just a more in depth version of what I stated.neanderthin wrote: »
Harvard.......when you think we've progressed and learned a thing or two, just read Harvard. lol
You do realize that the way you google something creates certain results right? Google high cholesterol leads to higher risk of heart disease and post your results then.KJoubert1966 wrote: »Pretty sure most medical journals disagree with you on high cholesterol. But hey what do they know, they are just a collection of studies done by scientists with PhD's. Morons the lot of them.
You mean like these studies? (Oh wait.. not those. They state the opposite)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18609060
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615352
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560285
Etc. etc.
Let's try this...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=myth+lipid+hypothesis
Or more directly...
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth.html
Cholesterol *MIGHT* be correlated with heart disease, and even that is greatly debated by "scientists with PhD's" as to the amount and the type, but it most certainly NOT causal.
If you really want to get to the nitty gritty, high levels of LDL (bad cholesterol) can be the cause of some serious problems.
Here is an excerpt from the Harvard book on lowering cholesterol. Give it a read, you might actually learn something
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Understanding_Cholesterol.htm
I particularly liked the part where they say the problem is plaque, the cause LDL, the remedy HDL and they actually said HDL to the rescue...
Reminds me of this quote " Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease: An analysis of 136,905 hospitalizations in Get With The Guidelines
Background
Lipid levels among contemporary patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease (CAD) have not been well studied. This study aimed to analyze admission lipid levels in a broad contemporary population of patients hospitalized with CAD.
Methods
The Get With The Guidelines database was analyzed for CAD hospitalizations from 2000 to 2006 with documented lipid levels in the first 24 hours of admission. Patients were divided into low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), and triglyceride categories. Factors associated with LDL and HDL levels were assessed along with temporal trends.
Results
Of 231,986 hospitalizations from 541 hospitals, admission lipid levels were documented in 136,905 (59.0%). Mean lipid levels were LDL 104.9 ± 39.8, HDL 39.7 ± 13.2, and triglyceride 161 ± 128 mg/dL. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL was observed in 17.6% and ideal levels (LDL <70 with HDL ≥60 mg/dL) in only 1.4%. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol was <40 mg/dL in 54.6% of patients. Before admission, only 28,944 (21.1%) patients were receiving lipid-lowering medications. Predictors for higher LDL included female gender, no diabetes, history of hyperlipidemia, no prior lipid-lowering medications, and presenting with acute coronary syndrome. Both LDL and HDL levels declined over time (P < .0001).
Conclusions
In a large cohort of patients hospitalized with CAD, almost half have admission LDL levels <100 mg/dL. More than half the patients have admission HDL levels <40 mg/dL, whereas <10% have HDL ≥60 mg/dL. These findings may provide further support for recent guideline revisions with even lower LDL goals and for developing effective treatments to raise HDL.
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703(08)00717-5/abstract
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions