Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

eggs correlate with increase risk of colon and rectal cancer

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • eggs correlate with increase risk of colon and rectal cancer

    Egg consumption and mortality from colon and rec... [Nutr Cancer. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

    Egg consumption and cancer of the colon an... [Eur J Cancer Prev. 1994] - PubMed - NCBI



    Eggs are such a convenient and versatile source of high quality protein, B vitamins, minerals, etc.

    But maybe not such a great idea?

  • #2
    Real, pastured eggs or fake grain-fed eggs?
    Crohn's, doing SCD

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Knifegill View Post
      Real, pastured eggs or fake grain-fed eggs?
      fake grain fed with lots of hormones and antibiotics added eggs

      Comment


      • #4
        good point! probably because the vast majority of eggs consumed are from grain/hormone fed factory farmed hens

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
          fake grain fed with lots of hormones and antibiotics added eggs
          That's what I was thinking.
          There are two wolves fighting within a man's heart, one is Love, the other is Hate. The one that wins is the one you feed.

          My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton

          The Primal Adventures of Griffin - Huzzah!

          Comment


          • #6
            correlation =/= causation.

            I'll stick with the eggs my backyard bug-eating hens provide me.
            Heather and the hounds - Make a Fast Friend, Adopt a Greyhound!

            Comment


            • #7
              Abstract
              The relation between egg consumption and mortality from colon and rectal cancers remains unclear and was investigated in this study. Colon and rectal cancer mortality data, mostly around 1993-94 and egg consumption data in nine time periods (1964-94) in 34 countries were derived from World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization, respectively. Egg consumption was significantly and positively correlated with mortality from colon and rectal cancers in both sexes in most of the nine time periods. The correlations were generally stronger for colon cancer (r = 0.39 to 0.63 in men and r = 0.33 to 0.65 in women) than for rectal cancer (r = 0.18 to 0.49 in men and r = 0.08 to 0.45 in women). After adjustment for confounding factors, egg consumption was still significantly and positively associated with mortality from colon cancer in the earliest five time periods (1964-84) (P = 0.046 to 0.017 in men and P = 0.034 to 0.014 in women) and rectal cancer in the latest five time periods except for the last time period (1982-91) (P = 0.046 to 0.024 in men and P = 0.045 to 0.026 in women). This study suggested that egg consumption was associated with an increased risk of colon and rectal cancers at the population level.
              I'm no statistician, but that seems like a pretty serious reduction once confounds are eliminated. In fact, isn't P = 0.05 generally considered the P value threshold? Which would mean that the P values for eggs are under the threshold level.

              And that's without considering the thoroughness of the research WRT identifying confounds.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                fake grain fed with lots of hormones and antibiotics added eggs
                But but but all eggs are the same. Just as all beef is the same, all fish are the same, and all vegetables are the same. Right?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
                  I'm no statistician, but that seems like a pretty serious reduction once confounds are eliminated. In fact, isn't P = 0.05 generally considered the P value threshold? Which would mean that the P values for eggs are under the threshold level.

                  And that's without considering the thoroughness of the research WRT identifying confounds.
                  Yes, and since the P values are less than .05 these results are statistically significant. However, all that means is that these two variables correlate positively with less than a 5% chance that it was just coincidental randomness, given the assumed mathematical parameters. That is assuming that the study thoroughly controlled for all possible conflicting variables, which is sadly rare in the tumultuous world of statistical "science" these days.

                  If we assume that the study is accurate, it's really only good for one thing: Justifying further investigation into the relationship of the variables with a double blind, fully controlled scientific study which isolates the variables (doing this properly can be very time consuming and expensive). It is definitely arguable that this association is strictly due hormones/antibiotics ect. as people have said, and not the eggs themselves. I'm sure this forum could point to 10 studies which show benefits of eggs for every one study like this that shows "detriments" of eggs.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The statistical significance of a result is the probability that the observed relationship (e.g., between variables) or a difference (e.g., between means) in a sample occurred by pure chance ("luck of the draw"), and that in the population from which the sample was drawn, no such relationship or differences exist. Using less technical terms, we could say that the statistical significance of a result tells us something about the degree to which the result is "true" (in the sense of being "representative of the population").

                    More technically, the value of the p-value represents a decreasing index of the reliability of a result (see Brownlee, 1960). The higher the p-value, the less we can believe that the observed relation between variables in the sample is a reliable indicator of the relation between the respective variables in the population. Specifically, the p-value represents the probability of error that is involved in accepting our observed result as valid, that is, as "representative of the population." For example, a p-value of .05 (i.e.,1/20) indicates that there is a 5% probability that the relation between the variables found in our sample is a "fluke." In other words, assuming that in the population there was no relation between those variables whatsoever, and we were repeating experiments such as ours one after another, we could expect that approximately in every 20 replications of the experiment there would be one in which the relation between the variables in question would be equal or stronger than in ours. (Note that this is not the same as saying that, given that there IS a relationship between the variables, we can expect to replicate the results 5% of the time or 95% of the time; when there is a relationship between the variables in the population, the probability of replicating the study and finding that relationship is related to the statistical power of the design. See also, Power Analysis). In many areas of research, the p-value of .05 is customarily treated as a "border-line acceptable" error level.
                    So the correlation between eggs and these cancers is weak, in terms of P values.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      But, taking a step back, I just have to ask. Are we applying this counter-argument too often? It's totally valid, but what if we are wielding it with too much gusto? Could we miss a crucial clue to a disease factor by stomping it out? I don't think real eggs could cause cancer and I'm not saying this research holds any water. It's just that this is our go-to and I notice we go to it a lot.
                      Crohn's, doing SCD

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm betting you can eat dozens of the world's crappiest eggs every single day and still not increase your risk of cancer. Those correlation studies are usually bogus on multiple levels, often not even published, peer-reviewed studies. Half the time the media even reports the results 180 degrees from what the actual study outcome is. I've learned a lot about how bogus these things are by reading the Protein Power blog.
                        Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
                          So the correlation between eggs and these cancers is weak, in terms of P values.
                          Attacking the article on the basis of P <0.05 isn't really a smart way to attack its credibility. The bigger issues I have are:

                          1) with the r-values listed - they're not particularly good as r^2 values, but if they're actual values for r and not r^2, then they're really, really low.
                          2) The abstracts don't mention the relative risk levels. Without knowing the magnitude of the relative risk, it's not a very useful piece of data. A much more useful piece of data would be an average, with a 95 or 99% confidence interval range of values. This may be contained in the body of the report, but reading the abstract alone doesn't really say that much.
                          3) It's a population-level study, which by its nature makes it hard to separate out confounding effects.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
                            But but but all eggs are the same. Just as all beef is the same, all fish are the same, and all vegetables are the same. Right?
                            Just a thought. I was told that just eating meat and not bread would save my life. If I can't follow the caveat that it has to be grassfed meat (or eggs or whey, or organic produce or wild caught fish), then what diet am I supposed to follow? Barring some revolutionary changes to our food system (and knowing the libertarians in this movement, there isn't going to be a big enough push to do so), what are my options for surviving?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CoS View Post
                              Just a thought. I was told that just eating meat and not bread would save my life. If I can't follow the caveat that it has to be grassfed meat (or eggs or whey, or organic produce or wild caught fish), then what diet am I supposed to follow? Barring some revolutionary changes to our food system (and knowing the libertarians in this movement, there isn't going to be a big enough push to do so), what are my options for surviving?
                              Keep doing what you are doing and you will more than survive, you will thrive. You will be in the top 5%, 80% primal is betrter than no primal i.e.SAD. If you cant do organic take some omega 3s.
                              www.beatingorthorexia.co.uk

                              No more diets. No more stress. Health made easy. Living made incredible.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X