Thread: quail eggs?
View Single Post
Old 04-02-2010, 02:49 PM
EricT EricT is offline
Rank: Heavyweight
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314

Say's who? The paleo crowd?

What part of it is a myth? Intestinal absorption of cholesterol? Or it's effect on CVD risks?

It's not simple or cut and dry but it is not a "myth". A lot has been made of "eating the yolks" because of the amount of sat fat and cholesterol in the yolks. Cholesterol absorption itself being the hot topic. But there doesn't seem to be a big correlation between egg intake and cholesterol so this has led people to jump to the conclusion that the gut does not absorb cholesterol. It does.

The amounts vary between individuals and it's pointless to try to average it but you could say, all thing being equal, that about half of dietary cholesterol is absorbed by the intestinal lumen. However other things affect the absorption and it is likely that the high phospholipid content of egg yolk inhibits absorption.

The trick is not to label individual foods or any part of them as good or bad. I'd say eat all of them pickled quail eggs you want. You'll probably get sick of them and ruin a good thing

There are a lot of bullshitters out there that look at only the evidence that suits their view and come to quite far reaching conclusions about the effect or lack of effect of the level of cholesterol in the diet and the blood level of cholesterol.

For instance, here is a classic leap of logic:

"The body produces more cholesterol when we eat less fat and cholesterol. This is why controlling your intake doesn't work. Therefore cholesterol has no bearing on CVD risk and the development of artherosclerosis"

The premise of the above statement is that prudent diets never result in a reduction in cholesterol for any individual. This is untrue. It does for some. Not for others. There are many metabolic and genetic factors that regulate cholesterol absorption AND production. Therefore statements like the one above that rely on bullshit premises are, by definition, bullshit.

Here is a big nutrition and health cue. Whenever anybody claims to have cut and dry answers when the rest of the scientific community is still trying to come up with the right questions...they are full of shit.

There is still a big controversy and a lot of disagreement about the risk factors for CVD. I don't think it's the province of bodybuilding forums to come to conclusions about it. But the big stumbling block is the seeming ambiguity with not everyone who has a "risk factor" devlops CVD or has a heart attack. Which is silly since it is called a risk factor for a reason. You can be exposed to a disease and not catch it. Are we then to say that there is not a connection to being exposed to a disease and contracting it? I wouldn't call that logic.

I'm not saying you are full of shit, Pity, I'm saying that whoever you got your information from that "cholesterol is a myth" is full of shit...which is the same thing as knowing the unknowable.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.

Last edited by EricT; 04-02-2010 at 03:39 PM.
Reply With Quote