,
10 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Things wrong with the egg study:
1) Association was found with CVD, but not CHD - a major part of CVD.
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
1) Association was found with CVD, but not CHD - a major part of CVD.
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
Things wrong with the egg study:
2) The study was a meta-analysis of six US studies, dominated by one; any findings are not generalisable to non-US populations.
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
2) The study was a meta-analysis of six US studies, dominated by one; any findings are not generalisable to non-US populations.
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
Things wrong with the egg study:
3) Association does not mean causation - 17% is too small to get off the ground for Bradford Hill criteria.
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
3) Association does not mean causation - 17% is too small to get off the ground for Bradford Hill criteria.
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
Things wrong with the egg study:
4) 17% is relative risk. It would equate to an absolute risk difference of 17 vs. 15 events (i.e. 2 events) per 1,000 person years to use the event rate from the dominant study.
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
4) 17% is relative risk. It would equate to an absolute risk difference of 17 vs. 15 events (i.e. 2 events) per 1,000 person years to use the event rate from the dominant study.
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
Things wrong with the egg study:
5) This was not a study of pure egg consumption. It was a study of “Ingredients in mixed dishes”, which – for eggs – means a long list of junk food from cakes to ice cream.
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
5) This was not a study of pure egg consumption. It was a study of “Ingredients in mixed dishes”, which – for eggs – means a long list of junk food from cakes to ice cream.
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
Things wrong with the egg study:
6) Not all significantly different characteristics were adjusted for. Notably the study did not adjust for sig. diff. CVD risk factors, as it assumed they could have been caused by eggs/cholesterol! Lol!
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
6) Not all significantly different characteristics were adjusted for. Notably the study did not adjust for sig. diff. CVD risk factors, as it assumed they could have been caused by eggs/cholesterol! Lol!
zoeharcombe.com/2019/03/eggs-c…
Things wrong with the egg study:
7) The energy intake reported in the lowest dietary cholesterol group was one third of that in the highest. Maybe people weren’t eating more eggs or dietary cholesterol – they were just more honest about, or better at recalling, their food intake!
7) The energy intake reported in the lowest dietary cholesterol group was one third of that in the highest. Maybe people weren’t eating more eggs or dietary cholesterol – they were just more honest about, or better at recalling, their food intake!
Things wrong with the egg study:
8) Claims about harm from each additional half egg each day were made a mockery of when sub-group analysis revealed that this only applied to specific, but random, groups of participants e.g. women, but not men; slim, but not overweight people.
8) Claims about harm from each additional half egg each day were made a mockery of when sub-group analysis revealed that this only applied to specific, but random, groups of participants e.g. women, but not men; slim, but not overweight people.
Things wrong with the egg study:
9) The conflicts were the who’s who of statin manufacturers . The paper appears to have as its core purpose resurrection of the diet-cholesterol-heart myth – the dietary cholesterol part of which was rejected (by Keys) at least 65 years ago.
9) The conflicts were the who’s who of statin manufacturers . The paper appears to have as its core purpose resurrection of the diet-cholesterol-heart myth – the dietary cholesterol part of which was rejected (by Keys) at least 65 years ago.
