On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:38:09 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> "elaine" > wrote:
>
>> I have 4 egg yolks - and yes, I apologize in advance for being lazy and not
>> doing a google. Just wondering how I can use them. Not hollaindaise
>
>
>I've posted this before, but I guess it is time again. There are three
>parts to an egg, the shell, the yolk and the white. How many people
>save the shells? Very few. They have some use, but unless you know in
>advance what you need them for, they go right in the trash. Same for
>the yolks, right in the trash, unless you have a use for them.
>
>The protein is in the white. The yolk is full of cholesterol and
>saturated fat. Although it is the best part, most of us can't afford to
>eat them. Unless you are sure you don't have a cholesterol or weight
>problem, unused egg yolks go right in the trash with the shells. Of
>course, if you have a use for them, then use them. We normally use
>whole eggs for cooking. Last advice I heard was a maximum of four whole
>eggs per week.
>
>--
>Dan Abel

>Petaluma, California, USA


Now, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong .....

But I thought the lastest thinking was that eggs are no longer
regarded as a problem source of colesterol, and there are no longer
recommendations to limit them to so many per week. Certainly, I have
given up on that thinking for some years.

Here's just one of many articles on eggs and cholesterol
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art16140.asp


Kathy in NZ

In article >,
(Kathy in NZ) wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:38:09 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> >The protein is in the white. The yolk is full of cholesterol and
> >saturated fat. Although it is the best part, most of us can't afford to
> >eat them. Unless you are sure you don't have a cholesterol or weight
> >problem, unused egg yolks go right in the trash with the shells. Of
> >course, if you have a use for them, then use them. We normally use
> >whole eggs for cooking. Last advice I heard was a maximum of four whole
> >eggs per week.


> Now, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong .....


Consider yourself corrected...and me too!


:-)


> But I thought the lastest thinking was that eggs are no longer
> regarded as a problem source of colesterol, and there are no longer
> recommendations to limit them to so many per week. Certainly, I have
> given up on that thinking for some years.
>
> Here's just one of many articles on eggs and cholesterol
> http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art16140.asp

I found the above article to be very misleading. I'm sure that it is
factually true, but still very misleading.

The current recommendation of the AHA (American Heart Association) is:


http://www.americanheart.org/present...tifier=3001455

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

In article >,
Dan Abel > wrote:
>> Here's just one of many articles on eggs and cholesterol
>> http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art16140.asp
>
>I found the above article to be very misleading. I'm sure that it is
>factually true, but still very misleading.
>
>The current recommendation of the AHA (American Heart Association) is:
>
>http://www.americanheart.org/present...tifier=3001455

That's even more misleading. As usual, the AHA seems far behind the
times regarding proper nutrition, although overall the guidelines
are sound. It's telling that they don't even know enough to
differentiate betweeh HDL and LDL cholesterol -- let alone leaving
out any mention of research pertaining to the LDL/HDL ratio, which
appears to be more important than overall count. Or maybe they do
know better but the article dumbs down the subject for the general
public.

See for example: http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abst...9/suppl_5/540S
Granted, it's written by a guy from the egg industry, but at least it's
in a respectable journal.

-A

axlq wrote:
> In article >,
> Dan Abel > wrote:
> >> Here's just one of many articles on eggs and cholesterol
> >> http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art16140.asp
> >
> >I found the above article to be very misleading. I'm sure that it is
> >factually true, but still very misleading.
> >
> >The current recommendation of the AHA (American Heart Association) is:
> >
> >http://www.americanheart.org/present...tifier=3001455
>
> That's even more misleading. As usual, the AHA seems far behind the
> times regarding proper nutrition, although overall the guidelines
> are sound. It's telling that they don't even know enough to
> differentiate betweeh HDL and LDL cholesterol -- let alone leaving
> out any mention of research pertaining to the LDL/HDL ratio, which
> appears to be more important than overall count. Or maybe they do
> know better but the article dumbs down the subject for the general
> public.
>
> See for example: http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abst...9/suppl_5/540S
> Granted, it's written by a guy from the egg industry, but at least it's
> in a respectable journal.

I agree. The only meaningful numbers are HDL/LDL and HDL/trigycerides.
High HDL levels are good. If your "cholesterol" were high due to
extremely high HDL levels, you're better off than if your "cholesterol"
levels were low and your HDL levels were very low.
Eggs are healthy food, and egg yolks are positively delicious. The AHA
is behind the times, as is the American Diabetes Assn. and the fact
that they only recently started paying heed to the glycemic index, and
still haven't embraced the ketogenic diet as one of the ways to deal
with diabetes, at least for some people.
Are you familiar with policosanol?
>
> -A

--Bryan http://myspace.com/BoboBonobo