E.g.: "Observational studies in middle-aged Japanese people and in people on a Mediterranean diet found no association between egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease. Another observational study found no increase in the risk of stroke or coronary artery disease in people consuming 1–6 eggs per week, whereas “greater than 6 eggs per week” appeared to increase the risk of coronary artery disease only in diabetics."
Well, according to this study, eggs do not do anything for diabetics.
I'm pretty sure all of those observational studies (including the one I cite) are severely flawed.
[1] An egg a day might reduce your risk of heart disease, study says - https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/health/eggs-heart-disease...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2644251/Un-scrambl...
Not all eggs are treated the same. I don't see how this study accounts for what kind of eggs or how they have been processed. It matters, a lot, if your eggs are bleached or how they have been stored.
I'm assuming that first sentence is pointing out a negative association, rather than an intake greater than the slightly confusingly worded 'up to <1 egg a day' line.
Later they write:
> Lacking participants with consumption of more than one egg per day restricted us to assess the association between higher egg consumption (>1 egg/day) and the risk of CVD; but the usual amount of the highest frequency level in the present study was approximate to the recommended amount of the guidelines (0.76 egg vs 0.8–1.0 egg), indicating that adherence to the dietary guidelines with regard to egg consumption could result in a lower risk of CVD.
As someone who regularly has 2-3 eggs a day, I'm much more interested in risks - and indeed whether there are even greater benefits - associated with higher consumption rates.
Eggs are a fantastic food source. Even herbivores will often deign to eat them, albeit opportunistically.