Taking a single food alone is bad. You should look at a full diet. For example, wheat/grain paired with beans, lentils, and other foods that provide a variety of needed proteins.

You also need to look at the downside. Eggs have a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol. This have been reproducibly tied to high cholesterol in people. Eggs have also been tied to colon cancer.

Pulling out a single nutrient in a single food is dangers because it doesn't give us a complete picture of a healthy diet.

High cholesterol is a good thing in the absence of obesity or any other negative health indicators. You want to have a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol in your diet, frankly. And eggs have not been tied to colon cancer in any meaningful sense. A person could eat a dozen eggs a day for years and be in perfect health.

High cholesterol is directly linked to heart disease. The negative side effects take years (decades really) to become an issue. Doctors know enough about it now to describe what's biologically happening.

High cholesterol (and what causes it) being normalized is one of the reasons heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US[1]. High cholesterol has such an impact on health that the American Heart Association has a section dedicated to it[2]. So do many other health organizations around the world.

The parents comments should not be taken seriously.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

[2] https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol

Your first link is to the leading causes of death, which means nothing since high cholesterol lowers all cause mortality. And in elderly people it is protective against dementia. Your second link goes to a site that directly says that cholesterol is not bad. In fact, cholesterol is the foundation of the human hormone system -- it is likely the dearth of animal fats and red meat in our western diet over the last few decades that has led to the explosion in depression, ADHD, bi-polar disorder, and so forth.

A healthy amount of cholesterol is good for you. Too much LDL is bad for you. Your body makes the amount you need. Too much more of it leads to health issues like heart disease [1]. This is why doctors put people on LDL lowering medications when they get high (e.g., statins).

To quote the link, "But too much cholesterol can pose a problem." If you click through, "Learn more about cholesterol"[2] there are things in it like, "Cholesterol can join with other substances to form a thick, hard deposit on the inside of the arteries. This can narrow the arteries and make them less flexible – a condition known as atherosclerosis. If a blood clot forms and blocks one of these narrowed arteries, a heart attack or stroke can result."

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/cholesterol/ldl_hdl.htm

[2] https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/about-cho...

Frankly I don't believe that statins are necessary in 99.9% of cases and I think that people focus far too simplistically on cholesterol.

I can remember that days before the HDL/LDL distinction. Now it turns out that moderately high LDL is not necessarily bad if it not accompanied by other negative risk factors (obese, pre-diabetic, etc).

The fact of the matter is that there is a single diet that is ideal for all humans, just as is the case with every other animal species on the planet.

Homo Sapiens are obligate carnivores and we do best when eliminating all plant-based material from our diet. And we certainly don't find heart disease in the indigenous populations that follow an entirely carnivorous diet, such as the Maasai and the Inuit, unless they have adopted a more plant-heavy, processed-food Western-style diet. (Note that we have to "process" plant-based food, but we can just eat meat and eggs raw -- another sign that we are obligate carnivores).

I agree that high cholesterol may be a problem is you're obese, as almost all Americans are, and if you don't follow a 100% carnivorous diet focusing on red meat.

FYI, the scientific studies have shown that the people who live the healthiest and longest (with good health in old age) primarily eat plant based. Read up on the blue zones to learn more. This is even in places in the US where they have carried out detailed studies.

The carnivore's we most relate to biologically (i.e. primates) eat a predominately plant based diet getting few of their calories from other things.

The carnivore's we talk about relating to have different teeth and GI tracks. For example when comparing for size, humans have a far longer GI track than something like a lion. Biologically we are different.

There's a lot of data on this now. Primarily from researches focused on health and aging. There are many studies showing causation and some of this they can explain how it functions in a fair amount of detail.

While I have not seen any credible study tying eggs to cancer, there are some studies which claim to have found a significant statistical correlation between a diet including many eggs and some cardiovascular diseases, independent of any influence on cholesterol.

Agreed, this is reductionist and nothing is ever so simple but compared to current nutrition "labels" we have it's miles better.

I'm waiting for augmented reality to get far enough I can wear glasses that can scan the food I eat, estimate the composition + macros, and log it for me. That'll be the day.

Glad to validate my 2-3 whole egg per day lifestyle. Since starting eating a high protein, mostly unprocessed food based diet(without regard for fat or cholesterol consumption ), I have lowered my body fat percentage by 8% and lowered my LDL cholesterol by 50 points. Just by eating meat, eggs, cheese, whole milk, lots of fruit, non leafy/non stem vegetables (fruits botanically speaking), and protein shakes. My doctor was so impressed…at least until I told her how I did it:)

Quietly hoping over here that 3 eggs per day won't be invalidated by a new study. Been doing it for 5-6 years

I've been trying to actually read the source material for all this "bio availability" scoring like DIAAS and I keep finding weird things. For example, for DIAAS they took current food production, averaged the total protein ratios, and assumes that's ideal protein ratio for humans. It makes me think they're overstating the score of things like whey because of the severe amounts of cheese people eat.

Do you have any source studies with test methodology described? I don't buy that humans should be devouring milk all day when dairy as a nutrition source is so wildly varied across the globe.

I think DIAAS is trying to calculate scores for average meals, since it accounts for missing amino acids in individual components. Meals that complement missing amino acids should yield good scores. AFAIK the DIAAS for individual protein sources are ultimately based on experimental pig models and nitrogen absorption by the pig gut.

I remember reading the nutrition label of a bag of chicarrones and seeing a remark about how despite having 7g of proteins, it isn’t a significant source of protein (e.g. [0]). Reading up about it, it turned out to be for the exact reason you mentioned, namely the low bio-availability.

[0] http://www.osm-us.com/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=12...

That is crazy! I had some yesterday thinking it was a good protein snack. I’m glad I read this comment, thank you!

> you have things like wheat/grain proteins which are some ~20% bioavailable

Do you have a source for this claim? It seems very low. It seems to be different ways of measuring, but one source [1] claims 65% postprandial retention (not 100% sure what it means). Another claims "The real ileal digestibility of dietary wheat nitrogen amounted to 90.3 ± 4.3%." [2]

EDIT: So the 20% number somehow account for the low lysine content (seems strange to call that bioavailability, but I'm not a biologist)

[1] https://hal-agroparistech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01569102

[2] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/81/1/87/4607685

You aren’t going to be happy with where eggs score on Food Compass (hint: it’s not 100, and it’s below Lucky Charms)

Confirmed whole-egg-cooked got a score of 52 and Lucky-Charms got a 56; possible score is per food type, for example grain, protein, etc — but unclear.

Got the numbers from this document:

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs430...

Best platform. https://www.prestigecity.gen.in/meridian-park.html

This model does not actually look at specific amino acids.