Gerry:

> The white is also concentrated protein. Very difficult for the body to
> metabolize, and the single biggest cause of premature aging and chronic
> disease.
> Ironically, people trying to escape the choleserol in egg yolks consume "egg
> beaters" thinking they are making a wise choice and it is more detrimental
> than the yolk.

I'm interested in what you have to say, Gerry. But I must admit, those
are some pretty big statements! Have you anything to back these
statements up at all? I too, have read quite a bit against animal
products...However, I find myself to benefit from the raw (whole)
eggs...

May I ask what type of diet you consume? Raw/cooked, and also, are you
vegan? By your statements here and previously, I am assuming that you're
a vegan, or close to it...

By the way, it's really not a good idea to eat only the white or only
the yolk... That would be tantamount to consuming a fragmented food...
The white and the yolk aid each other in assimilation in the body... As
for avidin, my understanding is that the avidin in the white only
inhibits the biotin in the white. The yolk provides plenty of biotin to
make up for any negated in the white. Also, we get biotin from a myriad
of other sources in the diet. Our own intestinal bacteria/flora also
produce biotin, as well as other B vitamins and other vitamins including
vitamin K, some A, and some essential fatty acids, amino acids, etc.. It
would also be pretty short sighted to say we should cook our eggs just
to destroy the avidin...Destroy the avidin, and who knows what else, in
addition to creating carcinogens, mutagens, on and on, ad naseam... And
people say that I'm thinking too simplistic. Quite the contrary. It's
very simplistic to have the aforementioned idea (i.e. cook/neutralize
avidin) attempting to save some biotin. One "pro", and about 88 "cons".
When people cook their food with a simplistic idea that they're making
it more "digestible" or whatever other excuse/justification, they don't
know what all they're destroying. There are beneficial substances in
foods that are destroyed in that heat, that science has yet to
identify...Sort of like trying to identify all the unknowns in the rain
forests, which are being destroyed, all with justifications of course.
If one nutrient is made more bioavailable (such as beta carotene in
carrots or lycopene in tomatoes) with some cooking, who cares -- look at
all the nutrients which are destroyed. Again, we need to go beyond
simplistic ideas regarding cooking. Who are we to think we can improve
upon our foods by cooking them? Does anything ever become MORE when you
take things away from it via cooking/heating it? Of course not.
Nonetheless, people still try to justify the habit of cooking their
food, even going to great lengths, scientifically. Oftentimes, the truth
is simple, falsity ever complex. And back to the cooking/making some
nutrients more bioavailable: something like that can be seen to be very
unnatural and even pathological. It can be considered very unnatural to
make lycopene that much more bioavailable in tomatoes, by cooking them.
Nature has reasons that reason knows nothing of. There is a reason why
lycopene is only such and such bioavailability in a raw tomato vs. a
cooked one. And again, how much is being destroyed & degraded by cooking
tomato(es)? A simple one - vitamin C losses are up to 80%. So, cook the
tomatoes, destroy the vitamin C, other vitamins, and who knows how many
phytonutrients, etc., make the tomato very acidic to the body, all with
the simplistic idea of making lycopene more bioavailable!! But again,
nevertheless, people believe they can somehow improve on what nature
provides to us in its whole, unbroken state. I'm sure there are reasons
that past humanity had to resort to cooking their food, eating animals,
and so on...But in today's world, there really are no excuses for it.
And as for the argument that some foods contain toxins when raw - such
as legumes and some vegetables -- so what. Don't eat them raw or cooked!
I eat fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, honey, eggs, and have no desire or
reason to cook any of it.

Hope you enjoyed the rant ;)

Anyway, regarding the eggs/cholesterol issue, this has been really
distorted for a long, long time... However, I have attached copies of
some studies on this issue, below. I HOPE YOU'RE WATCHING, LIZA!! ;) :D

---
Dr. Wanda Howell and colleagues at the University of Arizona conducted
a statistical analysis of 224 dietary studies carried out over the past
25 years investigating the relationship between diet and blood
cholesterol levels in over 8,000 subjects. What these investigators
found was that saturated fat in the diet, not dietary cholesterol, is
what influences blood cholesterol levels the most
[Howell et al. 1997. Am J Clin Nutr. 65:1747-64.1.].
Therefore, the results of this meta-analysis indicate that for most
healthy people saturated fat is a greater concern then dietary
cholesterol, and that eggs can readily fit into a heart-healthy,
nutritious and enjoyable dietary pattern.
---
A study done in Denmark showed when 21 healthy adults ranging in ages
23 to 52 years old were given two boiled (not fried) eggs every day
plus their ordinary diet, their good blood cholesterol went up 10
percent, while their total blood cholesterol only went up 4 percent
after six weeks. Interestingly, their total cholesterol to good
cholesterol ratio stayed the same as did their blood triglycerides
and bad cholesterol.

"Egg Consumption and High Persist Lipoprotein Cholesterol" Schonoh, P.,
et al., Journal of Internal Medicine, 1994; 235: 249-251
---
Dr. S. Y. Oh and associates at the University of Kansas fed four
Omega-3 eggs per day to his experimental subjects and found that both
triglycerides were "slightly reduced". This is not the first time that
Dr. Oh has achieved these results. He was one of the first if not the
first to prove that certain eggs can reduce cholesterol.

Dr. M. E. Van Elswyk at Texas A & M conducted an experiment similar
to Dr. Oh. He showed that eggs high in Omega-3 reduced plasma
triglycerides in human volunteers 16% and produced declines of 7 to
11% in cholesterol. The volunteers ate three Omega-3 eggs per day!
---

And...besides those studies, check out this web site, entitled "The
Cholesterol Myths": http://home2.swipnet.se/~w-25775/index.htm
(lots of info and references included on that site, too).

Wes