Posts Tagged ‘cholesterol’

No Yolk

November 7, 2013

4093602642For many years, we have been led to believe that egg yolks are our enemy. They are fattening and harbor all the nasty cholesterol that clogs our arteries and leads to heart problems, right? WRONG!

The American Heart Association recommends that we limit our cholesterol intake to 300 mg, per day. One egg yolk contains 185 mg, and who really eats just one egg? One egg contains approximately 72 calories, while the white contains only about 17 calories. It seems like a no-brainer to skip the yolk yet nutritionists are beginning to think differently.

Almost 90% of the nutrients in an egg are found in the yolk. What’s a little cholesterol, when you can get calcium, iron, folate, zinc and vitamins A, D and E, just to name drop a few?

Cholesterol is determined more by your genetics, fitness habits and stress levels, and less by the amount of animal fats you consume. Your cell structure is dependent on it, and it’s a precursor to your sex hormones and essential for growth.

They are better than a bagel for weight loss. Studies show that those individuals who ate eggs for breakfast, lost more weight than those whose breakfasts were made of white carbs. The high protein content also kept the subjects satiated for longer periods of time.

So, toss the old conventional wisdom out the window, and try eating the whole egg. You might just find it’s the healthier alternative.

No yolk. (bad pun intended.)

photo: Glasshouse Images

Like us on Facebook, follow us on TwitterTumblr, Instagram and Pinterest too!

Advertisements

Exercise: Getting to the Heart of the Matter

June 1, 2012

The New York Times ran a story today about the potential negative effects of exercise on a small part of the population.
In analyzing the data from six different rigorous exercise studies involving 1,687 people, about 10% got worse in at least 1 or more measures related to heart disease. These included insulin levels, blood pressure, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.

About 7% of those tested showed a decline in 2 or more factors.

The results were not related to age, race or gender. They also were not affected by how fit the people were at the start of the program, or how much their fitness levels improved. There appears to be no correlation between the decline in health measurements and any other factor.

There is great concern that this gives inactive people an excuse not get moving.

While the article is interesting, yet inconclusive, the 300 comments are more fascinating.

Many are questioning the other factors not followed in the study: diet, sodium intake and what type of exercise was done. There is no reference to these individual’s genetics. There is also concern that the subjects were not followed long enough to know what, if any effect this had on mortality rates.

Most agree on one thing: the benefits seem to out weigh the risks. There are many more pieces of research supporting the positive outcome of exercise, than this small study. Perhaps fitness is another place where “one size” does not fit all.

Stay tuned for more on this controversial topic.


%d bloggers like this: