‘Unfairly' criticized brunch staple actually isn't bad for your heart health: study
A new study scrambles the long-held belief that eggs are bad for your heart, finding that eating a certain number daily might actually improve your cholesterol levels.
But it's not all sunny side up. While one breakfast staple has been eggsonerated, researchers warn that another could spell serious trouble for your ticker.
3 Eggs might not be the real villain lurking on your breakfast plate.
Pixel Stories/Stocksy – stock.adobe.com
Eggs are a nutritional powerhouse, packed with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, protein and healthy fats. But they've long been in the hot seat because they're naturally high in dietary cholesterol.
For years, health officials and medical groups have recommended limiting egg consumption, concerned it could raise blood cholesterol levels and increase the risk of cardiovascular disease — the leading cause of death in the US.
But growing evidence suggests that risk might not be as significant as once believed.
'Eggs have long been unfairly cracked by outdated dietary advice,' Dr. Jon Buckley, a professor at the University of South Australia and lead researcher on the study, said in a statement.
'They're unique — high in cholesterol, yes, but low in saturated fat. Yet it's their cholesterol level that has often caused people to question their place in a healthy diet,' he continued.
3 Roughly 805,000 people in the US experience a heart attack each year, or about 1 in every 400 adults.
Kannapat – stock.adobe.com
To put it to the test, Buckley and his colleagues examined the independent effects of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat on LDL cholesterol — the so-called 'bad' cholesterol that can build up in the arteries and raise your risk of heart disease and stroke.
They found that eating two eggs a day, as part of a high-cholesterol but low–saturated fat diet, can actually reduce LDL levels and lower heart disease risk.
Instead, real culprit behind elevated blood cholesterol was saturated fat. This primarily comes from animal sources, such as meat and dairy products, along with tropical oils like coconut and palm.
'You could say we've delivered hard-boiled evidence in defense of the humble egg,' Buckley said.
'So, when it comes to a cooked breakfast, it's not the eggs you need to worry about — it's the extra serve of bacon or the side of sausage that's more likely to impact your heart health.'
3 Processed meats like bacon, sausage, hot dogs and ham often contain significant amounts of saturated fats.
Nelea Reazanteva – stock.adobe.com
Across the country, nearly 94 million American adults over the age of 20 have high cholesterol, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, because high cholesterol typically comes without noticeable symptoms, many people don't know they have it until serious complications arise — such as a heart attack or stroke.
To keep cholesterol levels in check, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends making key lifestyle changes, including limiting saturated fat to less than 6% of your total daily calories.
For someone who eats about 2,000 calories a day, that means no more than 120 calories — or roughly 13 grams — should come from saturated fat.
That limit is easy to exceed. Just one tablespoon of butter has about 7 grams of saturated fat, while two slices of bacon pack in roughly 4 grams.
The AHA also advises cutting back on trans fats and increasing your intake of soluble fiber, omega-3 fatty acids, and pectin-rich foods like fruits and vegetables.
Beyond diet, the organization encourages regular physical activity, maintaining a healthy weight, and quitting smoking to help manage cholesterol levels and lower the risk of heart disease.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
'Extremely Severe' Obesity on the Rise in US Children—Study
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Extremely severe obesity among American children has increased more than threefold over the past 15 years, with new research published on the JAMA Network, highlighting disturbing trends in prevalence and related health complications. Researchers analyzed national health data from 2008 to 2023, uncovering a surge in the most severe obesity categories for U.S. children aged 2 to 18 years old. Newsweek has reached out to the authors of the study via email Sunday during non-working hours for further comment. Why It Matters The study comes as the nation faces persistent challenges combating childhood obesity, signaling what authors have called a "public health emergency" with wide-ranging medical and economic consequences for future generations. "The findings underscore the urgent need for public health interventions against pediatric obesity in the U.S.," authors Eliane Munte, Xinlian Zhang, Amit Khurana, and Phillipp Hartmann wrote in the study. The sharp upswing in extremely severe obesity among children raises the risk of developing serious medical conditions—including type 2 diabetes, steatotic liver disease, also known as fatty liver disease (MASLD), metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of April 2024, approximately 1 in 5 children—14.7 million—are already classified as obese, with the burden disproportionately affecting racial minorities and lower-income families. Untreated, these complications can persist into adulthood, multiplying risks for chronic disease and shortened life expectancy. What To Know The study evaluated data from 25,847 children and teens, drawing from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2008 and 2023. Obesity was categorized using percentiles based on age and sex, and researchers identified a 253 percent relative increase in extremely severe obesity. Adolescents aged 16 to 18 and non-Hispanic Black children were especially affected. According to the CDC, the prevalence of obesity in U.S. children and teens aged 2-19 years increased from 19.46 percent in 2008 to 22.52 percent in 2023. Several factors have fueled the rise in pediatric obesity, including decreased physical activity, increased screen time, and greater access to high-calorie, low-nutrient foods. Researchers noted that these issues intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, with children experiencing a nearly doubled rate of annual weight gain between 2019 and 2021 compared to prior years. "The monthly rate of BMI increase nearly times faster after the virus appeared," Dr. Alyson Goodman of the CDC said in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2021, highlighting the influence of pandemic-era disruptions. Economic and social disparities also contribute significantly to who is most affected. The CDC reported higher obesity rates among children in families below 130 percent of the federal poverty level around 25 percent, compared with those in wealthier households at 11.5 percent. Unequal access to healthy foods, safe recreational spaces, and adequate medical care also play roles, the CDC said in 2024. The JAMA study found significantly higher odds of children developing MASLD (a fatty liver disease), diabetes or prediabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and early signs of heart disease. Left unchecked, these conditions can lead to cirrhosis, liver cancer, and major cardiovascular events later in life. In 2024, the CDC estimated the annual medical cost of childhood obesity at $1.3 billion, underscoring the seriousness of the crisis. A beam scale is seen in New York on April 3, 2018. A beam scale is seen in New York on April 3, 2018. AP Photo/Patrick Sison, File What People Are Saying The authors of the study wrote in the conclusion: "The findings of this study with over 25,800 participants provide robust evidence supporting extremely severe obesity specifically as a public health emergency. The association with metabolic and cardiovascular complications necessitates urgent public health action, such as early prevention, targeted education, and the mobilization of resources." What Happens Next? The authors called for "urgent public health interventions" and proposed a multi-layered approach, including preventive education, improved access to nutritious foods, and equitable health care.
San Francisco Chronicle
6 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The U.S. is losing its biotech edge over China — and that's bad news for the Bay Area
From gene therapies to cancer breakthroughs, California has been the driving force behind America's biotechnology industry. But today, that edge is slipping. A National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology report to Congress in April stated that the U.S. is dangerously close to falling behind China in biotechnology innovation, and called for urgent investment and strategic coordination to maintain global leadership. Genentech's founding in 1976 in South San Francisco marked the start of the modern biotech era, and, ever since, California has been at the forefront of countless scientific discoveries and medical innovations. However, recent funding cuts and an overreliance on China for manufacturing pipelines leave our nation vulnerable. As the report urges, the U.S. must prioritize biotechnology at the national level or risk relying on China to use this strategic power for good. In 2011, the Chinese government declared biotechnology a ' strategic emerging industry ' and has since committed billions to secure dominance in areas like synthetic biology, gene editing and biomanufacturing. In 2024 alone, China conducted over 7,100 clinical drug trials, surpassing the United States and accounting for nearly 40% of global trial activity. Despite U.S. tariffs under the Trump administration designed to counter China's economic influence, China's gross domestic product has remained strong, fueling even greater investment in strategic sectors like biotechnology. By contrast, the U.S. continues to lose ground, constrained by outdated regulatory frameworks and a lack of coordinated federal strategy. While China is building a biotech empire with deliberate, state-backed coordination, the U.S. is stuck playing defense with shrinking budgets. U.S. federal support for biomedical research is slipping, with the budget for the National Institutes of Health facing a 40% cut in the coming year. For a region like the Bay Area, home to some of the world's most promising biotech startups and research institutions, these cuts have a direct toll, including the termination of $314 million in funding that was to be used to train the next generation of biomedical and health researchers. Major institutions like UCSF, Stanford and UC Berkeley are now bracing for delayed projects, staffing freezes and reductions in early-career fellowships that are vital to sustaining long-term innovation. On a national level, promising studies have been halted midstream, leaving research gaps in breakthrough treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other major infectious diseases that impact millions of Americans. When U.S. investment in domestic biotech falters, it slows innovation at home and creates an opening for global competitors to step in. China's government is strategically positioning its biotech sector to fill the gap left by stalled American research. Just last month, U.S. pharmaceutical firms signed 14 licensing deals with Chinese biotech companies worth up to $18.3 billion, underscoring our growing dependence on China's rapidly maturing R&D capabilities. This shift carries significant implications for California. It is home to over 16,500 life sciences companies and establishments, more than any other state, according to the California Biotechnology Foundation. The state directly employs more than 466,000 workers and generates more than $414 billion in annual economic output. In 2023, California led the nation in venture capital investment, raising over $34 billion for life science companies. Further, California accounted for 40% of all U.S. life sciences patents filed in 2023, and more bioscience patents are issued to California researchers than to those in any other state. Losing ground to China isn't just an economic risk; it's also a national security threat that could reshape who controls the future of health care. While the U.S. system is built on competition and patient outcomes, China's state-controlled model prioritizes strategic control and global influence. In America, ethical safeguards, transparency and regulatory review shape medical progress. In China, the government's control allows for faster approvals but also looser oversight, creating the risk of untested or misused science. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology warned that China's biotech advances could be weaponized — from battlefield-ready biologics to more nefarious applications. As a scientist working in biotechnology in the Bay Area, I understand that California plays a central role in this global race. From early-stage research in university labs to large-scale manufacturing by leading biotech firms, the state's infrastructure, talent and capital drive America's competitiveness. The Bay Area remains one of the most dense and productive biotech ecosystems in the world, thanks to its concentration of top-tier research institutions, world-class hospitals, a culture of entrepreneurship and the ability to attract the world's best and brightest to its academic and industrial ecosystem. But even here, the warning signs are hard to ignore. Federal NIH cuts have already disrupted major research projects at UC campuses, impacting our ability to attract talented students to our graduate and postdoctoral research programs, while venture capital is increasingly eyeing faster-moving regulatory environments abroad, preferring to license in late-stage assets from China instead of funding early-stage research at home. If Washington fails to prioritize a national biotech strategy, California's innovation engine could slow just as competitors abroad gain momentum. The state's economic future, public health leadership and ability to attract global talent are all at stake. China is no longer a distant biotech challenger and is actively reshaping the industry with its speed, regulatory agility and cost-efficiency, shifting the innovation center of gravity away from the U.S. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology has made clear that this is not just a matter of competition, but a strategic threat with long-term consequences for public health and national security. If America is to remain a global leader in biotechnology, we must urgently invest in our domestic research ecosystem and rebuild the infrastructure that has powered decades of discovery or be forced to surrender it to a rival that plays by different rules. Ash Jogalekar is a scientist and science writer based in the Bay Area. He is a scientist in residence at the Oppenheimer Project and works on emerging threats and technology risks in areas like biotechnology and AI.
Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's cuts threaten to rip research up by the roots
The chain saw approach to medical research funding is not just reckless — it's shortsighted. The families of the richest 2 percent also get cancer and other deadly diseases, and no amount of money can buy a cure that doesn't exist. Advertisement Dennis E. Noonan Wellesley Thank you for Kara Miller's article on the challenges of long-term research in the face of the Trump administration's cuts ( Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up While only a small fraction of original ideas achieve success as envisioned, scientists consistently persevere with passion for their ideas. The research environment overall, however, brings waves of advances. Unlike the business and dealmaking mind-set of the current administration's so-called leaders, scientists are not self-promoters by type. They struggle for funding over years, driven by their passion for making a difference for the world. Advertisement The most telling risk inherent in the Trump cuts is the potential impact on global competition. As Miller points out, for decades some of the world's best minds have come here, with the United States having benefited. But more recently, greater global tools and competition have prompted serious foreign competition for the best minds — and for the opportunities to control future technologies. The administration's cuts would put the United States more than a generation behind in our children's and grandchildren's future world. Larry Kennedy Jacksonville, Fla. I weep when I see what the Trump administration is doing to our country and our world. Kara Miller's article on the savaging of basic science — 'research aimed at understanding rather than commercializing' — is but one example. This type of research may have no application right away. However, over 20 or 30 years, many dozens of applications may emerge, often covering many different fields. The original development rarely occurs in business laboratories because there is no immediate payoff. It is therefore essential that government continue to fund basic science. As Miller points out, a stable flow of funding is essential for the production of a continuing stream of research results. Disruption of the Trumpian kind has several undesirable results: Besides stopping the flow of original ideas, over the long term it will reduce our capacity to learn from and absorb ideas produced in other countries. We have seen mid-career scientists being welcomed by other countries while the paths of early-career scientists have been demolished. American politicians, Republican and Democratic alike, must stand up to the president and say, 'Basic research is the seed corn for 'Making America Great Again.' It must not be destroyed.' They should then act and vote accordingly in Congress. Advertisement Martin G. Evans Cambridge The writer is a professor emeritus at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.
