fitness · research

Research Roundup: more vacations, not fewer sweets, and early to bed are all good for us?

Wondering what science has been up to while you’ve been working, working out, sleeping, cooking, streaming? Here are a few science news bits and bobs for your reading pleasure.

First up, great news that we already knew, but science is in our corner: people need 7 vacations a year to reduce stress. Well, duh. But hey, if science says so, maybe work and life will follow? One can always hope… You can find some studies here and here.

Nothing says vacation to me like flamingo floatie. BY Vicko Mozara for Unsplash.
Nothing says vacation to me like flamingo floatie. By Vicko Mozara for Unsplash.

New research suggests that cutting sweets doesn’t actually reduce cravings. Here are some details:

A new clinical trial found that adjusting how sweet a person’s diet is does not affect how much they enjoy sweet foods. Whether people ate more or less sweet-tasting items, their preference for sweetness stayed the same.

The study also found no meaningful differences in markers linked to heart disease or diabetes. Over six months, participants who increased or reduced their intake of sweet foods showed similar results across all health measures.

Interesting… Very interesting.

Here’s one that’s not particularly good news for me: a FB post cited a study saying that earlier bedtimes translate into greater longevity.

A recent study reveals a fascinating connection between sleep habits and longevity: people who go to bed before 10 PM live, on average, 6 years longer than late sleepers. Prioritizing early, consistent sleep supports the body’s natural circadian rhythm, improves hormone regulation, and strengthens the immune system.

Early bedtimes help the body repair tissues, consolidate memory, and detoxify the brain. Sleeping late disrupts these processes, leading to higher risks of chronic diseases, cognitive decline, and overall lower life expectancy. Studies also show that people who sleep early often maintain better heart health, stable metabolism, and reduced stress levels.

But I’m a bit skeptical about this. Digging a little deeper, we see that getting even a little more sleep (25 minutes, for example), can confer health benefits both short-term and long-term. We sort of knew that. And, lots of people work on earlier schedules, which means that early to bed and early to rise is a good plan.

BUT BUT– being a night owl when you don’t have to rise early doesn’t seem to be as harmful IF it’s not a symptom of sleep disorder, alcohol or substance use disorder, or depression. (I say this as a completely impartial night owl myself).

I don’t have a scientific study to back me me, but I think sleeping in this condition is to be avoided generally, mainly because it looks very uncomfortable.

This person should seriously consider changing into pajamas.  They are trying to sleep in a hoopskirt.
This person should seriously consider changing into pajamas.

Happy week, dear readers!

fitness · nutrition · research · Science

I love coffee, I love tea; when it comes to dementia risk, they love me

Yes, yet another study has come out linking some food/beverage product to increased/decreased risk of something-or-other. In this case, however, it’s about how coffee (and also tea) lower dementia risk and modestly better cognitive function.

I’ll drink to that.

The eight shades of coffee.Thanks Nathan D from Unsplash for the photo.
Many shades of coffee.Thanks Nathan D from Unsplash for the photo.

These results were drawn from very large cohorts of healthcare professionals in the UK that have tracked behaviors and conditions over 40+ years. So this is not a randomized controlled trial. Still, this is how researchers find connections between habits like drinking coffee and health outcomes. So, what did they find this time?

There was a statistically significantly reduced dementia risk, with lowered risks for higher caffeine intake (up to 4 cups a day of coffee, 2–3 of tea; no improvements reported for higher daily intake).

There were very modest reductions in subjective cognitive decline (self-reported by participants) and objective cognitive decline (performance on cognitive tests) in the caffeine consumers. Again, the reductions increased along with caffeine intake, but hit saturation at 4 cups of coffee a day.

A notable fact about this study is that they were able to distinguish the effects of caffeinated coffee and tea (vs. decaf beverages). Caffeine is reported to be neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory (I could insert fancy text from the study, but trust me, it’s very science-y).

But, we also know that caffeine is NOT good for everything that ails us. It can affect sleep quality and cause all sorts of bad upper GI symptoms. But not everything that’s good in one way is good in all ways. That’s simply not coffee’s fault.

So, all’s I’m saying is, Coffee doesn’t drink coffee; people drink coffee…

Oh, and one more thing: I love this ditty– Java Jive– performed here by the Manhattan Transfer. Enjoy with a steaming mug.

fitness · research · Science

Mini research roundup: new studies show exercise is good for you

News flash: some recent studies out this month strongly suggest that physical activity is beneficially for health.

Yes, I'm as shocked as she is. By Alexanders Krivitskiy for Unsplash.
Yes, I’m as shocked as she is. By Alexanders Krivitskiy for Unsplash.

Now that you’ve had some time to get used to this new-new fact, here are a couple of studies with not-surprising results about fitness and health.

Strength training before endurance training confers more benefits (IN MEN).

A study of 45 young men found small changes in bone health, body composition and overall physical fitness by switching up the order of strength training and endurance training (lifting weights first, then running).

As Miss Manners likes to say, how nice for them.

Small changes in physical activity make a big difference in overall mortality-risk (when you’re looking at the population-level).

Again, the messages here are clear: small increases in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and 30-60-minutes decreases in sedentary time daily reduce mortality risk from 3% (cutting sedentary time) to up to 10% (increasing physical activity by 10 minutes a day in certain subpopulations– it’s a little complicated here). But this is the bird’s eye view, meaning this holds for big populations and not at the individual level. You can peruse the actual study here (in your copious free time, but maybe stand up while doing it…)

One wonders: does putting your hands in the air like you just don't care count as moderate physical activity? Thanks Handon Lu for the picture (from Unsplash.)
One wonders: does putting your hands in the air like you just don’t care count as moderate physical activity? Thanks Hanson Lu for the picture (from Unsplash.)

Stay tuned for more breaking news at Fit is a Feminist Issue!

fitness · research · Science · sleep

Are they coming for the naps now? No. Not over my sleeping body.

In my view, medical research gets a lot right. We have good evidence that, for instance:

  • ultra-processed foods contribute to health markers that are linked to a variety of serious illnesses (like cardiovascular disease, some cancers, and type 2 diabetes)
  • physical activity is one of the best things we can do for our health, longevity and well-being, across the lifespan
  • developing and maintaining social connections of all sorts helps us maintain wellness and address issues in our own mental and physical health
  • sleep is a magical elixir that rejuvenates us and prepares us for the daily lives we want to lead (okay, the study didn’t use the words “magical elixir”, but they should have)

Here’s what Unsplash thinks healthy living looks like:

Unsplash endorses huge artichokes and hanging upside down more than the usual experts, but hey...
Unsplash endorses eating huge artichokes and hanging upside down more than experts, but hey…

We also know that some health claims are absolute nonsense, like:

  • sleeping with a bar of lavender soap in your bed will NOT help treat or cure restless leg syndrome ( Dr Mehmet Oz said this)
  • (fill in the blank) vitamin supplement NOT will cure (Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson, COVID, etc.) medical condition (Oz promoted a bunch of these, too)
  • Using coffee as anything other than a delightful morning beverage is a BAD IDEA (the Cleveland clinic explains why, if you must know)
  • Virtually all advertised weight-loss products are BOGUS (trust me on this)
Yeah, no to all these things. Thanks, Markus Spiske for Unsplash.
Yeah, no to all these things. Thanks, Markus Spiske for Unsplash.

Let us now return to that magical elixir, sleep. Sleep feels good, does good, is good for us. Check, check, check. But what about its sweet cousin, the nap? Surely that delicious sleep snack must be a positive contributor to our lives, right?

I have to say that a somewhat recent scientific study came out, saying that daytime napping is associated with adverse health outcomes. In particular, it said:

Longer naps, greater intra-individual variability in daytime nap, and higher percentages of naps around noon and in the early afternoon are associated with greater mortality risks.

What?! Nonononononononononono!

Well, Prevention magazine thinks these scientists may be on to something. In this article, it asks the following scary questions:

Whoa. But don’t worry, Imma answer all these, one by one.

First, do some nap patterns increase our risk of death? No, not really.

The study looked mainly at the timing and variability of naps taken by older adults in the UK. It found oh-so-small increased risk for those who took naps at different times of day, for those who took longer naps, and for those who varied the length of their naps (which averaged 24 minutes daily).

BUT (and it’s a big but)…These results varied by gender (men seem more affected than women), by what time people arose in the morning, what time of day they tended to take their naps, how much they slept in general, and how much physical activity they got during the day. See this study for more details. And they failed to show any clinical association, just a small statistical one.

So napping isn’t really associated with death. Okay, one down.

Second: why would napping be associated with death? It’s not, not really.

Some sleep patterns reveal underlying problems rather than cause them; sleep apnea and chronic insomnia, for instance, tend to be symptoms of a variety of health conditions that carry their own mortality risk factors. But we already knew this. One of the study authors conceded this:

“The napping and mortality relationship is complex and may be influenced by adverse or protective lifestyle factors (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, substance use), nighttime sleep patterns, and underlying sleep disorders, medical comorbidities, age, as well as sex and gender-related factors.”

HAH! Told you. Second one done away with.

I told you so. Such sweet words.
I told you so. Such sweet words.

We are now in the napping-is-not-deadly-blog-post homestretch. Prevention asked, timidly, how can the napping-death connection be broken? Easy. See below.

Just get some exercise. Any kind will do. Walking, jogging, shuffleboard, bike riding (outdoors or in), swimming, dancing, playing with friends and family, yoga, strength training, etc. Why does this help keep napping from killing us? Because the adverse napping pattern (not napping itself) is often a symptom of known risk factors (like drinking or unprescribed drug use) and known medical conditions.

So, once more with feeling: it’s not the napping, folks. I mean, if you want to optimize your napping patterns, feel free– there are lots of articles (like this, this, and this) offering tips, which may or may not be true.

I hope you enjoyed this post. Now you must excuse me– it’s time for my nap…

This dog is napping. Thanks Mittra Ronjoy from Unsplash.

Shhhh… Thanks Mittra Ronjoy for Unsplash.

fitness · nutrition · research · Science

More evidence is in: ultra-processed food is a global health problem

We are probably all used to getting five-alarm headlines about the perils of some food or other, just to read later on “uh, never mind. It’s all good.” Nutritional research is infamous for big pendulum swings on its pronouncements about the goodness or badness of foods (just search “fit is a feminist issue eggs” for more info).

I’ve written on worries about ultra-processed food a couple of times for the blog:

The newest processed food nutrition studies: more to chew on

New news on ultra-processed food: similar verdict but with more nuance and context

Two reasons why the picture on ultra-processed foods and health hasn’t been so clear:

  • The classification system for level of processing in food is a work in progress, and some foods (like grocery store bread) count as ultra-processed even though they have high nutrition value.
  • Our industrial food system delivers mostly processed and ultra-processed food to most people, leaving them with little access to less processed food; so it’s not reasonable to say “don’t eat these foods” without a new plan in mind.

This very useful (and freely accessible) article in the Conversation by the authors of three new papers on ultra-processed foods lays out a clearer and more dire story.

Here’s the short version:

The food industry’s production of processed foods is changing diets worldwide.

In the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, it’s been consistently high for decades (around 50% of daily energy). Ultra-processed foods are essentially the national diet. The same goes for Australia.

It’s not that the global eating public has become lax or lazy– these products are designed not only to be high in sugar, salt, and fat. Their tastes and textures promote overeating.

Crucially, it’s not just about “too much sugar, salt and fat”. Clinicaltrials show that when adults eat diets heavy in ultra-processed foods, they consume about 500–800 extra calories per day, gain weight and fat mass, and eat more rapidly, when compared with eating a non-ultra-processed diet with the same proportions of macronutrients. This is likely because of higher energy density, tastiness, and soft textures that make overeating ultra-processed foods easy.

Almost a hundred long-term studies show significant health risks associated with a diet high in ultra-processed foods.

92 [studies] reported greater associated risks of one or more chronic diseases. Meta-analyses of these studies confirmed associations for obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, Crohn’s disease, depression, and early death from all causes.

Addressing this global health problem requires big policy solutions, not individual willpower.

Steps recommended by the authors of three papers on this subject in the Lancet medical journal are:

  • changing the composition of food products
  • fixing food environments
  • curbing corporate power
  • addressing subsidies and supply chains

Yes, these are nutrition policy wonk solutions, with complex details and long-term goals. But we all know that really big changes rarely happen without a lot of people working together, exerting political, scientific and economic influence.

So, what can we do? Keep reading, keep (or start) cooking when we can, keep voting, and keep remembering that change is slow, but change can and does happen. I believe this, and encourage you to believe it, too.

fitness · research · Science

How a little bit of culture goes a long way towards wellness, according to science

My sister and I went to the Museum of Fine Arts a couple of weeks ago when she was visiting. We had a great time meandering through the galleries, with no particular goal other than enjoyment. We met that goal easily and effortlessly. Yay!

Now it turns out that science confirms what we experienced… 🙂 A new study out from Kings College, London, found evidence that viewing art in a gallery (it has to be in a gallery, it seems) lowers stress levels. Here’s some more info:

50 volunteers aged 18-40, viewed either original artworks at The Courtauld Gallery in London or reproductions of the same paintings in a matched, non-gallery environment. Participants were monitored for heart rate variability and skin temperature using research-grade digital watches to track levels of interest and arousal.

Cortisol levels — the key stress hormone — fell by an average of 22% in the gallery group, compared to just eight per cent for the reproduction group. Those viewing original art also had more dynamic heart activity – indicating that art engages the body through both emotional arousal and stress regulation.

That’s good news for me, as I love any excuse to go to a museum or gallery. Dr. Tony Woods, one of the researchers, added this:

“Our unique and original study provides compelling evidence that viewing art in a gallery is ‘good for you’ and helps to further our understanding of its fundamental benefits. In essence, art doesn’t just move us emotionally — it calms the body too.”

You don’t have to tell me twice. I’m on it.

But maybe museums aren’t your thing. That’s fine– science has other good news for you. In a study published in October, researchers in Australia found that:

People [over 70] who listened to music most days slashed their risk of developing dementia by 39 percent compared with those who did not regularly listen to music, the study found.

Here are a few of their key points:

  • Always listening to music was associated with a 39% reduced dementia risk and better global cognition and memory scores.
  • Playing an instrument was associated with a 35% reduced dementia risk, but no significant association with CIND risk or changes in cognitive test scores over time.
  • Regularly engaging in both music listening and playing was associated with a 33% decreased risk of dementia and 22% decreased risk of cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND).

This was an observational study, so the results are associations, not causal links. But it was large– more than 10,000 participants– so the results are encouraging.

Listening to music was NOT, however, associated with subjective cognitive wellbeing. But hey, that’s what the museums are for.

So, science is giving us official permission get our culture on. Yay!

fitness · inclusiveness · research · Science

Not-very-wordy Wednesday: on avalanches and applause

One thing I do in my not-so-copious free time is scan medical journal tables of contents each week. This way I get at least a glimpse at what is going on in medical research at the moment, sometimes provoking a deeper dive into a study or sub-discipline of medicine.

Last week in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), the top article caught my eye for its very particular area of inquiry: Respiratory Gas Shifts to Delay Asphyxiation in Critical Avalanche Burial– A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Yeah, that's niche.
Yeah, that’s niche.

The researchers were testing a gadget that facilitates increased air flow to a person trapped under snow in an avalanche. TLDR: it worked very well. So that’s good.

The study subjects (24 in total) were about equally divided between men and women.

In that week’s editorial, titled “A Breath of Fresh Air”, the editors of JAMA offered historical context for this new research result. They also said that the researchers should be applauded for narrowing the gender gap in this type of research.

Applauded.

Applauded?

Yes, they said “applauded”.

As in:

A lot of people applauding, captured by Hanson Lu for Unsplash. Great job, Hanson!
A lot of people applauding, captured by Hanson Lu for Unsplash. Great job, Hanson!

I’m afraid I don’t agree here.

I beg to differ. Yes, I used this phrase last week, but what can I say? it just keeps coming up
I beg to differ. Yes, I used this phrase last week, but what can I say? it just keeps coming up

Increasing representation by gender, race, ethnicity, age, etc. in medical research has been and continues to be a big project, with lots of players contributing to small shifts in research participant selection. And I’m glad to see that this study included women as research participants; after all, women as well as men engage in back-country skiing, so it’s important to test out potentially lifesaving devices on all relevant populations.

Do the researchers deserve our thanks? Yes, for working hard as scientists. But for including women in their study? No. They’re just doing their job. They may be doing it well, but it’s their job to do so.

The movement to make human scientific and medical research truly representative isn’t finished yet. I’m glad to see widely-read medical journals paying attention. But I think they can hold their applause.

fitness · research · Science · weight stigma

Bring back the President’s Physical Fitness Test? Uh, just no. Why not? Read on.

CW: some mention of body weight in children and use of the word “obesity”. Sorry, I’ll keep it to a minimum.

If you’re a news-attentive person, you know it’s become hopeless to keep track of all the evidence and good-sense-absent decisions by the Trump administration.

Full and happy discplosure: most of my info is from the superb podcast Maintenance phase episode on this topic. You can listen here and read the transcript here. And I recommend listening to other episodes of this podcast, hosted by the superb Aubrey Gordon and her superb co-host MIchael Hobbes.

If you need a reminder about what exactly was the President’s Physical Fitness Test:

It sort of started with the Kraus Weber Test, developed in the 1940s, which tested children once on a few physical tasks (this I got from Wikipedia):

  1. A simple sit-up with knees bent and feet planted
  2. A sit-up with legs extended and not bent
  3. Raising feet while lying on the back
  4. Raising head, chest and shoulders off the ground while lying on the stomach
  5. Raising legs off the ground while lying on the stomach
  6. With knees straight, bending forward to touch the floor

Then, American Bonnie Prudden used the test on American children (insert lots more detail I’m not including), and found that 58% of kids didn’t pass the test. Meanwhile, only 8% of European children given the test (under other circumstances at different times, etc.) failed the test.

Insert big panic here.

Then-President Dwight Eisenhower was horrified at these results. So, instead of turning to education or medical or public health experts to investigate to see if there was actually a problem (along with increasing funding for physical education in schools and communities), he founded a presidential commision:

The President’s Council on Youth Fitness, which morphed over time into the President’s Council on Fitness, and is now the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition.

Important and famous people have served on these commissions. However, no one did any research at all on:

  • whether the original or modified versions of the test actually measured anything meaningful or useful in children (Spoiler: NO)
  • why American children didn’t do better on the test (Spoiler: they hadn’t practiced calisthenics in school like the Europeans did; with 6–8 weeks of practice kids did fine on the test)
  • what a one-time physical fitness test should show– current physical fitness? potential short-term fitness? potential fitness in adulthood? overall health? predictions about future health? (Spoiler: it showed none of these, as determined by later research)
  • If all schools in the US gave ths test every year to school children, what they would do with the data, like develop funded programs for improving fitness from the baselines, or even track kids’ fitness over time (Spoiler: no one did any of this, ever)

The commissions did make very nice recommendations, like:

Set aside more time and facilities and staff and training for kids to do a wider variety of sports that are accessible to everyone—e.g. fishing, bowling, archery, etc. Also, make time for free play with other kids, without the parents/teachers supervising and guiding (from Maintenance phase transcript)

Doesn’t that sound sweet? (Spoiler: the commission’s recommendations were ignored in favor of modified versions of the original test, which– as I think I mentioned earlier– measured nothing at all, other than someone’s ability to do those required tasks at that time.)

So, this test was given all over the US to all the school kids with no health goals at all. Yep.

Until 2012, when the Obama administration pivoted away from the test and toward an emphasis on overall health and activity, rather than measured (for no reason) performance. Yeah, that sounds better, doesn’t it?

Hmmm. Then why does the Trump administration want to bring it back?

In short, (you can read the long version here) because Trump and RFK think that there’s a crisis of obesity, chronic disease, and poor nutrition in the US, especially among children.

Bringing back this test will Make American Active Again, according to the press release (Spoiler: it totally won’t).

Okay. But, just for the sake of argument, why not bring it back?

Glad you asked. In addition to the above information which leads us to believe that this test doesn’t measure anything or contribute in any healh-goal-directed way to children’s health or fitness, there’s this:

Everyone hates this test. Teachers hate it. Kids hate it. Parents hate it. Why? It makes almost everyone feel bad about themselves or children they care about for no good reason.

There’s some evidence that tests like these make kids hate physical activity. That’s the opposite of what we wanted, right?

Oh, and there’s overwhelming evidence from tons of research that physical activity does not have strong effects on body weight. Physical activity is predictive of all sorts of great health outcomes like longevity, improved mental and cognitive health, and loads of other things we blog about regularly. So, bringing back the test will arguably have no positive effects on distribution of body weight among school children.

Here’s a great quote from Aubrey and Michael:

There was no evidence to do it in the first place. The evidence that it works is non-existent. And the evidence that getting rid of it is good is out there.

Need I say more? Oh, I want to. There’s so much wrong with these tests. But I’ll leave it for another time.

In the meantime, dear readers: do you recall taking these tests in gym class? What did you think? Was there one kid who climbed the rope all the way to the top, and can you remember their name?

fitness · research · walking

When is 7000 just as good as 10,000? When you’re stepping (says science)

We are a numbers-obsessed people (we humans, I mean). We always want to know:

  • How much do I have?
  • How many do I need?
  • Is more ever too much?

These are hard questions. Luckily, I’m not here to try to answer them. But I can tell you one thing: the number of steps recommended per day according to scientific studies is definitely NOT 10,000, but rather 7000 seems to be a sufficient number for loads of health benefits. We’ve written about this before, but a new meta-analysis came out in Lancet Public Health re-affirms this claim.

The researchers found studies meeting their criteria that showed associations between number of daily steps and the following health outcomes:

  • all-cause mortality
  • cancer incidence
  • cancer-related mortality
  • cardiovascular disease
  • cardiovascular disease-related mortality
  • type-2 diabetes
  • dementia
  • depressive symptoms
  • physical functions
  • falls

Here’s what they said:

Three key findings emerge. First, even modest daily step counts were associated with health benefits. Second, 7000 steps per day was associated with sizeable risk reductions across most outcomes, compared with the reference of 2000 steps per day. Third, even though risk continued to decrease beyond 7000 steps per day, it plateaued for some outcomes. Notably, the dose-response relationship might differ by outcomes, participant age, and device type.

So, the latest research analysis is saying that, compared with 2000 steps a day, 7000 is great for a lot of very important health outcomes. In other individual studies, an average of 4200 steps a day provides modest improvement in lowering health risks. And, I might add, activity researchers happen to agree with this blog that every step counts– small amounts of activity contribute to health and well-being in lots of ways that we appreciate.

Oh, and speed doesn’t seem to matter, say some researchers. This from a WBUR CommonHealth article:

Researchers have also tried to pin down whether speed makes a difference. Here, the new Lancet study could not make any definitive conclusions, in part because there are various ways to measure intensity and because differences could simply reflect better overall fitness and physical function.

We actually don’t see an association once we consider the total number of steps,” says Paluch, who has also looked at this question. “So, essentially, the total number of steps, regardless of how fast you’re walking, seems to have a benefit,” she says.

So– faster or slower, harder or gentler, up or down, to or fro– all of these add up to the message (which we knew already, but science is reaffirming it) that movement is key to a number of the features of well-being and health as many of us think of it.

Oh, last thing: those 7000 steps don’t all have to be all up. Just saying.

A very steep and long stairway. You make the call. By Ozlem for Unsplash.
A very steep and long stairway. You make the call. By Ozlem for Unsplash.

fitness · nutrition · research

Your up-to-the-minute egg news: they’re good for you again (sort of)

We at Fit as a Feminist Issue have been following and reporting on the eggs-good-eggs-bad nutritional controversy for years now. Researchers simply haven’t been able to decide, and we’ve been there to report.

Are all eggs bad eggs? Blogging the controversy

In remembrance of eggs past, or: not bad egg news again!

The new US dietary guidelines, or: just tell me, are eggs good or bad this year?

In late July of this year, a new study came out about the impact of eggs (which contain a low of dietary cholesterol) vs. saturated fat (which isn’t found in eggs) on our LDL cholesterol levels. And guess what? The eggs came out on top!

Let’s take a closer look at what they did and what it might mean.

Note: this blog post is not meant as medical advice. I am a doctor, but of philosophy, not medicine. But hey, I can read an article as well as the next person… 🙂

The study was pretty simple. Researchers created three groups:

  • high-cholesterol (600 mg/d), low-saturated fat (6%) including 2 eggs/d (EGG);
  • low-cholesterol (300 mg/d), high-saturated fat (12%) without eggs (EGG-FREE);
  • and a high-cholesterol (600 mg/d), high-saturated fat (12%) control diet (CON) including 1 egg/wk. 

For those who are visual processors, see below:

Two-egg-breakfast, a bunch of bacon, and one-egg breakfast.
Two-egg-breakfast, a bunch of bacon, and one-egg breakfast. All in the name of science.

And what did the researchers conclude? I won’t keep you waiting:

Saturated fat, not dietary cholesterol, elevates LDL cholesterol. Compared with consuming a high-saturated fat diet with only 1 egg/wk, consuming 2 eggs daily as part of a low-saturated fat diet lowers LDL concentrations, which may reduce CVD risk. However, this effect on CVD risk may be mitigated, at least in part, by a reduction in less-atherogenic large LDL particles and an increase in more atherogenic small LDL particles.

What does this mean? Well, the study reaffirms what science has known for decades, which is that dietary cholesterol doesn’t contribute to our LDL-cholesterol levels. What does contribute, however, is saturated fat. So, eating a lower-saturated fat diet helps reduce LDL-cholesterol. Which science already knew, but this study shows it. Again.

But what about the business with eating two-eggs-a-day vs. at-most-one-egg-a-week? Aren’t medical folks still recommending not eating a lot of eggs if your cholesterol is higher?

Yes. In this news article, which is about THE NEW STUDY, some medical professionals are still recommending avoiding eggs to manage cholesterol levels.

If you’re concerned about your cholesterol levels, Sharon Palmer, RDN, a registered dietitian nutritionist from California, suggests sticking to egg whites, as most of the cholesterol and saturated fat in eggs are in the yolk.

This woman is sighing in frustration, too.
This woman (who also read the study) is sighing in frustration, too. Thanks British Library, for the photo.

What does all this mean? Well, research, especially research that goes against previously-entrenched medical views, is not taken up and incorporated into medical practice very quickly or easily. Also, nutrition science is one of those areas where people vigorously disagree, even when lots of research seems to be pointing in one direction rather than another.

So, what should you eat for breakfast? It’s up to you, and there are lots of considerations, including health, convenience, access, ethical ramifications, and taste.

But, in honor of the season, may I recommend:

Yogurt with peaches, blueberries and granola. Fancy glass mandatory.
Yogurt with peaches, blueberries and granola. Fancy glass mandatory.