How Many Raw Eggs a Day Should I Consume?

Lvolcanoeqcycle on 21/02/2018 - 12:36
Last edited 26/02/2018 - 15:02

I'm looking to get a bit healthier and lose a couple of kilos only. I want to switch from meat to raw eggs for a while. How many eggs per day should I consume?

I'm thinking of having them raw to cut down on cooking time and washing up so I can spend more time on Ozbargain.

*** Update***

Just consumed 2 raw eggs for the first time at 1.00pm, I now feel very full for the cost of $0.50. This could save me a few bucks.

Update

Just consumed 2 raw eggs at 11.14am 22/02. I made an interesting observation, there is no warning sign regarding consuming raw eggs on the package.

update

Just had the 6th raw egg of the day, feeling great so far!

update Last 2 eggs of the day down the hatch, smoking it! More being delivered tomorrow!

update 4 raw eggs so far today, feeling great! Saved heaps of money this week!

It would be interesting to hear from anyone who has contracted food poisoning from eating raw egg. So far we are drawing a blank which is very interesting!

Update

We have many users who have differing opinion regarding a 1 in 20,000 chance of getting salmonella after eating a raw egg. Do we have any number bods out there that can explain to everyone? Much appreciated.

*8 raw eggs today, quick and cheap, 1 in 20,000, great odds!

Poll Options

  • 350
    No egg(s)
  • 7
    1 egg
  • 31
    2 eggs
  • 4
    3 eggs
  • 7
    4 eggs
  • 1
    5 eggs
  • 5
    6 eggs
  • 3
    7 eggs
  • 3
    8 eggs
  • 1
    9 eggs
  • 5
    10 eggs
  • 262
    More than 10 eggs
  • 39
    Bikies
Food & Grocery

Comments

    • jacross on 22/02/2018 - 08:30
      +3

      I did 3 years of nutrition science at uni and Gaston still has had a greater impact on my dietary behaviour.

    • skittlebrau on 23/02/2018 - 13:03

      Came here for Gaston comments. Was not disappointed!

  • pegaxs on 21/02/2018 - 12:53
    +6

    I'm just going to get some pop-corn and sit over here waiting for the inevitable "caged eggs are rape eggs" shitposters to turn up…

    • volcanoeqcycle on 21/02/2018 - 13:04
      +4

      I got a tray of 30 caged ones, they were cheapest.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 21/02/2018 - 22:06
        +45

        None of my local supermarkets stock caged eggs, they're all cartoned.

    • try2bhelpful on 21/02/2018 - 17:55
      +17

      not rape eggs just a really crappy thing to do to another animal. I'm not a vegetarian but I do make sure I get free range eggs and eat free range chicken meat. I understand the concept of farming, I just think I have a to be as ethical as I can be.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 21/02/2018 - 22:09
        -2

        I just think I have a to be as ethical as I can be.

        How much extra do you spend towards the ethical treatment of humans compared to chickens?

        • try2bhelpful on 21/02/2018 - 22:24
          +14

          they are not mutually exclusive. How much do you spend towards ensuring humans are treated ethically?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 21/02/2018 - 22:35
          -2

          @try2bhelpful:

          they are not mutually exclusive.

          No one has suggested they are. But how do you apportion your spending between the ethical treatment of your own species versus that of chickens? That's the question.

          How much do you spend towards ensuring humans are treated ethically?

          Financially? The same amount I spend on all other animals…

          But I have and do spend a substantial proportion of my time and effort trying to better the lives of other humans. I just don't feel the need to draw attention to it at every opportunity.

        • try2bhelpful on 21/02/2018 - 22:51
          +9

          @Scrooge McDuck: I'm drawing attention to it because of the "disparaging" remark about ""caged eggs are rape eggs" shitposters to turn up". I am more concerned about the how the animals are treated than how I look, but you seem to be a tad combatitive, not to mention competitive. Why would I give a toss about my image on an anonymou site like Ozbargain? I'm not on Facebook or Twitter so I'm not out there highlighting my profile, I assume you are the same.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 21/02/2018 - 23:00
          -1

          @try2bhelpful:

          I'm not on Facebook or Twitter so I'm not out there highlighting my profile, I assume you are the same.

          I respect you for that, and I am not also! How did you know?

          Now would you please be so kind as to address this question:

          But how do you apportion your spending between the ethical treatment of your own species versus that of chickens?

          ???

        • try2bhelpful on 21/02/2018 - 23:13
          +11

          @Scrooge McDuck: I research my clothes are made by ethical groups and make donations to organisations that work for supporting less well off communities overseas. Given I consume more food than I donate money every, it could be argued that I spend more money on supporting the ethical treatment of animals than that of humans.

          My personal view is the best way to improve the lot of humans is to reduce the over crowding on the planet. Where women are better educated and have access to health services infant mortality goes down and the birth rate also reduces.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 21/02/2018 - 23:23

          @try2bhelpful:

          I don't see why we can't exploit another world. Humans didn't stay in Africa, and Englishmen didn't stay in England.

          I'm with you on contraception. Even in our own society, there is a huge moral hazard to incentivising welfare dependent people to multiply.

        • surethang on 22/02/2018 - 01:18
          +6

          @volcanoeqcycle:

          Erm… I think you need to re-do the math on that. You couldn't even fit 2.5% of the world's population in Texas with an acre each

        • BartholemewH on 22/02/2018 - 07:11
          +3

          @volcanoeqcycle:

          Texas is roughly 170 million acres. You could hardly be more wrong.

        • terrys on 22/02/2018 - 08:41
          +4

          @Scrooge McDuck: " incentivising welfare dependent people to multiply"

          I guess all those who actually study such topics using tested epidemiologicaly related methodologies are wrong when they equate a lower birth-rate with increased financial security then. Who could have guessed…

        • try2bhelpful on 22/02/2018 - 10:09
          +13

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Personally I'm against suffering, whether it is human or animal.

          I have no particular affinity for my own species. The world is grossly over populated and we are trashing it at a great rate. If every human being, myself included, was painlessly wiped out tomorrow I wouldn't have a big issue with it. However, whoever did it would also have to take all the non biodegradable mess we have created with them and probably the animals that are dependent on us for survival - rather than letting them die a slow painful death due to starvation.

          The earth would then reclaim what we left behind and evolution would be off and running again. In a cosmic scale we are a short nasty blip.

          Even the organisations that are meant to be ultruistic have been caught out hiding their nasty little secrets to maintain their reputation instead of dealing with their issues. Oxfam - using prostitues, the UN - sexual exploitation, the churches - sexual exploitation and child abuse. I could create quite a list if I decided to go googling. Then there is the woeful example of the President's club dinner in the UK - who'd have thought that a men only black tie dinner that had a 1/3 ratio of young pretty girls in skimpy outfits to male business executives, politicians, entertainers, etc would descend into a grope fest - all this in the name of raising money for charity. Even in countries where there are desperately poor citizens the leaders are skimming a great deal of aid money. Sorry, but as a "species" we seem to have an overwhelming propensity for putting ourselves first and damn everyone, and everything, else.

          I don't want to stop welfare people breeding, I would prefer nobody breeds. However, given people are breeding I think the world should be dedicated to reducing suffering where possible - whether it is animal or human. Selecting free range eggs is a way, I know, to reduce the suffering of a chicken. I'm not going to be "guilted" into not doing that because I can't fix everything else that happens in the world.

        • ihbh on 22/02/2018 - 10:32
          +1

          @try2bhelpful: If you haven't, watch Hans Rosling's two videos on poverty and population - it's fascinating.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 22/02/2018 - 10:33
          -1

          @terrys:

          I guess all those who actually study such topics using tested epidemiologicaly related methodologies are wrong when they equate a lower birth-rate with increased financial security then.

          No, I would agree with that.

          It seems like you miscomprehended my comment.

        • try2bhelpful on 22/02/2018 - 10:34

          @ihbh: Thanks. Will look this up.

        • try2bhelpful on 22/02/2018 - 12:02
          +9

          @Scrooge McDuck: I am not a vegan however I am an environmentalist. My philsophy is based on what would be best for the planet and if it offends your sensibility of the world, then so be it. There are a lot of "human traits" that are appalling and degrading and the world will not miss us.

          It is the reason I don't have an issue with animal shelters that have a "kill" policy I would rather see an animal dead than living in a cage suffering for the rest of its life. I have the same views for abortion, I would rather every child that is born is wanted and loved, than it is bought up in misery and pain.

          My philosophy has not been "exposed", I wrote this being honest and knowing full well how "ballastic" you would go. As I indicated earlier, this is an anonymous website and I don't have to look for your approval. I'm sure there are other people who understand that I am not intending to "wipe out" all humanity, just that it is not a complete tragedy when it happens. My only concern would be how much people would suffer in this case; however, there is already a large number of people suffering due to sexism, racism, corruption, pathological behaviour, etc. Humans are incapable of actually fixing this problem and it is only getting worse as the population increases. Interestingly enough the thing that gave additional "worth" to the serfs in England was the Black Plague; as the numbers plummetted their value increased. I'm not a mass murderer just a person with clear vision.

          Maybe I am misanthropic, however, there is a lot of evidence out there why this might be a logical conclusion to come to when you look at what is happening in the world; we are not a "giving" species as an entity.

          Yes, humans are capable of wonderful things, but the mess we have made of the current world overbalances our achievements. There are islands of plastic in the oceans, our world is choking with people we won't be able to afford to feed, people prey on the weak and disempowered, children are being raped and tortured. We can put bandaids over these issues but even Shakespeare cannot hide their stench.

          I'm sorry but you do amuse me greatly with:
          "I'm concerned about the appalling and pathological philosophy your kin espouse, and I'm glad it has been exposed for all to see today!". Be appalled little one, I will let others decide if I am just being a slightly exaggerating realist or a monster.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 22/02/2018 - 12:39
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:

          My philsophy is based on what would be best for the planet and if it offends your sensibility of the world, then so be it.

          You're failing to appreciate that humanity is the progeny of this planet. Ergo what hurts humanity, hurts our planet.

          I'm sure there are other people who understand that I am not intending to "wipe out" all humanity, just that it is not a complete tragedy when it happens.

          "when"!? O_O

          My only concern would be how much people would suffer in this case; however, there is already a large number of people suffering due to sexism, racism, corruption, pathological behaviour, etc.

          I literally burst out laughing when I read this! Sexism, racism and corruption are utterly trivial compared to human mortality and the extermination of humanity as a whole!

          Yes, humans are capable of wonderful things, but the mess we have made of the current world overbalances our achievements. There are islands of plastic in the oceans, our world is choking with people we won't be able to afford to feed, people prey on the weak and disempowered, children are being raped and tortured.

          Again, laughter! We are more civilised and collectively have a higher quality of life than at any other time in recorded history. The advent of, let's just choose, the internet alone overbalances the issue of plastic in the ocean. Turn off the sensationalist alarmist media!

          Be appalled little one,

          Name calling? How virtuous of you!!

          I will let others decide if I am just being a slightly exaggerating realist or a monster.

          So you do seek the approval of others!

        • try2bhelpful on 22/02/2018 - 13:06
          +6

          @Scrooge McDuck: The world is not humanity; we are only a tiny and distructive part of it. The difference is we have consciousness and could, theoretically, make better choices than we have.

          I'm glad I am amusing you, because you are amusing the hell out of me. So righteous, so sure you are defending humanity against the hordes. You really can't see past what benefits "humanity" can you? Have a look at the history of the planet. "When" is only a matter of time, whether it is a meterorite, or us setting off nuclear weapons, or global warming, or pandemic diseases, or a myriad of other ways, it is going to happen it is just a matter of time. I'm sorry your mortality offends you but I will let you into a secret, we are all going to die sooner or later - it is just a matter of when.

          Every "benefit" you have highlighted is a benefit for mankind, not for the planet. The internet is made up of a whole bunch of equipment that is replaced over and over again. Every one of those components will become ewaste, at some time. We have recycling in Australia and councils are now getting to the point where we will have to dump this into landfills because China has stopped taking it. You may think the internet balances the piles of rubbish but the planet certainly doesn't. I'm sure some undernourished child scrabbling through a rubbish dump somewhere trying to get enough to eat is getting SO MUCH benefit from the internet and reading shakespeare.

          The fact that you are willing to dismiss the appalling things that people do to other people as something that makes me "sad" makes me wonder who is the bigger misanthrope here.

          You are the one who started the name calling, if you want to go back and look at your post. my "kin", really?

          I do not seek approval, I am merely allowing others to look at both our arguments and make up their own minds.

        • pegaxs on 22/02/2018 - 13:40
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:

          Uh huh… Go on…

        • Scrooge McDuck on 22/02/2018 - 14:02

          @try2bhelpful:

          The world is not humanity; we are only a tiny and distructive[sic] part of it.

          That's not what progeny means. We aren't tiny nor destructive, speak for yourself! We are hugely impactful and by far the most sophisticated progeny of this planet, we are its legacy. Again, what hurts us, hurts our planet!

          Have a look at the history of the planet. "When" is only a matter of time, whether it is a meterorite[sic], or us setting off nuclear weapons, or global warming, or pandemic diseases, or a myriad of other ways, it is going to happen it is just a matter of time.

          Our development of nuclear weapons is presently our best defence against a meteorite strike. Nuclear weapons have been employed only twice in history and brought about an end to the last world war. Since another power developed them, we have not endured a single world war nor their use in offence. Needless to say, we should be immensely grateful for them!

          Mammalian life amongst others has endured global climate change in the past. As the most advanced species in history, we surely will too.

          Humanity has already survived pandemic diseases and medicine has eradicated many.

          Your outlook is extremely pessimistic and negative!

          I'm sorry your mortality offends you

          It doesn't. My use of the word mortality was in reference to large scale death, not simply being subject to death.

          but I will let you into a secret, we are all going to die sooner or later - it is just a matter of when.

          So we should all live life to the fullest and contribute to the progress of humanity. Not undermine it with fear, pessimism and negativity, that is treason!

          Every "benefit" you have highlighted is a benefit for mankind, not for the planet.

          When you consider "the planet" you only consider it sans humanity. That is your folly.

          The internet is made up of a whole bunch of equipment that is replaced over and over again. Every one of those components will become ewaste, at some time. We have recycling in Australia and councils are now getting to the point where we will have to dump this into landfills because China has stopped taking it.

          And yet you are using it as we speak! So evidently you must see the net benefit of it, unless you're simply a hypocrite…

          I'm sure some undernourished child scrabbling through a rubbish dump somewhere trying to get enough to eat is getting SO MUCH benefit from the internet and reading shakespeare.

          The internet has given voices, information and education to many who had no access to such before its advent, not to mention all its other utility for everyone else. Even pertaining to your irrelevant example, the internet has increased awareness of the plight of child poverty.

          The fact that you are willing to dismiss the appalling things that people do to other people as something that makes me "sad" makes me wonder who is the bigger misanthrope here.

          I didn't dismiss them at all. I was referring to your overreaction being governed by emotion rather than rational thought.

          You are the one who started the name calling, if you want to go back and look at your post. my "kin", really?

          Name calling in the simplest sense, is aimed to insult. That's what you intended when you called me "little one" and it doesn't pertain to the debate we're having in any way. The terms I used to describe you and your kin are not intended to insult but completely pertain to the philosophy which you espouse.

          I do not seek approval, I am merely allowing others to look at both our arguments and make up their own minds.

          This forum does that, not you.

          You have strayed so far from your original reply about cage eggs starting here and expanding with your rant here that it is highly indicative that your motivation is to draw attention to your pseudo-virtuous appearance.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 22/02/2018 - 15:11
          -1

          P.S.

          @try2bhelpful:

          You are the one who started the name calling,

          Actually you called all of humanity a "short nasty blip" before any of what you're referring to.

        • try2bhelpful on 22/02/2018 - 15:29
          +2

          @Scrooge McDuck: I could sit here an bait you all day, but it probably isn't a productive use of either of our time. I could counter every one of your arguments by applying the same "logic" you put to mine with a lot less self importance and emotion. You have yet to provide me with one rational argument as to why the planet, as an entity, is better off with humans and I have provided a large number as to why it is worse off. Thank-you for your rants they have certainly livened up my day, but I think you have started to go a little over the top so I might just back out of the room and not make eye contact. I won't be checking your reply, so go right ahead - knock yourself out.

        • trapper on 22/02/2018 - 18:27

          @try2bhelpful:

          The only animals that hold any value at all for the earth and environment are us humans.

          Not one other species gives it even the slightest thought.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/02/2018 - 20:51
          +2

          @trapper:

          Value is subjective.

          We don't really hold much value to the earth, and in most cases don't provide value outside of providing value to ourselves. Most of our value seems to come from mopping up problems that exist, or finding solutions to problems that need to be overcome, purely because we are here either causing or experiencing those problems.

          If you were a being witnessing from a spaceship in the sky, would you consider the disappearance of humanity or the disappearance of bees as a greater loss to the planet?

        • aerom on 22/02/2018 - 21:58

          @Scrooge McDuck: Wait a second, where did the raw eggs go?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 22/02/2018 - 22:26

          @aerom:

          Who knows! But apparently bees have a superior society to humans, and these people are completely serious. :[

        • [Deactivated] on 22/02/2018 - 22:49

          @volcanoeqcycle:
          Jacob Zuma, is that you?

          See President Zuma's comment
          https://youtu.be/qTCCqQstydQ

        • poppit88 on 22/02/2018 - 23:11
          +2

          @Scrooge McDuck: Wow - That's all a bit rich. He hasn't once mentioned being a Vegan, all he has stated is that he tries to buy free range eggs, chicken and I guess whatever other fresh meat grocery items he picks up each week as well.

          And I agree with him. I'm not a raging greenie by any stretch of the imagination, but I definitely try and buy free range, or at the very least RSPCA approved where-ever possible.

          And as for reducing the population because it's supposedly over crowded, all well and good but I seriously suspect there is more than enough food and materials to go around.

          The problem of course is we (The western world) are too busy engaging in food waste on a massive scale. We're all busily demanding perfect carrots, and straight cucumbers, while the vast majority is sent to land fill because it just doesn't look quite right.

          I find it ironic, the vast majority of humans in the world are in dire poverty and most are expected to live on less than $2 a day. I reckon they'd be more than happy sacrifice themselves and eat the bent stubby carrots and under sized tomatoes.

          The same goes for materials - the western world has a screw loose. We are so busy consuming, chucking and consuming we don't know what day of the week it is.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2018 - 00:03

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          I didn't say bees have a superior society in terms of complexity or technological advancement, but if you need to purposefully misinterpret my statement to feel clever, that's your prerogative. Then again, maybe you just don't get it so I will explain further.

          I was replying to this comment specifically:

          The only animals that hold any value at all for the earth and environment are us humans.

          I implied that the extinction of bees would have a more greater negative impact on the quality of life for more species on this planet than the extinction of mankind. We as a species add value to our species, not value to the environment of the planet we live on. in terms of our transaction record with the environment, we take far more than we give.

          This Wikipedia article may help you understand why bees are valuable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollinator

        • trapper on 23/02/2018 - 17:51

          @Cubist:

          A bee wouldn't have any opinion on the matter - or care at all if the entire world was destroyed altogether.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2018 - 18:52
          +1

          There's no indication that bees are sentient… Sentience bears no relevance to value though.

        • volcanoeqcycle on 23/02/2018 - 18:53

          @Cubist: Do bees like raw eggs?

        • trapper on 23/02/2018 - 19:17

          @Cubist:

          You said it yourself 'value is subjective' - it does not exist at all without us humans.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2018 - 19:29

          @trapper:

          You know there are other sentient beings on the planet right? Most of them would be doing better with their populations without us too.

        • rlay3 on 23/02/2018 - 22:02
          +2

          Whoa, everyone, chill…love, peace. Calling other people cancer? When did these forums get so hostile?

        • poppit88 on 23/02/2018 - 23:07

          @Cubist: Exactly, we're selfish creatures. The supposedly less intelligent species roaming the earth, take only what they need generally and move on.

          Humans vs Bees - it's a hard one. Bees are so important to our ecosystem. I really hate say it, but I suspect us - aka humans disappearing, might just save the bees!

        • volcanoeqcycle on 23/02/2018 - 23:14

          @rlay3: They need raw eggs, very calming…

        • MrFrugalSpend on 24/02/2018 - 00:25

          @BartholemewH: Wow, that really proves the earth is actually crowded!! The entire large state of Texas to work with but every single person is sharing their acre with 40 other people…. gives you less than 100m2 to make your home, farm, source resources to live!!

        • Scrooge McDuck on 24/02/2018 - 00:43
          -2

          @rlay3:

          Whoa, everyone, chill…love, peace. Calling other people cancer? When did these forums get so hostile?

          Are you cool with someone casually referring to and advocating for the extermination of every human being, and calling humanity a short nasty blip?

          If it was a single racial group or culture being referred to like that, half the web would be up in arms. Referring to all of humanity like that doesn't make it acceptable.

        • BusMan247 on 24/02/2018 - 01:05

          @try2bhelpful: When you are a bit older, you are going to read that and say what the #### was I talking about. Could take anywhere between 7 and 30 years, depending on the individual, but it will come to you like an epiphany.

        • trapper on 26/02/2018 - 13:31
          +1

          @Cubist:

          Any other animal would happily destroy the world for an extra dog-biscuit/banana/whatever, it wouldn't be given a second thought.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2018 - 16:11

          @trapper: Another irrelevant point. The environmental footprint of an animal destroying me, or animals destroying each other do not cause irreversible damage to the overall ecosystem. Other animals live in a balance, the idea that we provide the only value just shows a lack of education.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2018 - 16:15
          -2

          @Scrooge McDuck: You seem like the kind of guy who plays soccer and falls the the ground at least three times every game grabbing his ankle. Enough with the fake outrage already. LOL @ the attempt to compare this with racism.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/02/2018 - 16:20

          @Cubist:

          LOL @ the attempt to compare this with racism.

          Let's see…

          Misanthropy: Hating all humans.

          Racism: Discriminating against some humans.

          You're right, there's no comparison! Misanthropy is much worse than racism.

        • trapper on 26/02/2018 - 16:35

          @Cubist:

          It's exactly on point. Only humans care about the earth and the environment, no other animal considers these things at all.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2018 - 16:44

          @trapper: So our yielding of worse results with our conscious efforts, than other animals achieve unknowingly… That's the value you are toting as irreplaceable to the universe? Interesting position to take.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2018 - 16:48

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Need to work on your interpretations and how you apply them. A little tired of your trolling on almost every thread I seem to read these days, but I suppose quantity over quality works for some.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/02/2018 - 16:49

          @Cubist:

          What a convincing argument, I am persuaded! /sarcasm

        • trapper on 26/02/2018 - 17:18
          +1

          @Cubist:

          Only 'worse results' according to your subjective view of whats good and bad. ;)

          It requires a pretty delusional mind to believe that everyone being 'wiped out tomorrow' is the solution to all our problems.

          And they are our problems, as I have pointed out - no other animal cares at all.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2018 - 17:28

          @trapper:

          It requires a pretty delusional mind to believe that everyone being 'wiped out tomorrow' is the solution to all our problems.

          Agreed. But that's not an argument I have made. It's about as delusional as believing that only humans provide value.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/02/2018 - 17:54

          @Cubist:

          It's about as delusional as believing that only humans provide value.

          I've just read through your drivel.

          trapper made a simple comparison between humans and all other animals by stating that humans are the only animals with a consideration (value) for the Earth and environment.

          You then erected a straw man about the utility (value) different species of animals have to biodiversity on Earth.

          Not only are you arguing about an entirely different concept, yours doesn't even use the same meaning of the word "value"!

          If you want to successfully argue against a concept, you need to actually address the same concept not a different one. If you hope to bamboozle people and keep arguing around in circles, proceed as you are.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2018 - 17:57

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Okay, tiger. As I said, not bothering with a low tier troll.

          Edit: Just realised you are still going on about this because I called you salty the other night when a reference when over your head… Talk about issues.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/02/2018 - 18:14

          @Cubist:

          No, I'm going on about it because I got a pop-up notification of your malicious reply to me here as I was browsing something else.

          I dismissed your reply to trapper at first, but I read it and your subsequent exchange after you proved yourself to be prominently arrogant.

          I have a high value (personal importance) for the truth, I enjoy analysing logical errors in reasoning [among many other things] and exposing them when put forward by people with poor attitudes. I also hope to improve people's logical reasoning skills, many social problems are rooted in a lack of such.

          Take a look at yourself! I'm referring to the concepts at hand. You're referring to me personally and an insult you hurled at a different time on a different topic. So who's the troll?

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2018 - 18:30

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          I replied to someone else about a comment of theirs that was just flat out incorrect:

          The only animals that hold any value at all for the earth and environment are us humans.

          You've gone into bat for them, because it was me who disagreed with them.

          You need help, dude. Move on.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/02/2018 - 18:55

          @Cubist:

          As I already explained above, the word "value" has multiple meanings and you're arguing using a different meaning than the one you're replying to — a straw man argument.

          You disingenuously omitted the 2nd line of trapper's comment which clarified their use of the word "value". The whole comment was:

          The only animals that hold any value at all for the earth and environment are us humans.

          Not one other species gives it even the slightest thought.

          trapper used the word "value" to mean consideration as by "us humans", as in:

          The only animals that hold any consideration at all for the earth and environment are us humans.

          You misconstrued their particular meaning of the word "value" as utility as "for the earth" so that you could further you argument, as in:

          The only animals that hold any utility at all for the earth and environment are us humans.

          And you've been arguing against a straw man ever since!

          I'm pretty sure you're aware of this discrepancy now and are desperately attempting to salvage your façade.

          Either you were trolling originally, or you need to improve your comprehension skills, empathy and attitude.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2018 - 19:13

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          You replaced words in a quote to bring truth to a statement. I guess you still are salty.

      • volcanoeqcycle on 21/02/2018 - 22:22
        -6

        "Rape eggs"

        Maybe the chickens could tweet a catchy hashtag and whip the populous into a frenzy.

        • try2bhelpful on 21/02/2018 - 22:27
          +4

          Whatever works to show up particularly appalling behaviour by a group of over privileged thugs who thought they were untouchable. You use the tools you have.

        • volcanoeqcycle on 21/02/2018 - 22:30
          +1

          @try2bhelpful: There's no way on earth a chicken could send a tweet, not with this crappy NBN.

        • try2bhelpful on 21/02/2018 - 22:30

          @volcanoeqcycle: Actually they more "cluck" don't they? I hear they work for chicken feed as well.

        • volcanoeqcycle on 21/02/2018 - 22:31

          @try2bhelpful: Sounds fowl.

        • idonotknowwhy on 21/02/2018 - 23:19
          +1

          @volcanoeqcycle: the AngryChicken has no issues posting here

        • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2018 - 09:04

          "#eggsarefowl"

    • pegaxs on 21/02/2018 - 22:47
      +4

      Quick, everyone get in here, it's starting!!

      munching_popcorn.gif

    • idonotknowwhy on 21/02/2018 - 23:20
      +3

      You started this man lol.
      After watching the segment on "the checkout" about free rage eggs, I always buy the cheapest eggs in the supermarket.

      • pegaxs on 21/02/2018 - 23:24
        +7

        free rage eggs,

        Rage eggs, that's new. That's what they seem to induce… :D

        moar_popcorn!.jpg

        • idonotknowwhy on 22/02/2018 - 02:15

          Must be all the hormones they're feeding the chickens

      • try2bhelpful on 22/02/2018 - 10:11
        +1

        YOu need to buy from certified producers. If you are buying your eggs from the supermarket then you need to be looking elsewhere.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/02/2018 - 20:16
      +3

      Doesn't it make you the shitposter if you are the person to bring it up first?

      • pegaxs on 22/02/2018 - 20:49
        +1

        And take that title away from the guys posting above me?

        It’s kinda like shitpost-ception…

        I made a shitpost, that started a bunch of shitposts, that got you to make a shitpost asking if I was the original shitposter. We can’t go any deeper, we’ll be stuck down here forever…

        • volcanoeqcycle on 23/02/2018 - 11:50
          +1

          In a never ending pile of shit surrounded by eggs.

  • spiff on 21/02/2018 - 13:04

    Don't yolks have high cholesterol?

    Reducing carbs and fats to an extent is more likely to induce weight loss than cutting your protein intake.

    • volcanoeqcycle on 21/02/2018 - 13:09
      +1

      I don't eat so many empty carbs and fats but love my potatoes, check this guy out!

      https://www.spudfit.com/

      • spiff on 21/02/2018 - 13:15
        +5

        He was most likely consuming many more calories prior to starting the spud diet. So as long as he was in caloric deficit weight would drop. It also helped that he started from a high base. Protein assists in repairing and building muscle. The more muscle you have the more fat you will passively burn. I'm interested in real world results from a balanced view of nutrition, not a fad click bait diet (no offence).

        • Scrooge McDuck on 21/02/2018 - 22:18
          +3

          It's reassuring to read such a well reasoned, concise and eloquent debunking of hokum on the web.

          10/10

    • D3AB on 21/02/2018 - 13:28
      +9

      Apparently there are good and bad cholesterol. They say you can eat as many eggs as you want now. Excessive Sugar and carbs is the real killer these days.

      • volcanoeqcycle on 21/02/2018 - 14:13
        +1

        Spot on.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 21/02/2018 - 22:22
        +2

        Excessive Sugar and carbs is[sic] the real killer these days.

        They have been since processed foods came into our pantries.

        The issues are only relatively recently being acknowledged by our numpty governments.

      • ilikeradiohead on 22/02/2018 - 00:05
        +5

        So one of those Egg Council creeps got to you too, huh?

      • chudson on 22/02/2018 - 15:47
        +1

        Only excessive nasty WHITE carbs .. ( white sugar, white rice, white pasta and junk like that ) are bad..

        You're all good to go with good whole grain carbs, such as wholegrain rice and wholegrain pasta and potatoes.

        You need to get your energy from somewhere, and this is it :)

        Avoid meat and dairy to avoid disease. ~WHO

    • idonotknowwhy on 21/02/2018 - 23:16
      +4

      I eat 6-8 eggs most days (Not raw) and have low cholesterol.
      Most of our cholesterol is produced buy our own livers. Consume more in your diet and your liver produces less.

      Watch out for too much protein though, it can destroy your kidneys. That said, even if you eat ten eggs, 60 grams of protein is fine.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/02/2018 - 10:45
        +2

        That is not correct. Saturated and trans fats cause your liver to make more cholesterol than it otherwise would. Some tropical oils, such as palm oil, palm kernel oil and coconut oil, also can trigger your liver to make more cholesterol. These oils are often found in baked goods.

      • macrocephalic on 22/02/2018 - 11:53
        +1

        You'd have to eat a lot of protein for it to be 'too much'. More recent studies show that for maximal muscle growth you should eat about 1.6g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

        • chudson on 22/02/2018 - 15:52
          -2

          Protein repairs muscle, it doesn't build muscle.

          All excess protein is a drain on your organs.

          No one ever, in the history of medical records, died from not enough protein, but TOO MUCH protein.. That's a huge problem..

        • macrocephalic on 22/02/2018 - 17:56
          +2

          @chudson:

          Protein repairs muscle, it doesn't build muscle.

          That's a pretty useless distinction. Your muscles grow by over-repairing in response to stress.

          No one ever, in the history of medical records, died from not enough protein, but TOO MUCH protein.. That's a huge problem..

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwashiorkor

        • aerom on 22/02/2018 - 22:01
          +1

          @ macrocephalic Are you sure it is bodyweight or is it lean weight? (bodyweight - "fat" weight) 'cos fat don't need no protein to process.

        • macrocephalic on 22/02/2018 - 23:21

          @aerom: http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/01/18/bjsports-2017-0…

          It seems to me that the 1.6g/kg/day was calculated based on total body mass rather than FFM, but I didn't look closely.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/02/2018 - 10:41
      +1

      Eggs help the body produce high density cholesterol (HDL) which is good because HDL helps to remove the dangerous type (LDL) from our blood.

      • chudson on 22/02/2018 - 15:53

        Sounds like nonsense to me.. Got any links of evidence?

        • ozfool on 22/02/2018 - 18:52

          HDL is good cholesterol and it does do a bit of cleanup

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_cholesterol_transport

          LDL is a useful particle, it helps repair cells and deliver energy, but it's bad when you're diabetic and let them build up and get stagnant and oxidised

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28572872

          Fatty foods tend to increase both LDL and HDL and there's never been any direct evidence of harm, they just assume there is harm because fat people eat fatty foods (but also sugary foods and everything else)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join