Maybe a sort of interesting study but it's observational and full of speculative mechanistic fluff, and I don't think it controls well enough. We're kinda past the point of egg studies, just study the mechanisms speculated on in an intervention study, right?

▲

krona an hour ago | parent [-]

> ...adjusting for other dietary factors, demographic variables, lifestyle behaviors, and comorbidities.

They give the data for the specific factors. What is the missing variable which explains their result?

Daily hours of sunlight? Average number of sudoku completions per day?

▲

staticassertion an hour ago | parent [-]

Sort of obvious, like dietary differences? They attempt a specific vegan control, but what if you aren't vegan but also dislike the taste of meat? What if you don't have a diagnosed health condition, but have a family history so you avoid eggs?

This isn't that complicated. Observational studies just have these weaknesses. We're past the point of observation here, as I said, and it's time to try intervention testing.

	▲	krona 19 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		FWIW The lowest hazard ratio they came up with in both their models was 5+ eggs/wk + 1 portion (14g) nuts/seeds per day. The study wasn't about veganism so it isn't as useful as other finer-grained dietary patterns or intake variables which they account for.
	▲	neaden 35 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Keep in mind this is also a study of Seventh Day Adventists who while not required to be vegetarians are encouraged to be and are going to have a high rate of meat consumption.