Love eggs? Maybe you should consider this

Ygggdrasil
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2,939
2,115
Apparently not, while some of the changes can be easily attributed to some factors, not all of them can be, I don't know if I can find the source, but I'll try.
Here's an analysis from the NEJM:
From 1980 through 2000, the age-adjusted death rate for coronary heart disease fell from 542.9 to 266.8 deaths per 100,000 population among men and from 263.3 to 134.4 deaths per 100,000 population among women, resulting in 341,745 fewer deaths from coronary heart disease in 2000. Approximately 47% of this decrease was attributed to treatments, including secondary preventive therapies after myocardial infarction or revascularization (11%), initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (10%), treatments for heart failure (9%), revascularization for chronic angina (5%), and other therapies (12%). Approximately 44% was attributed to changes in risk factors, including reductions in total cholesterol (24%), systolic blood pressure (20%), smoking prevalence (12%), and physical inactivity (5%), although these reductions were partially offset by increases in the body-mass index and the prevalence of diabetes, which accounted for an increased number of deaths (8% and 10%, respectively).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa053935
 
Laroxe
Science Advisor
227
183
Sysprog, I'm sorry if I implied that known risk factors are not important, they clearly are, and you identify one of the most significant. Worldwide smoking continues to be the lifestyle choice that presents the single greatest threat to peoples health and efforts to reduce smoking are hugely important.

The decline in CV mortality was totally unexpected and had been going on for more than 10 years before the medical establishment took notice. In 1978 they establishes a panel of experts to investigate the decline and its causes, the Bethesda Conference and while they still didn't understand the scale of the reductions they were quickly claiming credit for them. The declining rates have continued, the age-adjusted annual heart disease mortality per 100,000 fell by 56% from 307.4 in 1950 to 134.6 in 1996.
Since then mortality rates have continued to decline falling by 22% from 376 to 274 per 100,000 from 1990 to 2013. Similar declines have been observed in nearly all regions of the world, especially in high-income North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. These declines are phenomenal and unmatched in any other major area of medicine.
To be fair the early attempts to explain these findings were disappointing but this lead to the establishment of more detailed international data collection, which provided evidence of a strong and robust relationship between the changes in event rates and absolute changes in risk factors across populations.
I don't find the NEJM very convincing to be honest, the claim of the large effect of medical interventions simply doesn't seem credible. If you consider that approximately two thirds of 28-day CHD deaths in men and women occurred before reaching the hospital, opportunities for reducing CF through improved care in the acute event are limited. We might expect a greater effect from interventions for secondary prevention but in fact surgical interventions while they improve functioning have little effect on long term mortality.
Drugs that reduce risk certainly seem to work but most have been introduced after the decline started and perhaps more worrying is the American Heart Association finding using the cardiovascular risk index that cardiovascular health has been declining since 2003.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26396200/

So there is still a body of opinion that while control of risk factors and better interventions do explain a lot, they don't explain it all.
This provides an extensive review of the issues, but its a bit long and I suppose its worth asking does it matter, generally its still good news.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101234
 
851
399
I agree that such an important trend should be thoroughly investigated ...
 
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/

Egg consumption linked to higher risk of heart disease and death

March 18, 2019

An NHLBI-funded study found that the higher the consumption of dietary cholesterol or eggs, the higher the incidence of cardiovascular disease, which includes heart disease and stroke, and death from any cause among U.S. adults.
The findings are sobering news for Americans who have been freely eating eggs, the most cholesterol-rich food in a typical U.S. diet, since the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines dropped the limitations on cholesterol and egg consumption.
The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Associationexternal link, reports that 300 mg of dietary cholesterol per day is linked to 17 percent higher risk of cardiovascular disease and 18 percent higher risk of death. An average adult typically eats about 300 milligrams per day of cholesterol and three or four
eggs per week.

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2019/egg-consumption-linked-higher-risk-heart-disease-and-death
 

Related Threads for: Love eggs? Maybe you should consider this

  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
988
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top