Talk:Eggs as food

Template:Vital article

Title

Should the title be changed from "Egg as food" to "Egg (food)"? 146.90.163.73 (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No because we have many other articles similar to this. i.e. Fish as food. The title name is not confusing people and is doing its job well so doesn't need to be changed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Burford brown chicken linked here - why?

I note that on the List of Chicken Breeds page (I don't know how to link that here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chicken_breeds) the first chicken breed in the UK is the burford brown. The link for the burford brown is to this page, although there's no explanation why it does. Since the burford brown chicken doesn't have a page of its own, there shouldn't be a link at all, and certainly not to this page as there is no specific reference to the burford brown on this page. The only mention of the burford brown is right at the top left under the title where it says, (Redirected from Burford Brown).

I tried to edit the original List of Chicken Breeds page but didn't know how to do that and came straight here instead, to verify if my assumption is correct, and to ask if someone could correct/update this as I don't know how to do that. Tzali (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

Change the anatomy and characteristics section to have 'χάλαζα' link to the English wiktionary page for the Ancient Greek word. I'd also suggest providing a transliteration, for the sake of utter disambiguation, though I accept that that may border on superfluous, given the preceding mention of 'the chalazae'. Vanitasvanitatum69 (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Madeline (part of me) 18:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Intro

This source was recently added to the lead [1]. The source is operated by the American Egg Board, this is not an independent source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The statement was backed up by a better source. I have deleted the Egg Board commercial. CarlFromVienna (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Eggs & Cardiac Disease

Please re-read Krittanawong et al. You have misunderstood their work. Their main finding is the *opposite* of what you believe it to be. Check the conclusion in their abstract, "Our analysis suggests that higher consumption of eggs (more than 1 egg/day) was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but was associated with a significant reduction in risk of coronary artery disease." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32653422/ sbelknap (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at this, I think CarlFromVienna made a mistake there, he may have confused the paper with another. What interests me is that on the red meat [2] talk-page you have heavily criticized findings from observational studies, you have said they are low-quality evidence and do not offer any reliable data and have criticized their methodology (you even dismiss the Bradford Hill criteria?) and you tried to delete many reviews of observational studies off Wikipedia but you are happy to cite Krittanawong et al because you obviously like their findings. Sorry but this is bad cherry-picking, you cannot entirely dismiss reviews of observational studies but then cite one if the results please you. You have repeatedly cited the Dena Zeraatkar study and defended its methodology but if Zeraatkar et al used their strict GRADE criteria on evaluating Krittanawong's data then they would dismiss the outcomes as "very small" and classify the evidence as "low certainty". You would argue to remove that paper if the results were the opposite to what they say. If you are going to dismiss epidemiology and be that strict about an exclusive GRADE approach then you should at least be consistent. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There are several dimensions that are relevant:

strength of effect: nil, weak, moderate strong

direction of effect: benefit, nil, harm

quality of evidence: poor, moderate, high

quality of the review: poor, moderate, high

Krittanawong et al present poor-quality evidence that eating eggs gives a weak benefit.

This is not a criticism of Krittanawong and colleagues. They present a high-quality review of what little is known.

And that is the best we have. Facts are stubborn things. sbelknap (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I indeed clicked on the wrong footnote. I appologized most visibly in the edit comment, Sbelknap. I hope you can accept my apologies. In general, I will not go into an discussion if observational studies are the right tool for nutritional science, because they are the main tool of nutritional science. CarlFromVienna (talk)