Talk:Eggs as food

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)

Shouldn't it be "Eggs as food"? 184.21.204.5 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

yes, that is grammatically correct I think. 2003:D0:172E:D200:C5DD:9BF4:DC41:EA97 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2023 (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) — Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Lack of high-quality research does not magically transform low-quality research into high-quality research. Instead, we acknowledge our ignorance and admit that our level of certainty is low. Here is a good discussion on the matter: https://www.scientificfreedom.dk/2022/12/12/unjustified-attack-on-randomised-trials-and-evidence-based-medicine-from-an-epidemiologist/ sbelknap (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Nutritional science does not think of observational / epidemiological studies as weak evidence, so neither are we allowed to. There are some medical scientists that claim that RCTs are the one and only tool and everything else is low quality. However, this discussion does not matter for Wikipedia. As long as nutritional scientists use observational / epidemiological studies that is the science. Our task is to present the science here from a NPOV. I understand that pro meat advocates love RCTs because you will not kill anyone with two weeks of meat consumption. Here's an idea for some cigarette lobbyists: conduct a RCT where people smoke for two weeks and see if someone dies. Do you now understand why nutritional science is not based on RCTs? Nutritional science studies the long-term effects of eating patterns and foods. CarlFromVienna (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

For assessment of the quality of research results, I favor the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. See: https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf

According to the OCEBM, Level I evidence of common harms includes any of the following:

• Systematic review of randomized trials

• Systematic review of nested case-control studies

• n- of-1 trial with the patient you are raising the question about

• observational study with dramatic effect

Thus, according to my preferred criteria, level 1 evidence is not limited to RCTs. sbelknap (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Egg as food § Cooking Temperatures

Egg as food#Cooking should have a table similar to Temperatures in Cooking: Eggs .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Plant-based eggs

Should this article include at least a note about plant-based eggs and the emerging market space that touches upon emerging consumer awareness of some of these issues? Surely the 'alternatives' around eggs has migrated from (a) simple replacements in baking to (b) aggressively marketed highly-refined alternatives sold on grocery store shelves. MaynardClark (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Not in my view. This is about eggs as food, not "alternatives", which are NOT eggs. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

To be sure. Plant-based eggs, invented to look, taste, and work in recipes like eggs without the health and ethical issues of using eggs, aren't really released from the ovaries and then travel through the fallopian tubes (also called oviducts) where they may be fertilized by sperm and develop into embryos. MaynardClark (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

We have an article on Eat Just, it's possible a new article could be created for "plant-based eggs" but I doubt anyone would put effort into creating it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that an article on plant-based eggs would or could be valuable to many readers, but I don't have the time or research background on that topic to build the article. MaynardClark (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that article would be useful, and would warrant inclusion in "see also" here. 184.21.204.5 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

RM

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Egg as food → Eggs as food –

I know WP:PLURAL; I wrote a good portion of it. I think this should be an exception.

WP:PLURAL has long allowed for plural titles where the singular is unnatural. Bacteria, Scissors, Fireworks, Seattle Seahawks, etc.--most relevantly of all, anchovies as food.

I know that you can talk about "an egg", just like you can talk about "an anchovy". But when we talk about them as food, we almost invariably use the plural in a way that many other topics do not. For the sake of WP:CONSISTency, let's move this. I know it might "ruffle some feathers", but you can't make an omelet without... Red Slash 19:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Support as painfully awkward in the singular. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.