Do you want ultrasound with your egg?


This is not a joke. Chinese scientists have developed a new process to aid people who fear real eggs (for no good reason).

By treating egg yolks with ultrasound for fifteen minutes and then adding an enzyme and waiting ten hours at 98 degrees Fahrenheit they succeeded. The amount of cholesterol decreased by over ninety percent. In other words the eggs got less nutritious. The effect on the taste isn’t mentioned.

Want to try the process on your breakfast eggs?

Earlier: Egg beaters: The stupidest product in the world?


  1. Heidi P.
    No thank you! They probably cost a lot more too.
  2. Steve
    I tend to be a bit contrarian and am drawn to underdogs or the lesser well know or supported of causes. While this is not the reason I have come to believe LCHF is in fact the true healthy way to eat, I often wonder if it didn't help.

    I think the majority of people are the opposite, having a strong tendency to believe in whatever happens to be considered common wisdom at the moment. This maks it very difficult for them to even consider that which resides outside the box, especially something as controversial as LCHF and also makes them an easy target for this type a ridiculous garbage.

    I cannot think of any other reason why the above concept could be remotely acceptable to anyone.

  3. Association between serum cholesterol and noncardiovascular mortality in older age. Age- and sex-adjusted analyses showed that each 1-mmol/L increase in total cholesterol was associated with an approximately 12% lower risk of noncardiovascular mortality this association reached significance after the age of 65 and increased in magnitude across each subsequent decade. Higher total cholesterol was associated with a lower risk of noncardiovascular mortality in older adults.

    Rethinking dietary cholesterol. also reminds us that "existing epidemiological data have clearly demonstrated that dietary cholesterol is not correlated with increased risk for CHD."

    I bet that process also destroys the vitamin D content of the eggs at the same time so it's actually going to be worse than useless.

  4. Does make one a bit concerned about the potential adverse effects of frequent ultrasound use during pregnancy.
    If ultrasound plays a part in the destruction of cholesterol it could also have profound effects on fetal brain development. I think fetal scanning should only be done where there is an urgent medical need and the amount/frequency/energy used should be as low/little as possible.
  5. Jaime
    Next innovation: "Scientists also found a way to destroy the proteins and the vitamins of the egg, just in case they raise cholesterol too"
  6. Janknitz
    "If ultrasound plays a part in the destruction of cholesterol it could also have profound effects on fetal brain development."

    If that was the case--given the widespread use of fetal ultrasound--we would expect to see a significant rise in neurocognitive developmental issues. Has there been anything in the literature supporting that correlation?

    N=1 observation: I had many ultrasounds with my first child--IVF pregnancy and several high risk medical factors. She's perfectly fine--a college freshman in molecular biology. All of the US were for important diagnostic reasons, but they were also a great comfort to me to know that all was well. I'm not suggesting casual ultrasounds, but let's not cast guilt on moms who had ultrasounds during their pregnancies if their child has any problem at all.

  7. moreporkplease

    "If that was the case--given the widespread use of fetal ultrasound--we would expect to see a significant rise in neurocognitive developmental issues. Has there been anything in the literature supporting that correlation?"

    This is certainly a can of worms. We should hesitate to step into it! :) A friend of mine is writing a book about the dramatic rise in autism. There have been a few studies that may have suggested an association between the increase in ultrasound and autism. It's very important to note however that there have also been studies the show no such association. It is a matter of debate among parents who have autistic children, and sometimes arises as a topic on their blogs and websites.

    I think the science isn't there on it. Still, some express a level of concern, such as advocate Nancy Evans:

    "When I heard Dr. Hertz-Picciotto mention ultrasound as a possible contributor to autism, I had just received an email from a happily pregnant young friend who reported on her most recent prenatal appointment and attached a sonogram of her developing baby. Her ecstatic comment sent chills down my spine: "Our visit was awesome! We got to watch Ryan [not his real name] for almost two hours!" While not an expert on ultrasound, I thought two hours sounded like a really long exposure -- and it is.

    Ultrasound exposures longer than ten minutes can cause heating, which is clearly not good for a developing fetus, if the reason for the exposure is more vanity than medical. International guidelines suggest that exposures be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) to detect any problems with development. More than an hour is considered excessive. The more I learned about current prenatal ultrasound practice, the more concerned I became."

  8. Pieter Nagel
    What gets me about all this stuff is this: even if, for the sake of argument, dietary fat and cholesterol did promote heart disease, that would just be medically relevant dietary factor amongst the myriad of complex web interactions between the body/food system.

    But it's been elevated to the be-all and end-all of health. No matter what novel, untested process is used to remove the fact, no matter how foreign to the body the end results of these processes are - hey, as long as it reduces dietary fat and cholesterol, the resulting "food" must be superior, right?

    If gamma-radiation preferentially destroyed fat and cholesterol, I suppose we'd be all over "health foods" laced with plutonium.

  9. Justin B
    Same here. I think my willingness to believe alternate theories is what led me to LCHF, but not at all what made to believe it. That took scientific evidence (and lack thereof in the opposition). Anything other than the "official statement" is considered a "conspiracy theory", and we are culturally informed to believe that this is a bad word, and you're crazy if you believe anything that differs from the official statement.
  10. LCNana
    I don't understand why people who don't want fat and cholesterol would want to eat eggs. Eat something else for heaven sake!!!!
  11. Milton
    Before settling on my current diet, I went the low-fat, low-cholesterol, don't-touch-those-eggs route. By the time that I stumbled upon Naughton's Fat Head film, I was trying to convince myself that vegetables processed into fake meat products weren't all that bad. Fake beef, fake pork, fake bacon, and so on. The bacon was easily the worst possible failure, I don't think you can replicate the flavor and experience of eating real bacon, certainly not with mashed and processed vegetable matter!

    In the end, I wound up on a much more balanced diet that includes real beef, real pork, real bacon, real eggs... real food that tastes really damned good! I've lost as much weight as I did on the low-fat diet, but I've maintained for far longer and I can't even imagine still trying to convince myself that a breakfast of wet cardboard was as good as real sausages, eggs, and bacon. Eggs in particular are such an amazing food.

    Anyway, the moral of the story is that some things shouldn't be tampered with. Feel free to irradiate your own eggs with sounds waves and x-rays and dark matter for all I care. Just leave mine alone, thanks.

  12. Janknitz
    "A friend of mine is writing a book about the dramatic rise in autism."

    That begs another question--is there REALLY "a dramatic rise in autism" or just greater recognition of it? My nephew has Aspergers (very high functioning though he hates that description--he's a Ph.D. candidate) and it's clear that his father does too, but his father was never diagnosed because higher functioning autism was not recognized when my BIL was a child.

    Likewise, my youngest daughter and I have an autosomal dominant genetic disorder and some of the symptoms appear on the autism spectrum while not necessarily indicating autism. Still, I had to fight a school nurse who wanted to conclude that my daughter must have high functioning autism because of just one symptom which happens to be "on the spectrum" (toe walking!). There is absolutely no indication that my daughter is autistic.

    Issues like these make me suspect the stats. Can we correlate a "dramatic rise" to anything at all????

  13. Lucy
    My concern about the effect of ultrasounds is not just the possibility of an autism connection, but an infertility connection, specifically in males. It's a question, yes, not even an observation but a mere speculation. That there are no studies gives great pause. At one time, every shoe store had an x-ray machine in it, so you see how your feet looked in your shoes. There were no studies proving harm then either. Caution with something that is not completely known is far the best approach.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts