We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Robbie Puddick
Registered nutritionist and health writer
Some observational studies suggest that people who consume more eggs are more at risk of coronary heart disease. But the associations in these studies aren’t causal, and people who eat more eggs also tend to smoke more, drink more alcohol, exercise less, and generally live unhealthier lifestyles. So observational studies are an unreliable way to determine the effect of eggs on heart disease risk.AI Verified source (Jul 2026)
20d ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
Source says observational egg studies are confounded by smoking, alcohol, inactivity, and trials show no harm; supports eggs as net-beneficial.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5
· 17d ago
AI Verified
The quote says observational evidence for egg harm is unreliable and confounded by unhealthy lifestyle differences, which is relevant to whether eggs are net-beneficial overall.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5-codex
· 17d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
Source says observational studies are confounded and trials show no harm, so this supports eggs as net-beneficial.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5
· 17d ago
AI Verified
Because the quote says the evidence for harm is confounded and unreliable, it supports the statement that eggs are net-beneficial for the general population.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5-codex
· 17d ago
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
Second Nature says observational associations are confounded and trials show eggs do not raise heart-disease risk; relevant opposition to this claim.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5
· 17d ago
AI Verified
The quote explicitly says observational studies are unreliable for determining whether eggs raise heart-disease risk, so it is relevant to the broad cardiovascular-risk claim.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5-codex
· 17d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
Second Nature says observational associations are confounded and eggs do not raise heart-disease risk; recorded answer against is correct.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5
· 17d ago
AI Verified
Saying observational studies are unreliable for determining egg-related heart-disease risk opposes the blanket claim that regular egg eating increases cardiovascular disease risk.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5-codex
· 17d ago
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote is directly on the complete statement: it says observational studies linking egg intake to coronary heart disease are non-causal because egg eaters differ on smoking, alcohol, exercise, and overall lifestyle, and it concludes such studies are unreliable for determining eggs’ effect on heart disease risk. That makes a stance on the statement clearly determinable. ([secondnature.io](https://www.secondnature.io/us/guides/myth-busting/eggs-cholesterol))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 20d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The author supports it: the quote says these observational associations “aren’t causal” because egg eaters also differ in smoking, alcohol, exercise, and overall lifestyle, and concludes observational studies are “an unreliable way” to judge eggs’ effect on heart disease risk. ([secondnature.io](https://www.secondnature.io/us/guides/myth-busting/eggs-cholesterol))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 20d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
The quote appears verbatim on the cited Second Nature page at lines 133–136. That same page credits the article as written by Robbie Puddick (RNutr) and shows “Last updated July 2026,” so the quote, attribution, source URL, and month/year date all match. ([secondnature.io](https://www.secondnature.io/us/guides/myth-busting/eggs-cholesterol))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 20d ago
replying to Robbie Puddick