recomp
Tokyo
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2023
- Posts
- 7
- Reputation
- 10
This topic is heated and has been for decades, especially with looked up to movie figures such as Rocky Balboa taking eggs raw. Many talking points have come forward for both sides, such as how cooked eggs have a greater degree of protein absorption, or how the cooking process reduces the micronutrient value of an egg yolk. But what happens if we actually dive into the literature, and assess these claims, analyzing the studies they come from?
When people talk about a difference of protein absorption, they refer to this study from 1998 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9772141/) which determined cooked eggs have a protein absorption of 90.9% (0.8 margin of error) whilst raw egg protein was absorbed at a rate of 51.3% (9.8 margin of error). I disagree with this study for a few reasons. For one, data containing a margin of error close to 10% is almost never taken as valid, as this variability generally suggests the sample size wasnt broad enough. And in this case, it wasnt, consisting of five total individuals. This study is also 26 years old now, making it relatively outdated compared to more modern literature. Because of these reasons (outdated, small sample size), we can dismiss this study. Matter of fact, when we analyze a more modern study from 2022 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9644172/) which had 45 men randomly prescribed 5 raw eggs or 5 boiled eggs, it was found that the raw eggs actually had a protein synthesis rate 2% higher, which is negligible but still a slight edge over cooked eggs.
The next talking point people like to bring up in favor of cooking eggs is safety, in particular salmonella. This is generally a concern that springs from fear mongering rather than one to actually be worried about. The Center for disease control says that eggs infected with salmonella occur at a rate of 1 in 20,000 (https://extension.umn.edu/preservin...and sanitized,, headache, nausea and vomiting.) which makes the chance of consuming an egg with salmonella very very low. On top of this, salmonella is most commonly found on/in the shell of an egg, rather than the white or yolk, and unless you're eating the shell this shouldnt be a problem. The only instances of salmonella being inside an egg is when the bird laying the egg already has salmonella present within them (https://www.foodsafety.gov/blog/sal...onella can get on the,can get inside eggs too.). This shouldnt be an issue as most farms vaccinate against salmonella and even then, just buy eggs from a clean, reputable farm and infected chickens shouldnt be present.
The final popular talking point, this time in favor of raw eggs, is how micronutrients decrease during cooking. This one is true. It is called denaturation, which is essentially when a protein is broken up or has its initial form altered and loses some of its function. Denaturation is caused by many things, one of these being extreme heat (which the egg is subjected to during cooking). This would explain why cooked eggs potentially have greater protein absorption, but still synthesize worse.
In conclusion, raw eggs mog and cooked eggs have no benefits over them
When people talk about a difference of protein absorption, they refer to this study from 1998 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9772141/) which determined cooked eggs have a protein absorption of 90.9% (0.8 margin of error) whilst raw egg protein was absorbed at a rate of 51.3% (9.8 margin of error). I disagree with this study for a few reasons. For one, data containing a margin of error close to 10% is almost never taken as valid, as this variability generally suggests the sample size wasnt broad enough. And in this case, it wasnt, consisting of five total individuals. This study is also 26 years old now, making it relatively outdated compared to more modern literature. Because of these reasons (outdated, small sample size), we can dismiss this study. Matter of fact, when we analyze a more modern study from 2022 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9644172/) which had 45 men randomly prescribed 5 raw eggs or 5 boiled eggs, it was found that the raw eggs actually had a protein synthesis rate 2% higher, which is negligible but still a slight edge over cooked eggs.
The next talking point people like to bring up in favor of cooking eggs is safety, in particular salmonella. This is generally a concern that springs from fear mongering rather than one to actually be worried about. The Center for disease control says that eggs infected with salmonella occur at a rate of 1 in 20,000 (https://extension.umn.edu/preservin...and sanitized,, headache, nausea and vomiting.) which makes the chance of consuming an egg with salmonella very very low. On top of this, salmonella is most commonly found on/in the shell of an egg, rather than the white or yolk, and unless you're eating the shell this shouldnt be a problem. The only instances of salmonella being inside an egg is when the bird laying the egg already has salmonella present within them (https://www.foodsafety.gov/blog/sal...onella can get on the,can get inside eggs too.). This shouldnt be an issue as most farms vaccinate against salmonella and even then, just buy eggs from a clean, reputable farm and infected chickens shouldnt be present.
The final popular talking point, this time in favor of raw eggs, is how micronutrients decrease during cooking. This one is true. It is called denaturation, which is essentially when a protein is broken up or has its initial form altered and loses some of its function. Denaturation is caused by many things, one of these being extreme heat (which the egg is subjected to during cooking). This would explain why cooked eggs potentially have greater protein absorption, but still synthesize worse.
In conclusion, raw eggs mog and cooked eggs have no benefits over them
