How the Egg Industry Tried to Bury the TMAO Risk

“Metabolomics is a term used to describe the measurement of multiple small-molecule metabolites in biological specimens, including bodily fluids,” with the goal of “[i]dentifying the molecular signatures.” For example, if we compared the metabolic profile of those with severe heart disease to those with clean arteries, we might be able to come up with a cheap, simple, and noninvasive way to screen people. If heart patients happened to have something in their blood that healthy people didn’t, we could test for that. What’s more, perhaps it would even help us understand the mechanisms of disease. “To refer to metabolomics as a new field is injustice to ancient doctors who used ants to diagnose the patients of diabetes” (because the ants could detect the sugar in the diabetics’ urine).

The first modern foray discovered hundreds of substances in a single breath, thanks to the development of computer technology that made it possible to handle large amounts of information—and that was in 1971, when a computer took up nearly an entire room. “[N]ew metabolomics technologies [have] allowed researchers to measure hundreds or even thousands of metabolites at a time,” which is good since more than 25,000 compounds may be entering our body through our diet alone.

Researchers can use computers to turn metabolic data into maps that allow them to try to piece together connections. You can see sample data and a map at 1:28 in my video Egg Industry Response to Choline and TMAO. Metabolomics is where the story of TMAO started. “Everyone knows that a ‘bad diet’ can lead to heart disease. But which dietary components are the most harmful?” Researchers at the Cleveland Clinic “screened blood from patients who had experienced a heart attack or stroke and compared the results with those from blood of people who had not.”

Using an array of different technology, the researchers identified a compound called TMAO, which stands for trimethylamine N-oxide. The more TMAO people had in their blood, the greater the odds they had heart disease and the worse their heart disease was.

Where does TMAO come from? At 2:19 in my video, you can see a graphic showing that our liver turns TMA into TMAO—but where does TMA come from? Certain bacteria in our gut turn the choline in our diet into TMA. Where is the highest concentration of choline found? Eggs, milk, and meats, including poultry and fish. So, when we eat these foods, our gut bacteria may make TMA, which is absorbed into our system and oxidized by our liver into TMAO, which may then increase our risk of heart attack, stroke, and death.

However, simply because people with heart disease tend to have higher TMAO levels at a snapshot in time doesn’t mean having high TMAO levels necessarily leads to bad outcomes. We’d really want to follow people over time, which is what researchers did next. Four thousand people were followed for three years, and, as you can see in the graph at 3:10 in my video, those with the highest TMAO levels went on to have significantly more heart attacks, strokes, or death.

Let’s back up for a moment. If high TMAO levels come from eating lots of meat, dairy, and eggs, then maybe the only reason people with high TMAO levels have lots of heart attacks is that they’re eating lots of meat, dairy, and eggs. Perhaps having high TMAO levels is just a marker of a diet high in “red meat, eggs, milk, and chicken”—a diet that’s killing people by raising cholesterol levels, for example, and has nothing to do with TMAO at all. Conversely, the reason a low TMAO level seems so protective may just be that it’s indicative of a more plant-based diet.

One reason we think TMAO is directly responsible is that TMAO levels predict the risk of heart attacks, strokes, or death “independently of traditional cardiovascular risk factors.” Put another way, regardless of whether or not you had high cholesterol or low cholesterol, or high blood pressure or low blood pressure, having high TMAO levels appeared to be bad news. This has since been replicated in other studies. Participants were found to have up to nine times the odds of heart disease at high TMAO blood levels even after “controll[ing] for meat, fish, and cholesterol (surrogate for egg) intake.”

What about the rest of the sequence, though? How can we be certain that our gut bacteria can take the choline we eat and turn it into trimethylamine in the first place? It’s easy. Just administer a simple dietary choline challenge by giving participants some eggs.

Within about an hour of eating two hard-boiled eggs, there is a bump of TMAO in the blood, as you can see at 4:51 in my video. What if the subjects are then given antibiotics to wipe out their gut flora? After the antibiotics, nothing happens after they eat more eggs. In fact, their TMAO levels are down at zero. This shows that our gut bacteria play a critical role. But, if we wait a month and give their guts some time to recover from the antibiotics, TMAO levels creep back up.

These findings did not thrill the egg industry. Imagine working for the American Egg Board and being tasked with designing a study to show there is no effect of eating nearly an egg a day. How could a study be rigged to show no difference? If we look at the effect of an egg meal (see 5:32 in my video), we see it gives a bump in TMAO levels. However, our kidneys are so good at getting rid of TMAO, by hours four, six, and eight, we’re back to baseline. So, the way to rig the study is just make sure the subjects hadn’t eaten those eggs in the last 12 hours. Then, you can show “no effect,” get your study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and collect your paycheck.


Unfortunately, this appears to be part for the course for the egg industry. For more on their suspect activities, see:

For more on the TMAO story, see:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:

Is Milk Lowering Uric Acid a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

Parkinson’s disease, the second most common neurodegenerative disorder after Alzheimer’s, is characterized by a slowness of movement, rigidity, tremor, and stooping posture, all of which worsen over time. Non-movement symptoms such as cognitive impairment and sleep, smell, and mood disturbances occur as the disease spreads to other areas of the brain. The cause of Parkinson’s is perhaps “one of the important questions posed by the neurobiology [science] of aging.” For example, why is the consumption of dairy products associated with increased risk of Parkinson’s? Perhaps because they contribute to our exposure to pesticides and other neurotoxins like dieldrin, which continues to be found in the autopsied brains of Parkinson’s victims. Even though dieldrin was banned decades ago, it lingers in the environment and we “continue to be exposed to the pesticide through contaminated dairy and meats…”

The cause of Parkinson’s “is unlikely to be due to milk compounds such as calcium, vitamin D, total fat, or total protein as these compounds are not associated with [the disease] when derived from other sources.” However, it could be lactose, the milk sugar, perhaps accounting for the increased associated risk of death and bone fractures, as well as Parkinson’s. Earlier onset of Huntington’s disease has also been identified. There is, however, a third possibility.

As I discuss in my video Parkinson’s Disease and the Uric Acid Sweet Spot, milk lowers uric acid levels, and uric acid may be protective against Huntington’s and also slow the decline caused by Parkinson’s. More importantly, it may lower the risk of getting Parkinson’s in the first place. Why? Perhaps because uric acid is an important antioxidant in the brain, something we’ve known for more than 30 years. We can demonstrate uric acid’s importance directly on human nerve cells in a petri dish. When the pesticide rotenone is added, oxidative stress goes up. Add the pro-oxidant homocysteine, and it goes up even more. But, when uric acid is added, it completely suppresses the oxidative stress caused by the pesticide.

Drinking milk, however, has a uric acid-lowering effect. In the paper making this assertion, a study they cited was “A cute effect of milk on serum urate concentrations,” but that was just a cute typothey meant Acute effect. Indeed, drink cow’s milk, and, within hours, uric acid levels drop 10 percent. Drink soymilk, and, within hours, they go up 10 percent. Now, for gout, a painful arthritic disease caused by too much uric acid, the uric acid-lowering effect of dairy is a good thing—but uric acid is “a double-edged sword.”

If our uric acid levels are too high, we can get gout, but, if they’re too low, it may increase our risk of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, Parkinson’s, and multiple sclerosis.

Incidence rates of gouty arthritis over five years indicate that if our uric acid is over 10.0 mg/dl, we have a 30 percent chance of suffering an attack of gout within the next 5 years. However, at levels under 7.0 mg/dl, our risk is less than 1 percent, so it might make sense to have levels as high as possible without going over 7.0 to protect the brain without risking our joints. But having excessive uric acid in the blood puts more than just our joints in jeopardy. Yes, having levels that are too low may increase our risk of MS, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and even cancer, but having levels that are too high may increase our risk of gout, kidney disease, and heart disease.

In fact, having a uric acid level over 7.0 mg/dl isn’t only associated with an increased risk of gout, but also an increased risk of dying from all causes. However, having a low uric acid level may also shorten our lifespan by increasing mortality. High uric acid levels are associated with increased risk of death from heart disease, but low uric acid levels are associated with increased risk of fatal stroke. So, keeping uric acid at optimum levels, the sweet spot between 5.0 and 7.0 mg/dl, may protect the brain in more ways than one.

If we measure the uric acid levels in patients with Parkinson’s, they come in around 4.6 mg/dl, which may help explain why dairy consumption may increase risk for Parkinson’s since milk pushes down uric acid levels. Dairy intake may also explain the differences in uric acid levels among meat-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans. In the graph in my video, you can see that vegan men have significantly higher uric acid levels at 5.7 mg/dl than vegetarians, presumably because vegans don’t drink milk, and those who both eat meat and consume milk fall between the vegans and vegetarians.


For more on Parkinson’s see:

Uric acid as an antioxidant? I’ve touched on that before in Miocene Meteorites and Uric Acid.

If uric acid levels are too high consider cutting down on Flesh and Fructose and eating cherries. (See Gout Treatment with a Cherry on Top and Treating Gout with Cherry Juice for more information.) Also, check out Preventing Gout Attacks with Diet.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Why Hasn’t Bisphenol A (BPA) Been Banned Completely?

“The number of new chemicals is increasing exponentially, with approximately 12,000 new substances added daily…”—yet data aren’t available on the hazards of even some of the high-volume chemicals. Bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the highest volume chemicals, with billions of pounds produced each year. Studies have raised concerns about its possible implication in the cause of certain chronic diseases, such as diabetes, obesity, reproductive disorders, cardiovascular diseases, birth defects, chronic respiratory diseases, kidney diseases, and breast cancer. Given this, BPA is the topic of my video Why BPA Hasn’t Been Banned.

A new study on the health implications of BPA comes out nearly every week. BPA was first developed over a hundred years ago as a synthetic estrogen, but it wasn’t until the 1950s that industry realized it could be used to make polycarbonate plastic, and “BPA rapidly became one of the most produced and used chemicals worldwide, even though it was a recognized synthetic estrogen” with hormonal effects. About a billion pounds are also used to line food and beverage cans, especially for tuna and condensed soups.

Today, nearly all of us, including our children, have BPA in our bodies, but not to worry: The government says up to 50 µg/kg per day is safe. Even those working in Chinese BPA factories don’t get exposed to more than 70 times lower than that so-called safety limit. Why then did exposure seem to affect male workers’ sperm counts? In the United States, the general population gets less than a thousand times lower than the safety limit, yet, even at those incredibly low doses, we still seem to be seeing adverse effects on thyroid function, weight control, blood sugar control, cardiovascular disease, liver function, and immune function. Indeed, “[t]he fact that there are significant adverse effects in populations exposed to BPA at concentrations [thousands of] times lower than the TDI [tolerable daily limit]…indicates that the safe exposure to BPA may be much lower than previously thought in humans.” Despite this, the limit hasn’t been changed. BPA has been banned from “baby bottles and sippy cups,” but nearly unlimited doses are still apparently okay for everyone else. What’s the disconnect?

It has to do with the fascinating world of low-dose effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals. “For decades, studies of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have challenged traditional concepts in toxicology, in particular the dogma of ‘the dose makes the poison’”—that is, the concept “that lower exposures to a hazardous compound will therefore always generate lower risks.” Indeed, that is the core assumption underlying our system of chemical safety testing. Researchers start giving animals in laboratories a super-high dose and then keep lowering the dosage until whatever adverse effects that had occurred disappear. Then, they add a safety buffer and assume everything below that dose should be okay, assuming a straight line showing the higher the dose, the higher the effect. However, hormone-disrupting chemicals can have all sorts of curious curves. How is it possible that something could have more of an effect at a lower dose?

A study was done to see whether BPA suppressed an obesity-protective hormone in fat samples taken from breast reduction and tummy tuck patients. At 100 nanomoles of BPA, hormone levels were no lower than they were at 0nM of BPA. And, since most people have levels between 1 and 20, BPA was considered to be safe. But, although there was no suppression at 0 and no suppression at 100, at the levels actually found in people’s bodies, BPA appeared to cut hormone release nearly in half.

As the world’s oldest, largest, and most active organization devoted to research on hormones concluded, “even infinitesimally low levels of exposure—indeed, any level of exposure at all—may cause [problems].” In fact, it may come to nearly $3 billion in problems every year, counting the estimated effects of BPA on childhood obesity and heart disease alone. There are alternatives the industry can use. The problem, though, is that they may cost companies two cents more.


Related videos about BPA include BPA on Receipts: Getting Under Our Skin and Are the BPA-Free Alternatives Safe?

 BPA isn’t the only problem with canned tuna. Check out:

What can we do to avoid endocrine-disrupting chemicals? See, for example, Avoiding Adult Exposure to Phthalates and How to Avoid the Obesity-Related Plastic Chemical BPA.

Alkylphenols are another group of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. To learn more about them, see:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations: