Originally Posted by Chad Cilli
Well.... alot of things are largely anecdotal. I believe I heard Robb state once that the existence of the universe is largely anecdotal. But in any case, research studies have also proven alot of BS. I've seen studies where they insisted that high carb diets were better. I've seen studies that found that eating meat was bad for you. At every family gathering, my vegan cousin brings me another study "proving" that eating meat is bad.
All I can say is what works for me. Eating more omega-3s makes me feel better whether it's from drinking fish oil or eating free range grass fed beef. I noticed the difference when I switched from conventional foods to foods with more omega-3s, and when I go on vacation and don't have those foods available, I can feel the difference then too.
If you want a case study, my 66 year old uncle lives on a farm in Kentucky and all the animals are free to roam, so the eggs, dairy, beef, chickens, goats, etc are all free range and grass fed. At 66, he can still do 30 dead hang pullups. I'd like to think that his diet plays some role in his health. You don't see too many men in their 60s who can do 10 pullups let alone 30.
By no means would I fault anyone for doing what works best for them. I just see a lot of advice online telling people to eat this type of egg rather than that one, only grassfed meat, organic veggies, etc. It's true that you can find rogue studies that prove a lot of things, but the core of science is that it is testable and repeatable. if studies come out that legitimately and repeatedly call into question the consumption of a certain quantity of various types of meat, then that will hold weight in the scientific community.
Darryl's linked study is a start. This is a process and science often calls into questions its own formal claims. However, using anecdotal evidence is risky strictly because of confirmation bias, which is the reason why double-blind studies are so important. If you expect something to work better and all your knowledge / beliefs on the subject lead you to believe that is true, chances are that something will work better for you.
I'm not saying that one type of egg is or is not better, and I'm genuinely interested in the data. If there is a mountain of data out there that's persuasive to the nutritional community, then i'd be interested in seeing it. My own bias leads me to suspect that things developed in accordance with their natural evolution (e.g. meat from free-roaming animals) is going to be superior, but at the same time a molecule developed in "nature" is identical to that same molecule developed in a laboratory. That's obviously a simplification but it's illustrative of what I mean.