Nezam El-Tayebat Fact CheckA scientific assessment of the “نظام الطيبات” nutrition system
Choose country

Mostly false Certainty of evidence: low provisional C-EGG-11

Eggs should be completely avoided (all kinds, all cooking methods).

Safety note: Children, pregnant and breastfeeding women and older adults following the full system (no eggs, dairy, poultry, most legumes) risk insufficient protein, B12, calcium, iodine and choline; professional dietary advice is recommended.
Conclusion: Complete egg avoidance is not supported by evidence for the general population.
  1. Original statement
  2. Scientific assessment
  3. In plain language
  4. Studies on this claim
  5. Regional context
  6. What applies in my country?
  7. References

Original statement

البيض ممنوع تماماً بجميع أنواعه ( ويُمنع أكله مطبوخ بأي طريقة )

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

Eggs should be completely avoided (all kinds, all cooking methods).

Origin

Source status
Archive food list
Attribution
Archive food list (eltayebat.com)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/foods/
Attribution uncertainty
Food-list entry; no reasoning or source given on the list itself.
Population concerned

general population (not specified)

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Diverging source versions

Source status
Third-party site (unofficial)
Attribution
Third-party site (mytayibat.com); unofficial by its own statement
Origin
https://mytayibat.com/forbidden
Attribution uncertainty
Lowest attribution level: unofficial third-party site. In its footer it calls itself the "official educational platform"; this self-description is not verified as authorised by the heirs or the archive.
Source status
Third-party site (unofficial)
Attribution
Third-party site (altayybat.com); unofficial by its own statement
Origin
https://altayybat.com/ar/
Attribution uncertainty
Lowest attribution level; the site declares it is not affiliated with Dr. Diaa Elawady.
Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! الهرم الغذائي الجديده (Open source)
Published
20 January 2026
Timestamp
not available (transcript has no timings)
Attribution uncertainty
Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); wording may contain transcription errors; no timestamps available.

Scientific assessment

Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.

Certainty of evidence: low – Further research is likely to change the assessment considerably.

1. What was claimed?

All eggs, in any form, are forbidden.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

Eggs are not essential; a varied diet can meet needs without eggs. People with egg allergy must avoid them.

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

The evidence reviewed (C-EGG-01 to C-EGG-10) does not show that moderate egg intake harms healthy people. Total avoidance is presented as necessary for everyone.

4. What remains unclear?

Effects of very high intakes in people with diabetes; a pooled analysis suggests a possible higher cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes (I-EGG-01).

5. Which studies support it?

None for general avoidance.

6. Which studies contradict it?

I-EGG-01, I-EGG-02, I-EGG-05, I-EGG-06.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Eggs are included in standard dietary guidance in Germany/EU as part of a balanced diet [DGE text not fetched].

8. What is known about Egypt?

Eggs are an affordable animal protein in Egypt; removing them together with poultry, dairy and legumes reduces affordable protein options.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

There is no evidence-based reason for healthy people to avoid eggs completely.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

No evidence supports a need for the general population to avoid eggs completely; eggs are a nutrient-dense, inexpensive food. Avoiding eggs alone is not dangerous for most adults, so the claim is about necessity, not safety.

Source quality

Archive food list (no reasons given); third-party sites; consistent with Elawady's statements.

Regional transferability

Universal.

Individual exceptions

Egg allergy; specific medical advice (e.g., some lipid disorders). People with type 2 diabetes may have a higher cardiovascular risk with high egg intake according to one pooled analysis (RR 1.40, 1.00-1.97 for high vs low intake; heterogeneous; cohorts in the same paper null) (I-EGG-01); this supports moderation for that group, not complete avoidance.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
25 October 2026 provisional

In plain language

The system forbids all eggs in every form. Studies do not show that eating eggs in normal amounts harms healthy people. Eggs are an inexpensive source of protein and vitamins. People with an egg allergy must avoid them; for others, complete avoidance is a personal choice, not a medical necessity.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (0)

No studies in this group.

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (4)

  • Eggs and heart disease: 1.7 million people

    Drouin-Chartier JP et al.. BMJ 2020 · PMID 32132002 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.m513
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study

    Eating up to one egg a day was not linked to heart disease or stroke.

    Eggs should be completely avoided (all kinds, all cooking methods).

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Is egg intake associated with cardiovascular disease risk?

    How was the study done?

    Three prospective US cohorts (NHS, NHS II, HPFS) plus systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohorts (PROSPERO CRD42019129650)

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    215,618 cohort participants (14,806 CVD events); meta-analysis 33 estimates, 1,720,108 participants, 139,195 CVD events; US women and men free of CVD, diabetes and cancer; meta-analysis of global cohorts

    What was actually found?

    Cohorts: an egg a day or more vs <1 per month HR 0.93 (0.82-1.05). Meta-analysis per egg/day: CVD 0.98 (0.93-1.03); Asia 0.92; in people with type 2 diabetes possibly higher risk (1.25, 0.99-1.59).

    How large was the observed effect?

    Pooled Cox models; random-effects meta-analysis

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    For most people, an egg a day is not linked to heart risk.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational; egg eaters had less healthy profiles (residual confounding possible); heterogeneity; few people above one egg a day; possible higher risk in type 2 diabetes is uncertain.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts the archive claim.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    European cohorts: no association.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot prove absence of any effect at high intakes or in people with type 2 diabetes.

    Scientific details →

  • Eggs, cholesterol and heart disease in 50 countries

    Dehghan M et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2020 · PMID 31965140 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/nqz348
    Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key study

    Eating an egg a day was not linked to cholesterol levels, heart disease or death.

    Eggs should be completely avoided (all kinds, all cooking methods).

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Is egg intake associated with blood lipids, CVD and mortality across income levels?

    How was the study done?

    Prospective cohort analyses of PURE and of patients in ONTARGET/TRANSCEND trials

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    146,011 (PURE) + 31,544 (trials); PURE general population (21 countries) and patients with vascular disease (ONTARGET/TRANSCEND)

    What was actually found?

    PURE >=7 vs <1 egg/week: composite HR 0.96 (0.89-1.04); mortality 1.04 (0.94-1.15); major CVD 0.92 (0.83-1.01); no association with lipids. ONTARGET/TRANSCEND similar (composite 0.97, 0.76-1.25).

    How large was the observed effect?

    Cox frailty models

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Moderate egg intake appears neutral worldwide.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Single FFQ; Few very high consumers

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Includes European countries.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot exclude small effects.

    Scientific details →

  • Eggs and risk of death: 2.2 million people

    Mousavi SM et al.. Adv Nutr 2022 · PMID 35396834 · DOI 10.1093/advances/nmac040
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key study

    Egg intake was not linked to overall or heart deaths; a small link with cancer deaths was found.

    Eggs should be completely avoided (all kinds, all cooking methods).

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Is egg consumption associated with all-cause and cause-specific mortality?

    How was the study done?

    Systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of 33 cohorts

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    2,216,720 participants; 232,408 deaths; General population

    What was actually found?

    Highest vs lowest: all-cause RR 1.02 (0.94-1.11); CVD 1.04 (0.87-1.23); CHD 0.98; stroke 0.81 (0.64-1.02); cancer mortality 1.20 (1.04-1.39). Per egg/week: +2% all-cause, +4% cancer, -4% stroke mortality (linear). Certainty low to moderate.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Random effects

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Up to one egg a day appears compatible with a healthy diet.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Overlap with other meta-analyses; Heterogeneity

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Mostly contradicts; notes uncertainty.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot prove causation of cancer deaths.

    Scientific details →

  • AHA on dietary cholesterol

    Carson JAS et al.. Circulation 2020 · PMID 31838890 · DOI 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000743
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key study

    Studies do not show a clear link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease, but high intakes can raise LDL; focus on overall diet.

    Eggs should be completely avoided (all kinds, all cooking methods).

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    What is the relevance of dietary cholesterol guidance for heart health?

    How was the study done?

    Science advisory based on review of human studies

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Not applicable; General population

    What was actually found?

    Observational studies generally do not indicate a significant association with CVD; most intervention meta-analyses associate intakes above current averages with higher total/LDL cholesterol; guidance should focus on healthy dietary patterns.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not applicable

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Overall diet pattern matters more than counting cholesterol.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Not a formal systematic review

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Partly supports (LDL), mostly limits the claim.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    US body; EU bodies similar in not setting numeric limits [EFSA not fetched].

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Not a quantitative analysis.

    Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)

  • Eggs from pastured vs caged hens

    Karsten H.D. et al.. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2010 · DOI 10.1017/S1742170509990214
    Othercited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked

    Pastured hens laid eggs with more omega-3 fat and vitamin E.

    Eggs should be completely avoided (all kinds, all cooking methods).

    Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    How do pasture species and pasture vs cage housing affect egg omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins A and E?

    How was the study done?

    Crossover feeding study comparing eggs of pastured hens on different forages with caged hens on commercial mash

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    125 hens; 75 pastured sister hens and 50 caged sister hens

    What was actually found?

    Pastured hens eggs had twice the vitamin E and long-chain omega-3, 2.5-fold total omega-3, less than half the n-6:n-3 ratio; vitamin A concentration 38% higher but total vitamin A per egg not different; pastured hens 14% lighter, 15% lower production.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Crossover; P values

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Feed affects egg nutrients.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Small, single site; Nutrient composition, not health outcomes

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Shows quality differences, not danger.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot show caged eggs are harmful.

    Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

Eggs are included in standard dietary guidance in Germany/EU as part of a balanced diet [DGE text not fetched].

Egypt

Eggs are an affordable animal protein in Egypt; removing them together with poultry, dairy and legumes reduces affordable protein options.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Mostly false Complete egg avoidance is not supported by evidence for the general population.

The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:

  • Veterinary medicines and antibiotics
  • Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)
  • Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.)
  • Animal husbandry and feed
  • Controls, imports, recalls, labelling

Eggs

Choose a country to see the checked information for it.

Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.

Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country

References

  1. Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease: three large prospective US cohort studies, systematic review, and updated meta-analysis.. Drouin-Chartier JP et al.. BMJ 2020 · PMID 32132002 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.m513
  2. Association of egg intake with blood lipids, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in 177,000 people in 50 countries.. Dehghan M et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2020 · PMID 31965140 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/nqz348
  3. Egg Consumption and Risk of All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.. Mousavi SM et al.. Adv Nutr 2022 · PMID 35396834 · DOI 10.1093/advances/nmac040
  4. Dietary Cholesterol and Cardiovascular Risk: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.. Carson JAS et al.. Circulation 2020 · PMID 31838890 · DOI 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000743
  5. Vitamins A, E and fatty acid composition of the eggs of caged hens and pastured hens. Karsten H.D. et al.. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2010 · DOI 10.1017/S1742170509990214

← Back to overview