Worth a crack

Eggs are good value and highly nutritious whichever way they're prepared, but the raw and the cooked are by no means equal.

- Jennifer Bowden

Question: Eggs are cooked in several ways. Is there any difference in nutritional value for these ways? Would eating an egg raw be beneficial?

Answer: Eggs are a nutrient-dense food, which is the biggest compliment that can be given in nutrition speak. Packed with high-quality protein, healthy polyunsaturated fats, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and more, eggs are a cost-effective, nutritious addition to our diet. But when it comes to comparing cooked versus raw eggs, there are real risks and rewards to be had and raw eggs are definitely not the winning option.

For many years, the New Zealand Heart Foundation recommended that people at high risk of heart disease limit their egg intake to three eggs (yolks) per week, due to the high levels of cholesterol in eggs. However, subsequent research affirmed that the levels of cholesterol in eggs had only a small and "clinically insignificant effect" on blood cholesterol levels - saturated fats have a far bigger impact. Hence, the Heart Foundation now advises that most people can eat eggs freely within a balanced heart-healthy diet, while those at high risk of heart disease can safely eat up to six eggs per week.

At a time when food costs are skyrocketing, eggs can provide an inexpensive source of protein. They also contain a helpful punch of carotenoids, vitamin D, B12, selenium and choline, notes the Heart Foundation.

But where do we stand nutritionally with all the variants of cooked versus raw eggs?