But I love meat!!!

1…567810

Replies

  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Okay, so you are you saying higher levels of cholesterol are bad if you are on a diet which is healthy and low in foods which are inflammatory and oxidation?

    And are high levels of unoxidised LDL particles bad?

    I'm saying that high serum cholesterol is a risk factor for disease and is indeed bad.

    I have said nothing about unoxidised LDL particles, nor will I say anything on the topic in this thread.

    Just what I thought.

    Cool.

    So, I was serious. Do you have any quality literature that is convincing establishing that high total cholesterol is definitely not a problem?

    This entire conversation started because you said high cholesterol wasn't itself a problem. I'm interested if you have any data to support that. If you do, please share it.

    I do like it when you add words and twist statements jonny (its kinase the measure of you).

    I think if you read the whole post I wrote and take one line out of context (and also add words to it) then my view should be clear.

    I would be interested if you have any studies showing that a high cholesterol level on a healthy diet (low in inflammatory and oxidation prop foods) is bad .

    Still I doubt that will happen either. Lol

    Here is your statement:

    "High cholesterol levels in itself are not bad"

    Here is my question:

    "Do you have any quality literature that is convincing establishing that high total cholesterol is definitely not a problem?"

    I'm honestly not sure what words I've added. Feel free to modify the question as you see fit.

    I would like to see some scientific literature or data establishing the truth of your quoted statement. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm trying to learn.

    For context here is my original statement - before it was edited and quoted by you.

    High cholesterol levels in itself are not bad, what makes it become bad is a diet high in foods which are inflammatory and cause oxidation.

    Not trying to trick - please you've got more tricks than penn and teller.
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    The lies about high fats being evil are starting to fall.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486?mg=reno64-wsj

    Do not fear the saturated fat.

    You're made of meat, you should be eating meat to build it.
  • amwbox
    amwbox Posts: 576 Member
    Okay, so you are you saying higher levels of cholesterol are bad if you are on a diet which is healthy and low in foods which are inflammatory and oxidation?

    And are high levels of unoxidised LDL particles bad?

    I'm saying that high serum cholesterol is a risk factor for disease and is indeed bad.

    I have said nothing about unoxidised LDL particles, nor will I say anything on the topic in this thread.

    Just what I thought.

    Cool.

    So, I was serious. Do you have any quality literature that is convincing establishing that high total cholesterol is definitely not a problem?

    This entire conversation started because you said high cholesterol wasn't itself a problem. I'm interested if you have any data to support that. If you do, please share it.

    I do like it when you add words and twist statements jonny (its kinase the measure of you).

    I think if you read the whole post I wrote and take one line out of context (and also add words to it) then my view should be clear.

    I would be interested if you have any studies showing that a high cholesterol level on a healthy diet (low in inflammatory and oxidation prop foods) is bad .

    Still I doubt that will happen either. Lol

    Here is your statement:

    "High cholesterol levels in itself are not bad"

    Here is my question:

    "Do you have any quality literature that is convincing establishing that high total cholesterol is definitely not a problem?"

    I'm honestly not sure what words I've added. Feel free to modify the question as you see fit.

    I would like to see some scientific literature or data establishing the truth of your quoted statement. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm trying to learn.

    For context here is my original statement - before it was edited and quoted by you.

    High cholesterol levels in itself are not bad, what makes it become bad is a diet high in foods which are inflammatory and cause oxidation.

    ^This, exactly. Well said.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/the-cholesterol-myth-that_b_676817.html
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Okay, so you are you saying higher levels of cholesterol are bad if you are on a diet which is healthy and low in foods which are inflammatory and oxidation?

    And are high levels of unoxidised LDL particles bad?

    I'm saying that high serum cholesterol is a risk factor for disease and is indeed bad.

    I have said nothing about unoxidised LDL particles, nor will I say anything on the topic in this thread.

    Just what I thought.

    Cool.

    So, I was serious. Do you have any quality literature that is convincing establishing that high total cholesterol is definitely not a problem?

    This entire conversation started because you said high cholesterol wasn't itself a problem. I'm interested if you have any data to support that. If you do, please share it.

    I do like it when you add words and twist statements jonny (its kinase the measure of you).

    I think if you read the whole post I wrote and take one line out of context (and also add words to it) then my view should be clear.

    I would be interested if you have any studies showing that a high cholesterol level on a healthy diet (low in inflammatory and oxidation prop foods) is bad .

    Still I doubt that will happen either. Lol

    Here is your statement:

    "High cholesterol levels in itself are not bad"

    Here is my question:

    "Do you have any quality literature that is convincing establishing that high total cholesterol is definitely not a problem?"

    I'm honestly not sure what words I've added. Feel free to modify the question as you see fit.

    I would like to see some scientific literature or data establishing the truth of your quoted statement. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm trying to learn.

    For context here is my original statement - before it was edited and quoted by you.

    High cholesterol levels in itself are not bad, what makes it become bad is a diet high in foods which are inflammatory and cause oxidation.

    Not trying to trick - please you've got more tricks than penn and teller.

    I read the whole sentence.

    Could you please produce some literature and data to support that statement?
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/the-cholesterol-myth-that_b_676817.html

    You should be aware that Mercola is a well-known quack. Simply bringing up Mercola on MFP generally causes a lot of laughter and eye rolling.
  • amwbox
    amwbox Posts: 576 Member
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/the-cholesterol-myth-that_b_676817.html

    You should be aware that Mercola is a well-known quack. Simply bringing up Mercola on MFP generally causes a lot of laughter and eye rolling.

    What about everyone who agrees with him, and publishes books and studies loaded with empirical evidence supporting his findings? They are all over the place, if you care to educate yourself. Google is thy friend.

    Quacks as well?

    LOL the problem here is that everyone is programmed to think certain ways about things. They want to believe in a boogie man...so they find one. Some magical thing they can blame...and say, always avoid this, or always do this, or never do this...or whatever. Real world its not so simple. Real world we have problems with the establishment being forced to circumvent science to maintain credibiliy through antiquated ideas. We have to find ways to support large pharmaceutical profit margins.

    If you want to believe i the boogie man, go for it. Just don't belittle those around you for developing the temerity to resist the ignorance.
  • Platform_Heels
    Platform_Heels Posts: 388 Member
    If you love meat...I'd second a second opinion. I love food. Food is love. None shall be excluded

    Sure food shouldn't be excluded but if it's something that could make you drop dead of a heart attack or stroke I'd pretty much not eat it.
  • amwbox
    amwbox Posts: 576 Member


    Could you please produce some literature and data to support that statement?

    http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/05/19/why-cholesterol-may-not-be-the-cause-of-heart-disease/
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member


    Could you please produce some literature and data to support that statement?

    http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/05/19/why-cholesterol-may-not-be-the-cause-of-heart-disease/

    The fact that I asked for literature, and you produced links to a pair of blog entries by diet book authors says a lot.

    BTW, the second link's recommendations specifically state "Your total cholesterol should be under 200."
  • kr1stadee
    kr1stadee Posts: 1,774 Member
    Chuck a cow in a lake... it's swimming!! Eat it!!

    Hm... or would it just sink? I feel like i've read somewhere of cows dying when it floods because they can't swim?

    Ah well, one less step before it hits my plate!
  • KseRz
    KseRz Posts: 980 Member


    Could you please produce some literature and data to support that statement?

    http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/05/19/why-cholesterol-may-not-be-the-cause-of-heart-disease/

    The comments at the bottom are the best:

    I was told I had normal to high cholestoral, triglicerides, …..in other words metabolic syndrome. The doc put me on Lipiddil to lower the cholestoral and triglicerides…..and now I have another Doc. who has me on Lipitor only for the cholestorals. Its all so very confusing after reading your article!! Would these drugs be causing me to have bursitis in my thighs and cannot talk long distances?? Cannot decide wether to stay on drugs or get off of them . My father died of heart attack at age 59 and I just turned 67. HELP!!!!

    If their cholesterol was normal, why were they put on meds for it?


    The other link to the huffington post article I thought this was also interresting:

    In addition, the AHA updated their guidelines in 2004, lowering the recommended level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to LDL to less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.

    Need to fill more people with Rx drugs I guess?


    ETA: copy/paste formatting
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    Also: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbs-against-cardio/
    In March the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a meta-analysis—which combines data from several studies—that compared the reported daily food intake of nearly 350,000 people against their risk of developing cardiovascular disease over a period of five to 23 years. The analysis, overseen by Ronald M. Krauss, director of atherosclerosis research at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, found no association between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk of heart disease.
  • albertabeefy
    albertabeefy Posts: 1,169 Member
    Cool.

    So, I was serious. Do you have any quality literature that is convincing establishing that high total cholesterol is definitely not a problem?

    This entire conversation started because you said high cholesterol wasn't itself a problem. I'm interested if you have any data to support that. If you do, please share it.
    There's considerable literature to support the theory that total cholesterol > 200 is not a problem, and no real scientific evidence showing it IS a problem. It's "conventional wisdom" that's been extrapolated from a hypothesis (that despite literally billions in research $$ remains unproven) and that's it.

    When you realize there is absolutely NO evidence that shows that lowering LDL-C or total serum cholesterol below 200 PREVENTS heart attack or stroke, why would you ask for evidence that total serum cholesterol above 200 isn't an issue, when no evidence shows it IS?

    The vast-majority of evidence used by pharmaceutical companies to show that statins reduce cholesterol and thus reduce heart attacks doesn't actually show that it's cholesterol itself that is the culprit. And none of them show ALL the data - and no government is forcing them to do so.

    “Half of all heart attack victims have normal cholesterol levels”
    — The Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide

    http://www.sott.net/article/242516-Heart-surgeon-speaks-out-on-what-really-causes-heart-disease

    A study reported on August 22, 2011 in the journal Atherosclerosis where 82,000 adults in the UK were followed for an average of 8 years concluded that:

    *Higher total cholesterol levels were not associated with an increased risk of death due to heart disease.
    *Higher total cholesterol levels were actually associated with a reduced risk of death due to stroke.
    Researchers in The Fukui Study, Japan, classified 22,971 participants into groups according to their cholesterol levels. They concluded that:
    *Those in the 160-169 mg/dl group (both sexes), suffered significantly higher death rates than those in the 240-259 mg/dl category. High blood pressure is not caused by a blood pressure drug deficiency. While doctors consider 95 per cent of high blood pressure cases to be of unknown cause, there are real reasons for high blood pressure. Here are some root causes:
    *Hormonal imbalances
    *Infections
    *Mineral deficiencies
    *Repressed emotions
    *Exposure to chemicals or heavy metals
    *Glycosylation (sugar binding to proteins)

    The absolute truth is (and the new guidelines released in the USA six months ago acknowledge this) the evidence for lowering LDL or total cholesterol targets was simply never there.

    Even the most influential cardiologists in the world acknowledge that.

    Steven Nissen, chair of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic (and Past-President of the American College of Cardiology ... ie: not a quack) stated, regarding LDL cholesterol targets, that past committees "...made them up out of thin air".

    A much better indication of cardiovascular health is your Tg/HDL-c ratio. That's being looked at much more often now as a better predictor of CVD risk.
  • psych101
    psych101 Posts: 1,842 Member
    Chuck a cow in a lake... it's swimming!! Eat it!!

    Hm... or would it just sink? I feel like i've read somewhere of cows dying when it floods because they can't swim?

    Ah well, one less step before it hits my plate!

    I'm pretty sure cows can swim - something about their multiple stomachs and being full of gas - makes them buoyant
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    Chuck a cow in a lake... it's swimming!! Eat it!!

    Hm... or would it just sink? I feel like i've read somewhere of cows dying when it floods because they can't swim?

    Ah well, one less step before it hits my plate!

    I'm pretty sure cows can swim - something about their multiple stomachs and being full of gas - makes them buoyant

    A thread about farting and swimming cows. MFP has everything
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Chuck a cow in a lake... it's swimming!! Eat it!!

    Hm... or would it just sink? I feel like i've read somewhere of cows dying when it floods because they can't swim?

    Ah well, one less step before it hits my plate!

    I'm pretty sure cows can swim - something about their multiple stomachs and being full of gas - makes them buoyant

    I forget...

    ...does that mean they *are* or *aren't* a witch?
  • dkapplejacks1
    dkapplejacks1 Posts: 59 Member
    I could not give up meat. Nope. But I do watch what kind of meats I eat.
  • psych101
    psych101 Posts: 1,842 Member
    Chuck a cow in a lake... it's swimming!! Eat it!!

    Hm... or would it just sink? I feel like i've read somewhere of cows dying when it floods because they can't swim?

    Ah well, one less step before it hits my plate!

    I'm pretty sure cows can swim - something about their multiple stomachs and being full of gas - makes them buoyant

    I forget...

    ...does that mean they *are* or *aren't* a witch?


    They are! BURN THEM, BURN THEM ALL....then eat their remains mmmmmm
  • thatjosiegirl
    thatjosiegirl Posts: 362 Member
    Chuck a cow in a lake... it's swimming!! Eat it!!

    OMG....DYING!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
  • JRV84
    JRV84 Posts: 6
    Problem solved!

    cow-swimming-pool_1402959i.jpg

    ^ Best. Answer. Ever.

    HILARIOUS!!!! I LOVE IT!!!!

Categories