U.S. children showing hardening of arteries

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Hey,



Bad enough Adults are obese, Really Sad when Kids are obese. My God, I'm having enough ploblems trying to gain 10-20 pouns (that how thin and heatlhy I am) and these kids are 20+ pounds overweight :juggle2: :no:



Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15698567/

[CrossLOPER]

So, aside from having their tonsils cut out, their appendix removed, and a circumcision performed on males, children born in the US are now going to have their stomaches stapled, I suppose?

I'm sorry to be crude, but this has become an amazing problem. Looking back at the fatty genetics argument a while back, I have to say someone has been recently contributing to the gene pool when they really shouldn't. :juggle2: :no:

[IRONxMortlock]

So, aside from having their tonsils cut out, their appendix removed, and a circumcision performed on males, children born in the US are now going to have their stomaches stapled, I suppose?

I'm sorry to be crude, but this has become an amazing problem. Looking back at the fatty genetics argument a while back, I have to say someone has been recently contributing to the gene pool when they really shouldn't. :juggle2: :no:

Or perhaps parents should stop feeding their children **** and take the time and effort to prepare correctly sized and well balanced meals.:idea2:

[Husar]

Or perhaps parents should stop feeding their children **** and take the time and effort to prepare correctly sized and well balanced meals.:idea2:
I would assume their parents aren't really underweight either.

And here I am, fighting for every kg...that I can gain(muscles of course, no need for fat:2thumbsup: )

[IRONxMortlock]

My God, I'm having enough ploblems trying to gain 10-20 pouns (that how thin and heatlhy I am) and these kids are 20+ pounds overweight


And here I am, fighting for every kg...that I can gain(muscles of course, no need for fat )

You guys aren't married yet are you?:beam:

[Adrian II]

Hey,



Bad enough Adults are obese, Really Sad when Kids are obese. My God, I'm having enough ploblems trying to gain 10-20 pouns (that how thin and heatlhy I am) and these kids are 20+ pounds overweight :juggle2: :no:



Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15698567/God no, the old warhorse of body weight, food and heart disease is trotted out again.

First of all, there is no connection at all between cholesterol intake per os and cholesterol levels in the blood. None whatsoever. Zilch.

Secondly, reduced intake of either cholesterol, saturated fat or calories does not reduce the risk of heart disease. Most famous are the MRFIT-trials. The 1982 U.S. trial (involving 12.000 men at high risk of heart disease) found that a low fat, low cholesterol diet actually resulted in a higher death rate.

High cholesterol blood levels do not cause a higher incidence of coronary or other diseases either, and in fact, many recent clinical trials show that a low cholesterol level is a higher risk than a high level.

In the 1970s Brown and Goldstein found the gene causing extremely high cholesterol levels and premature heart disease. When will we finally give their research due recognition? In fact, why don't we?

Because health scares are money-makers.

Over 50 years ago, U.S. health officials were already making dire predictions based on the notion that half the American people were over-weight and doomed to succumb to all sorts of horrible diseases. In reality, since then Americas have lived longer and healthier every year.

This a simply a non-issue, brought up by liberal bleeding hearts who want Americans to feel guilty about their 'gluttunous' lifestyle, based on heartless exploitation of the world's riches. The fairytale serves no useful purpose, merely the socially convenient purpose of blaming kids of larger-than-average weight and their parents for anything and everything untoward that befalls them in life. And it helps to finance a huge industry that capitalises on a host of health scares.

Please, let us not give in to this pressure from diet guru's, professional scaremongers (like the American Heart Association in the article) and special interest groups representing the pharmaceutical industry anymore.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

"Secondly, reduced intake of either cholesterol, saturated fat or calories does not reduce the risk of heart disease. Most famous are the MRFIT-trials. The 1982 U.S. trial (involving 12.000 men at high risk of heart disease) found that a low fat, low cholesterol diet actually resulted in a higher death rate."

Em,Link please? I never read that before, and hard to believe that would Be Likely..

[Adrian II]

I never read that before, and hard to believe that would Be Likely..That is exactly what is wrong about this whole thing. You never get to read the relevant stuff, just the scare messages.

I no longer do links. I used to, but it leads to nit-picking over words and footnotes.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You're taking it too far Adrian. Yes the pharmacuetical companies are scaring everyone to sell their cholesterol drugs and making it out to be more than it is, but high cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease.

[Adrian II]

You're taking it too far Adrian. Yes the pharmacuetical companies are scaring everyone to sell their cholesterol drugs and making it out to be more than it is, but high cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease.I am not saying this is a conspiracy, mind you. Nobody planned it this way. It is just that the whole obesity scam is so convenient to many parties involved with health, education, parenting, dieting, etcetera.

And no, there is no connection between high cholesterol blood level and risk of heart disease.

People with low cholesterol blood level, on the other hand, die young. This may be due to all sorts of factors. Nonetheless the Framingham study, the largest longitudinal study in the world which has been running from 1948 and is being continued until this day at Boston University, shows that low blood levels of cholesterol may be the real killer: '‘There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years of the study and mortality over the following 18 years."

I'm having eggs and bacon on well-buttered toast tomorrow morning. It may not help much, but it won't do me any harm.

[CrossLOPER]

Sweet! All that crap about eating healthy...
From now on, I'm going to NOT be careful with my diet and give free snacks SUPER hugh in cholesterol to kids and tell them that everything they hear is false....

What causes you to take this stance. I am curious.

[Adrian II]

What causes you to take this stance. I am curious.I told you: medical research.

And where did I say that kids should eat only fat and sugar?

[Proletariat]

Exactly what I was trying to get at a few weeks ago in one of these Americans r fffat threads. Now I have a Dutch journalist and a French intellectual who agree!

:coffeenews: :beatnik:

[Ice]

They need to start by serving better food at the cafeterias in public schools. My god, that is some of the worst food for you I have ever eatten. I try to eat the best I can at university, but sometimes due to a lack of free time I find myself grabbing a slace of pizza for dinner.

[CrossLOPER]

I told you: medical research.
Medical research that you cannot even hint at because of an antiOCD.

And where did I say that kids should eat only fat and sugar?
You said that having low cholesterol is more likely to kill me that having high cholesterol, which according to you will not harm me at all. While having low cholesterol may end up making you sick, having unacceptably high cholesterol will also make you very ill. Why in the world you think hyperlipidemia (which is the main problem associated with hypercholesterolemia) has nothing to do with high cholesterol is beyond me.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I am not saying this is a conspiracy, mind you. Nobody planned it this way. It is just that the whole obesity scam is so convenient to many parties involved with health, education, parenting, dieting, etcetera.

And no, there is no connection between high cholesterol blood level and risk of heart disease.

People with low cholesterol blood level, on the other hand, die young. This may be due to all sorts of factors. Nonetheless the Framingham study, the largest longitudinal study in the world which has been running from 1948 and is being continued until this day at Boston University, shows that low blood levels of cholesterol may be the real killer: '‘There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years of the study and mortality over the following 18 years."

I'm having eggs and bacon on well-buttered toast tomorrow morning. It may not help much, but it won't do me any harm.


the study established a strong positive association of LDL cholesterol with coronary heart disease

:stare:

[Adrian II]

Exactly what I was trying to get at a few weeks ago in one of these Americans r fffat threads. Now I have a Dutch journalist and a French intellectual who agree!

:coffeenews: :beatnik:Did you notice that the Americans-'R'-Fat notion is a favourite theme of anti-Americanism the world over, capitalising on the supposed symbolism of U.S. imperialism and parables about the ugly American 'guzzling' the world's riches?

Of course you did.

When trans fats are mentioned, Iraq and Kyoto are never far away.

*lights another fag*

[CrossLOPER]

Did you notice that the Americans-'R'-Fat notion is a favourite theme of anti-Americanism the world over, capitalising on the supposed symbolism of U.S. imperialism and parables about the ugly American 'guzzling' the world's riches?

Of course you did.

When trans fats are mentioned, Iraq and Kyoto are never far away.

*lights another fag*

To be fair, the US has the largest percentage of obese people in the world, followed by Mexico, the UK, and a bunch of other western nations. Japan is twenty-seventh on the list. What deep, dark, corner of an arse you picked out Iraq is beyond me.

[Proletariat]

Did you notice that the Americans-'R'-Fat notion is a favourite theme of anti-Americanism the world over, capitalising on the supposed symbolism of U.S. imperialism and parables about the ugly American 'guzzling' the world's riches?

Of course you did.

When trans fats are mentioned, Iraq and Kyoto are never far away.

*lights another fag*

I certainly did, but it was the marketing aspects that really sank it home for me. I had my cousin over from Sydney and listening to how shocked she was at how many commercials we have on TV that are aimed at weight loss. No other country has such a huge fast food industry, and a weight loss industry that feeds directly off it. Weight loss of course is the higher leveraged of the two since their claims are loosely backed up by medical opinions so their claims don't look half as foolish as they really are. So what the hell should we do? How about we skew the BMI once again and get a whole new lot into the gyms and hooked on diet shakes

Why aren't any of the people in disbelief about this challenging AdrianII's statement about American life expectancy going up every single generation?

*puffs lazy smoke rings*

[Proletariat]

What deep, dark, corner of an arse you picked out Iraq is beyond me.

Pretty sure it was a reference to anti-Americanism, the Kyoto reference had to do with perceptions of America, not how fat the Japanese are.

[CrossLOPER]

Pretty sure it was a reference to anti-Americanism, the Kyoto reference had to do with perceptions of America, not how fat the Japanese are.
So stating an opinion based on clear valid data is anti-American?

I understand where Adrian is coming from, but the approach is flawed in itself.

[Proletariat]

So stating an opinion based on clear valid data is anti-American?


One of us is misunderstanding here... What clear valid data are you talking about? I thought we were on hyperbolic reactions.

[Devastatin Dave]

So stating an opinion based on clear valid data is anti-American?

I understand where Adrian is coming from, but the approach is flawed in itself.
Dude, you haven't been here long. If you're getting flack from Adrian about anti-Americanism, then its gotta be true!!!:laugh4:

[Adrian II]

So stating an opinion based on clear valid data is anti-American?So far I have been the one providing clear valid data.
You said that having low cholesterol is more likely to kill me that having high cholesterol, which according to you will not harm me at all. While having low cholesterol may end up making you sick, having unacceptably high cholesterol will also make you very ill. Why in the world you think hyperlipidemia (which is the main problem associated with hypercholesterolemia) has nothing to do with high cholesterol is beyond me.You are confusing things.

You were talking about snacks and related food. Cholesterol intake does not alter the level of cholesterol in your blood one way or the other.

The Framington study:


"In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active. Total cholesterol has pretty much outlived its usefulness as a way to predict heart disease and follow its progression." Dr William Castelli 1992 (Director of the Framingham study) in the [i[Journal of the American Medical Association[/i] No 257: (16), pages 2176-80, 1987.Of course there may be an association between some form of cholesterol and heart disease, but as we know correlation does not equal causation.

A study by the Women's Health Initiative into the health effects of low fat diets in 50.000 women has just been concluded, and cholesterol . According to their site: "To study the effect of the WHI low-fat dietary pattern on heart disease, researchers looked at how many participants had coronary heart disease (heart attack or death from heart disease). They found that the low-fat dietary pattern did not reduce the risk of heart disease, although the intervention was not designed specifically to reduce heart disease."

[Proletariat]

Dude, you haven't been here long. If you're getting flack from Adrian about anti-Americanism, then its gotta be true!!!

Ack!! Don't make this more confusing, you trouble maker!

:laugh4:

Agree or disagree with the issues themselves, it makes no difference. Kyoto and Iraq and obesity are all tied in with anti-Americanism.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be hopping into my Prius hybrid, wearing my AQ-certified-explosive-vest and I'll make certain to pack enough Twinkies and Big Macs to last my whole final car trip!

[CrossLOPER]

The Framington study:


"In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active. Total cholesterol has pretty much outlived its usefulness as a way to predict heart disease and follow its progression." Dr William Castelli 1992 (Director of the Framingham study) in the [i[Journal of the American Medical Association[/i] No 257: (16), pages 2176-80, 1987.Of course there may be an association between some form of cholesterol and heart disease, but as we know correlation does not equal causation.'
What I perceive as a backward study will be countered with what you will perceive as a backwards study.Here you go. Linky (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4563).

Now here's the point. Once you've eaten something, it's not going away on its own. It has to have a reason to go. Sitting around eating salad alone will not undo all those years of trauma you put your poor, putrid body through.

NOTE: If this is another one of those threads where I end up arguing with a senior member about who would look better in a dress, I'm leaving.

[Xiahou]

I think the message here is that instead of stressing out about every gram of fat ect in your food, eat what you want, eat sensible portions and get off your ass and exercise once in awhile. :yes:

[BigTex]

What's so hard to grasp about cholestoral intake not being linked to amount in your bloodstream? Cholestoral is produced inside the body. Also those with low cholestoral over all have lower HDL also, which has been proven to help prevent heart attacks.

Although Adrian I'm sure you wouldnt mind linking a portion of the study pertaining to individuals who ate alot of sat. fat but had little exercise..... Almost every study in the world will tell you that increased body fat % increases your risk of a heart attack. One of the things that contain the most calories is sat./trans fat. Sat fat and heart attacks arent linked directly but there most assuredly is a bit of a path between the two.

As for fat kids, yes it is indeed the parents fault. If they refuse to teach them proper diet's and don't force them to get some exercise. Then your going to end up with a fat child. Whats so sad now is so many parents are now afriad to let their kids play around their neighborhood. It's seems fear mongering of pedo's and violence has finally assisted in the rise of obese children.


I think the message here is that instead of stressing out about every gram of fat ect in your food, eat what you want, eat sensible portions and get off your ass and exercise once in awhile.

Yes, 100% correct. Exercise is by far the most important thing you can do in your day. Something children should be taught from a young age.



NOTE: If this is another one of those threads where I end up arguing with a senior member about who would look better in a dress, I'm leaving.

I'm definately going to have to say Devastatin Dave would.:laugh4: :clown:

[CrossLOPER]

What's so hard to grasp about cholestoral intake not being linked to amount in your bloodstream? Cholestoral is produced inside the body. Also those with low cholestoral over all have lower HDL also, which has been proven to help prevent heart attacks.
MOST cholesterol is normally produced inside the body. Intake does matter. Indeed, HDL is good for you. LDL is what is referred to "bad cholesterol" and ends up making you ill.

I'm definately going to have to say Devastatin Dave would.:laugh4:clown: :
Too bad he's not a senior member.

[Adrian II]

What I perceive as a backward study will be countered with what you will perceive as a backwards study.Here you go. Linky (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4563)That is not a study, it is a link to the American Heart Association. And the AHA does not engage in research.
Now here's the point. Once you've eaten something, it's not going away on its own. It has to have a reason to go. Sitting around eating salad alone will not undo all those years of trauma you put your poor, putrid body through.Ah yes, exercise is good for you. Nobody denies that. As Castelli pointed out, the Framingtonians with the highest cholesterol intake were also the most active and energetic.
NOTE: If this is another one of those threads where I end up arguing with a senior member about who would look better in a dress, I'm leaving.You are beautiful when you are angry. :kiss:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

So far I have been the one providing clear valid data.You are confusing things.

You were talking about snacks and related food. Cholesterol intake does not alter the level of cholesterol in your blood one way or the other.

The Framington study:


"In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active. Total cholesterol has pretty much outlived its usefulness as a way to predict heart disease and follow its progression." Dr William Castelli 1992 (Director of the Framingham study) in the [i[Journal of the American Medical Association[/i] No 257: (16), pages 2176-80, 1987.Of course there may be an association between some form of cholesterol and heart disease, but as we know correlation does not equal causation.

A study by the Women's Health Initiative into the health effects of low fat diets in 50.000 women has just been concluded, and cholesterol . According to their site: "To study the effect of the WHI low-fat dietary pattern on heart disease, researchers looked at how many participants had coronary heart disease (heart attack or death from heart disease). They found that the low-fat dietary pattern did not reduce the risk of heart disease, although the intervention was not designed specifically to reduce heart disease."


"So far I have been the one providing clear valid data.You are confusing things. "

So Far, Yes, but no Links you been Providing Us. I still like to view this information myself thank you very much.




Exercise is good for you,no matter how Fat or whatnot you are..

[Adrian II]

So Far, Yes, but no Links you been Providing Us. I still like to view this information myself thank you very much.I referred you to the MRFIT-trials, the Framington study, the Womens' Health Initiative. But I don't play the wiki-game any more, sorry, there is too much fuzzy nonsense on the Web. Important sources (such as medical journals or specific books) are not online or accessible only to subscribers, so you will have to go to a library to access them.

EDIT
If you can find them, there is an excellent series by Science magazine correspondent Gary Taubes (written in 2000 or thereabout) on the psueudo-science behind low fat and low salt dieting.

[CrossLOPER]

That is not a study, it is a link to the American Heart Association. And the AHA does not engage in research.
No... but...

As Castelli pointed out, the Framingtonians with the highest cholesterol intake were also the most active and energetic.
Looking through that link, you may have stumbled upon something interesting. Physical activity LOWERS LDL and RAISES HDL. The Framingtonian study is flawed (being one sided) in that respect. Here's a some more detail into that part. Surely what the AHA carries more weight than Wiki. LINKY (http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/98/21/2356). Going back to the original link, it states clearly several times that eating high-cholesterol foods bring in cholesterol. Why would this even be in doubt?

You are beautiful when you are angry. :kiss:
Thanks sweety!

[caravel]

Statistics etc aside, the problem isn't fat, it's poor diet. Fatty sugary food just tend to be part of that poor diet. People are existing on rubbish filled with colourings, preservatives, fat, sugar, salt and other chemicals. Many smoke and many more drink excessively. Such is the world we live in.

Here in the UK, nannying them and telling the masses what they can and cannot eat, a la Jamie Oliver, isn't going to solve the problem long term. Better education will. On one hand the UK government tries to educate people about a healthy lifestyle, on the other hand they're raking in billions in tax from tobacco and alcohol taxation. As long as the government appears to be a load of hypocrites sending out such mixed messages, nothing is going to change. In some other countries they don't have half the food regulations we have here, and where there is greater poverty, all of this junk food is available but the big difference is that people don't live on it because they can't afford to, and because they have a basic sense of what is and is not junk. The mothers, squeezing the coke filled teet bottles down their toddlers throat's before replacing their dummys, in the UK don't. How do you fight blatent ignorance and idleness of this kind? How do you educate a parent to first cook a decent meal and then actually get off their fat arse and actually cook it? This has to be their responsibility and not that of the state.

[Adrian II]

Going back to the original link, it states clearly several times that eating high-cholesterol foods bring in cholesterol. Why would this even be in doubt?Like I said: the opposite has been established over and over again.

The Framington study found that (1) people who ate the most fat and cholesterol weighed the least, were the most active and the least at risk of heart disease, and (2) weight gain and cholesterol blood levels had an inverse correlation with fat and cholesterol intake in the diet.

Even Ancel Keys, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota who is generally hailed as the 'inventor' of the cholesterol/heart disease thesis and has been dubbed "Mr Cholesterol" by his colleagues, has never supported all this commercial folklore about fatty foods and cholesterol intake.

Already in 1956 he wrote that "serum cholesterol level is essentially independent of the cholesterol intake over the whole range of human diets". In his 1957 predictive model for heart disease, Keys did not even include dietary cholesterol because he considered it an insignificant determinant of blood cholesterol.

In 1997 Keys told the culinary magazine Eating Light: "There's no connection whatsoever between cholesterol in food and cholesterol in blood. And we've known that all along. Cholesterol in the diet doesn't matter at all unless you happen to be a chicken or a rabbit."

[CrossLOPER]

stuff
Alright, tell you what. You believe what you want, and I'll take the advice from the multiple medical institutions that contradict what you have to say. OK?

Oh, and this is where you have been getting your info: Link. (http://homodiet.netfirms.com/)

WORD FOR WORD. IT'S ALL THERE!

OMG... The HOMO DIET. How could I have been so foolish?

Crazy stuff on that there internets there, eh?

....

Personally, I think you're screwing with me. :juggle2:

[Xiahou]

Here's a fun read on the subject from one of my favorite websites:
McJunk Science

By STEVEN MILLOY
Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2002

McDonald's just announced it will use a different cooking oil to reduce the amount of trans fatty acids in its fried foods. It sounds like an advance for corporate responsibility and public health. But it's actually a big fat mistake.

The Food and Drug Administration inexplicably has yearned for the last several years to require information about so-called "trans fats" on food nutrition labels. Support for the FDA's plans came in a report released this summer by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, which concluded that no amount of trans fats is safe to eat.

Trans fats, according to the report, raise blood levels of low-density lipoprotein -- the supposedly "bad" cholesterol -- and increase the risk of coronary heart disease. Because trans-fatty acids are "unavoidable in ordinary diets," the Institute of Medicine "recommended that trans fatty acid consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet."

The implications of this report are pretty radical. Margarine, for instance, must be unsafe in any quantity -- never mind that the federal nutrition nannies have spent the last 30 years weaning us away from butter in favor of this supposedly "heart-healthy" substitute. There are also no safe amounts of vegetable shortening or food cooked or made with shortening such as pastries, crackers, and fried foods. All of them contain the dreaded trans fats -- vegetable oils that have been altered to be firm at room temperature.

Don't throw away your favorite foods just yet, however. These recommendations don't have much scientific substance. First, there is no evidence at all that trans fats increase heart disease risk in humans. None of the six studies of human populations consuming trans fats come close to linking them with heart disease. No doubt this is why the Institute of Medicine barely even mentioned their existence in its report and didn't rely on them in the slightest to support its conclusion.

Instead, the report relied on laboratory and clinical studies reporting that trans-fat consumption increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. This is a far cry, though, from scientifically linking trans fats with heart disease.

Moreover, it's not even clear that elevated cholesterol necessarily leads to heart disease and death. In the much-vaunted Framingham Heart Study -- where 5,200 men and women in Framingham, Mass., have been extensively studied in over 1,000 published reports since 1948 -- high cholesterol was not associated with increased heart disease risk after age 47. After age 47, in fact, those whose cholesterol went down had the highest risk of a heart attack. "For each 1 mg/dl drop of cholesterol there was an 11 percent increase in coronary and total mortality," reported the study's authors.

Harvard University researcher Walter Willett acknowledged to science writer Gary Taubes in a recent New York Times Magazine cover story, "What If Fat Doesn't Make You Fat," that though our cholesterol levels have been falling, the incidence of heart disease has not. "That is very disconcerting. It suggests that something else bad is happening," Mr. Willett commented.

Yes, well, whatever "bad" is happening, there certainly is no cause to believe that it's trans fats. Mr. Willett's acknowledgment that the cholesterol-heart disease link is more myth than fact is particularly noteworthy since he is largely responsible for railroading trans fats.

Mr. Willett co-authored every study that claims to link trans-fat consumption with heart-disease risk. Despite his claims, these studies invariably report no or weak statistical associations between trans-fat consumption and heart-disease incidence, and do not rule out other risk factors.

Conveniently, Mr. Willett also co-authors review articles of the trans-fat studies -- including his own -- in which he reiterates his dubious conclusions. Is it too much to ask for some independent researcher -- that is, someone independent from Mr. Willett -- to replicate his claims before the FDA, the Institute of Medicine, and McDonald's lynch trans fats?

My favorite Willett study that fails to link trans fats with heart disease -- one involving 90,000 nurses followed for 20 years -- also fails to link total fat intake, saturated-fat intake, animal-fat intake and cholesterol intake with heart disease.

This is no surprise.

As Mr. Taubes pointed out in his article, the simplistic notion that dietary fat is bad was a political and business judgment, not a scientific one. Despite ambiguous science, in 1977 a Senate committee led by Sen. George McGovern issued a report advising Americans to consume less fat to avoid "killer diseases," then supposedly sweeping the country. The politically dutiful National Institutes of Health soon joined the antifat bandwagon, a move that spawned the low-fat food industry -- a boon to consumer choice but not necessarily one with a beneficial health impact.

McDonald's may be able to pull off the great cooking oil switch without a noticeable flavor difference, and consumers may think they're eating healthier. But there's no evidence they, in fact, will be. In any event, food cooked in the new oil will have the same calories as foods cooked in the old oil. Meet the new oil, the same as the old oil.

McDonald's wants to be a leader in the newthink of "corporate social responsibility." That's fine, but imposing junk science on consumers is not a good start.

Mr. Milloy, a scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of JunkScience.com, is the author of "Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams" (Cato Institute, 2001).link (http://www.junkscience.com/sep02/wsj-milloy.htm)

Anyone else think this has the same "feel" as a global warming debate? :beam:

[Adrian II]

Anyone else think this has the same "feel" as a global warming debate? :beam::yes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Adrian: You keep skipping over the helth-exercise issue. People don't exercise more becuase they have higher cholesterol. They have a higher intake to support their lifestyle.

I'd take chocolate anf jelly mountain walking, not lettice.

[Tribesman]

That is not a study, it is a link to the American Heart Association. And the AHA does not engage in research.
That isn't true Adrian , they have some cookbooks for sale , so they must have researched the recipies , unless of course they expect people to eat the rubbish no matter what it tastes like .
Anyway , what is this about not providing links , you had better stop that , its my job .



What I perceive as a backward study will be countered with what you will perceive as a backwards study.Here you go. Linky.

Now that is hilarious , Crossloper you provide a link that links to the study you just called backwards .

[Adrian II]

Adrian: You keep skipping over the helth-exercise issue. People don't exercise more becuase they have higher cholesterol. They have a higher intake to support their lifestyle.Not necessarily, I think. When you exercise, you burn carbohydrates and fats, not cholesterols. The latter serve mainly as building blocks for cell membranes. And cholesterol levels in the blood are regulated by a homeostatic mechanism: a higher intake from food leads to lower endogenous production and vice versa.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well everyone knows you need fat in your diet and that going low fat won't get you to lose weight.

But I don't understand why, when disputing the claim that high LDL levels are bad for your heart, people keep quoting the Framingham study saying "high cholesterol levels are not associated with heart disease". It's not the same thing. Junk science yourself.

[Xiahou]

But I don't understand why, when disputing the claim that high LDL levels are bad for your heart, people keep quoting the Framingham study saying "high cholesterol levels are not associated with heart disease". It's not the same thing. Junk science yourself.
Well surely there are studies to support that then.... right?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well surely there are studies to support that then.... right?

I quoted the Framingham study earlier saying that. I haven't read the study myself so it's a quote of a quote.

[Adrian II]

But I don't understand why, when disputing the claim that high LDL levels are bad for your heart, people keep quoting the Framingham study saying "high cholesterol levels are not associated with heart disease".Simple. It is because LDL and HDL are not like Castor and Pollux. If LDL goes up, HDL has to go up as well in order to preserve the homeostatic balance. The result is a rise in total blood cholesterol. If high total cholesterol is no indicator of heart diseas risk, then LDL level isn't either.

Maybe you should worry more about your homocysteine level. That seems to be a serious indicator of coronary trouble. There is no medicine against it available, so there is no commercial reason to promote the issue. But you might consider stacking up on avocado's, grapefruits or spinach that lower your homocysteine level.
:yes:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Simple. It is because LDL and HDL are not like Castor and Pollux. If LDL goes up, HDL has to go up as well in order to preserve the homeostatic balance. The result is a rise in total blood cholesterol. If high total cholesterol is no indicator of heart diseas risk, then LDL level isn't either.

Maybe you should worry more about your homocysteine level. That seems to be a serious indicator of coronary trouble. There is no medicine against it available, so there is no commercial reason to promote the issue. But you might consider stacking up on avocado's, grapefruits or spinach that lower your homocysteine level.
:yes:

Isn't that a bit like saying alcohol isn't unhealthy because your liver will return your body to homeostatic balance?

[Adrian II]

Isn't that a bit like saying alcohol isn't unhealthy because your liver will return your body to homeostatic balance?It isn't, unless the honourable Sasaki Kojiro has been drinking heavily. :bow:

[Kralizec]

Simple. It is because LDL and HDL are not like Castor and Pollux. If LDL goes up, HDL has to go up as well in order to preserve the homeostatic balance. The result is a rise in total blood cholesterol. If high total cholesterol is no indicator of heart diseas risk, then LDL level isn't either.

So you're saying that if you increase your HDL, the body automaticly raises LDL to bring back the old ratio of HDL vs LDL?

*also lights a fag*

[IRONxMortlock]

Here's a fun read on the subject from one of my favorite websites:


HA! I knew it! I just knew you'd been getting info from that website!:laugh4: It all make sense now.

"Junk" is certainly the best word for the half-arsed, nitpicking, quasi-science that is generally presented on those pages.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

So It means that Adrian, the point you brought up on the last page, that, if I eat alot of Junk Food, I live longer since I have alot of fat in my diet??:laugh4:

[Adrian II]

So It means that Adrian, the point you brought up on the last page, that, if I eat alot of Junk Food, I live longer since I have alot of fat in my diet??:laugh4:Only 3% of your serum cholesterol comes from dietary intake. That makes the effect of any sort of diet extremely marginal, so as far as cholesterol is concerned you can go ahead and stuff yourself on anything you fancy.

It is funny how easily people are convinced that they are what they eat.

For instance, there is only a marginal association between blood pressure and salt of coffee intake. Low salt diets and decaf are uselees as a therapy. Only if you take spoonfulls of salt or buckets full of coffee at a time it may cause a significant raise in your blood pressure. It would certainly raise a suspicion of premature dementia, that is for sure.