• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Great Cholesterol Lie?

Not found a confounding link without any evidence!

casebro said:
What if those ....
Click to expand...
Actually what if one person has a personal anecdote and thinks that is science, casebro :p
It is up to the person with an assertion to provide evidence for that assertion - not to suggest that other people go looking for that evidence.
 
Your opinion is as important as mine.

'Lurks' outnumber 'posts' about 30:1. Your one post to 4,000 visits. Maybe those other 3,999 know how to wiki and google. But there is no need for you to participate if you don't want to. Don't waste your time looking up anything that might teach you something. But you could try <choline NIH study>
 
casebro said:
...irrelevant text snipped...
Click to expand...
Which leaves nothing, except maybe a bit ignorance about how the real world, especially a skeptics forum works, casebro :p
Reality Check said:
Actually what if one person has a personal anecdote and thinks that is science, casebro :p
It is up to the person with an assertion to provide evidence for that assertion - not to suggest that other people go looking for that evidence.
Click to expand...
 
So put me on ignore. Or put out the effort to learn something.

You haven't certainly haven't taught as anything in thread about cholesterol myths. But you do feel that you have to say something anyhow.

And I suspect others took my anecdote and ran with it, and ARE learning.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
Your opinion is as important as mine.
Click to expand...
...except that you're touting your opinions/alleged facts as facts and not backing them up. Also not doing research very well, it seems, as I did a little digging and when I found that your "90% of people are low" bit was BS, I stopped reading and having any interest in this. That it has little if anything to do w/the actual thread topic didn't exactly help your cause either, frankly.
 
The Shrike said:
Saw this story featured prominently on a Facebook friend's wall. A heart surgeon claims that it's not cholesterol from fatty diets that leads to heart disease, it's inflammation of arteries from a lifetime of low-fat, processed foods. In other words, medical science has been wrong on this issue for decades. Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Inflammation has been implicated for at least 15 years -- it leads to more buildup and more tearing and rupturing as buildup breaks free, leading to even greater buildup as the body works to heal things.

One of the supposedly contributing factors to the inflammation was excess bacteria in the mouth or gum disease.

I've also wondered if excess vitamins might cause problems. Excess carbs add a great deal of the calories of the modern diet (chips, doritos, macaroni and cheese, buns and bread with everything) and almost universally these are all heavily fortified, such that many times the daily recommended average happen. Some vitamins are known to flush the skin -- what effect might these or others have on other inflammation in the body?
 
I don't know, Reality Check.

Good point, Reality Check.

ttyl, Reality Check.
 
big-E said:
Something occurs to me - why do we even believe that there *is* a 'perfect' diet that the human body has evolved for? There's only very weak selection pressures for keeping any organism alive well past its reproductive phase - at some stage the benefits of being around to help look after the grandkids will drop off as one becomes a net burden to the local genetically-related group. I don't think it's wrong to just admit that after a while one's system will wear out and break down no matter what we put into it as fuel - and enjoying what one eats while one is alive is, to me, worth more than fruitlessly chasing some 'optimum' but unappealing diet and taking daily pills to modify blood chemistry in the hope that the numbers that are changing are the right ones, in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen this before, but: precisely!

Evolutionary speaking, any diet that will see you reach around 50 years of age is a diet humans are well adapted for. In that aspect even the much dreaded SAD performs satisfactory (and possibly a lot better than many fads).

This doesn't mean you shouldn't watch your diet, but any argument that calls for a specific diet because of evolution is fallacious.

McHrozni
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom