Is oily fish really healthy?

[pearl]

UK News
Is oily fish really healthy?
Friday, 24th March 2006, 07:52
Category: Healthy Living

LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Eating oily fish
may not be as good for you as doctors thought,
according to new research.

A study does not find evidence of a clear health
benefit of the omega 3 fats found in fish such as
mackerel and salmon.

The findings published online by the British
Medical Journal do not rule out an important
effect of the fatty acids, but suggest that the
evidence should be reviewed regularly, say
the researchers.

Consumption of long chain omega 3 fatty acids,
found in oily fish and fish oils, and a shorter
chain omega 3 found in oily fish and fish oils,
and another type of omega 3 found in some
plant oils, is believed to protect against heart
disease.

UK guidelines encourage the general public
to eat more oily fish, and higher amounts are
advised after a heart attack.

Researchers analysed 89 studies to assess
the health effects of the omega 3 fats on total
death rates, heart disease, cancer, and strokes.

Each study involved a treatment group and
a control group and investigated the effect of
omega 3 intake on health for at least six months.

Pooling the results showed no strong evidence
that omega 3 fats have an effect on total
mortality or combined cardiovascular events.

Other recent reviews of omega 3 trials found
the fats decrease mortality, but the publication
of a large contradictory trial has changed the
overall picture.

The authors cannot say exactly why the
results of this trial differ from the other large
studies in this field.

They therefore conclude that it is not clear
whether omega 3 fats reduce or increase total
mortality, heart disease, cancer, or strokes.

UK guidelines advising people to eat more
oily fish should continue at present but the
evidence should be reviewed regularly, say
the authors.

Added dietitian Dr Lee Hooper, of the
University of East Anglia: "But it is probably
not appropriate to recommend a high intake
of omega 3 fats for people who have angina
but have not had a heart attack.

"To understand the effects of omega 3 fats
on health, we need more high quality
randomised controlled trials of long duration
that also report the associated harms."

In an accompanying editorial epidemiologist
Eric Brunner, of the Royal Free and University
College London Medical School, London,
warned: "We are faced with a paradox. Health
recommendations advise increased consumption
of oily fish and fish oils.

"However, industrial fishing has depleted the
world's fish stocks by some 90% since 1950,
and rising fish prices reduce affordability
particularly for people with low incomes.

"Global production trends suggest that,
although fish farming is expanding rapidly,
we probably do not have a sustainable
supply of long chain omega 3 fats."

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=WU2423768O&news_headline=is_oily_fish_really_healthy

J Membr Biol. 2005 Jul;206(2):155-63.

Is fish oil good or bad for heart disease?
Two trials with apparently conflicting results.
Burr ML, Dunstan FD, George CH.

Department of Epidemiology, Statistics and
Public Health, Cardiff University, Wales, UK.

Two successive randomized trials examined
the effect of an increased intake of fatty fish,
or the use of fish oil supplements, in reducing
mortality in men with heart disease. The Diet
and Reinfarction Trial (DART) was conducted
in 2033 men who were recovering from acute
myocardial infarction (MI). Those who were
advised to eat fatty fish (or who opted to take
fish oil capsules instead) had a 29% reduction
in all-cause mortality over the following two
years compared with those not so advised.
The effect appeared in the first few months
of the trial. The Diet and Angina Randomized
Trial (DART 2) involved 3114 men with stable
angina. Advice to eat fatty fish did not reduce
mortality, and taking fish oil capsules was
associated with a higher risk of cardiac and
sudden death. The adverse effects of fish or
fish oil were restricted to men not taking
beta-blockers or dihydropyridine calcium-
channel blockers, and were greater in those
taking digoxin. Evidence from other sources
strongly suggests an anti-arrhythmic action of
fish oil, particularly after MI or in the presence
of acute ischemia. The apparently conflicting
results of the two trials may reflect different
actions of n-3 fatty acids in acute and chronic
conditions, together with different effects of
eating fish and taking fish oil capsules. A
mechanism is proposed that could account
for these findings.

PMID: 16456725 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16456725&dopt=Abstract

Clin. Cardiol. 22, (Suppl. III), III-11-III-15 (1999)
Nut Consumption, Lipids, and Risk of a Coronary Event
Gary E. Fraser, M.B. Ch.B., Ph.D.
Center for Health Research, School of Public Health,
Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, USA

Summary: In the past, many have avoided nuts
because of their high fat content. The Dietary
Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet,
however, recommends regular consumption of
this food along with seeds and dried beans
(4-5 servings per week) as part of a diet to
control hypertension. Nuts are nutrient-dense
and most of their fat is unsaturated. They are
also perhaps the best natural source of vitamin E
and are relatively concentrated repositories of
dietary fiber, magnesium, potassium, and arginine,
the dietary precursor of nitric oxide. Human
feeding studies have demonstrated reductions
of 8-12% in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)
cholesterol when almonds and walnuts are
substituted for more traditional fats. Other
studies show that macadamias and hazelnuts
appear at least as beneficial as fats in commonly
recommended diets. Whether consuming
modest quantities of nuts daily may promote
weight gain is not known with certainty, but
preliminary data suggest that this is unlikely.
Four of the best and largest cohort studies in
nutritional epidemiology have now reported
that eating nuts frequently is associated with a
decreased risk of coronary heart disease of
the order of 30-50%. The findings are very
consistent in subgroup analyses and unlikely
to be due to confounding. Possible
mechanisms include reduction in LDL
cholesterol, the antioxidant actions of
vitamin E, and the effects on the endothelium
and platelet function of higher levels of nitric
oxide. Although nuts may account for a
relatively small percentage of dietary calories,
the potential interacting effects of these
factors on disease risk may be considerable.
....'
http://www.clinicalcardiology.org/productcart/pc/supplements/CC22S3/CC22-3.fraser.html

[Roy. Just Roy.]

Isolating and analyzing any one nutrient is asking for a plethera of
confounding factors. Did both groups exercise the same amount? Were
they balanced for genetic history of heart disease? Or weight /
obesity?

I've seen quite a bit of research that implies that fat is only
one-half of the story - carbohydrate intake (since carbohydrates are
converted to, you guessed it, fat) can mute the benefits of omega-3's.

/Roy

[Alf Christophersen]

Post by Roy. Just Roy.
Isolating and analyzing any one nutrient is asking for a plethera of
confounding factors. Did both groups exercise the same amount? Were
they balanced for genetic history of heart disease? Or weight /
obesity?
I've seen quite a bit of research that implies that fat is only
one-half of the story - carbohydrate intake (since carbohydrates are
converted to, you guessed it, fat) can mute the benefits of omega-3's.

Reminds me about our trying to repeatedly train rats to eat the same
amount of food synchronously in order to study mechanisms for severe
adiposity.
We gave it up :-) Even in rats, impossible. And even more in humans.
And no humans report what they really eat correctly. They always hide
the chocolat bar for breakfast, lunch, dinner and before going to bed
for us. :-)

[Max C.]

Hey look everyone. Pearl is back with her vegan agenda.

Your article clearly states that it's reporting on a study of
studies, which has far less value than an actual study, and that its
findings differ from larger studies. So why is that? Could it be that
there was no accounting for how the fish were raised? Farm raised fish
foods are inferior to wild fish foods.

http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/fishy.html
In the wild, salmon forage the oceans feeding on colorful crustaceans,
plankton and algae, which naturally impart a beautiful shade of pink to
the flesh of their predators. But when salmon are farmed and unable to
forage, their flesh is an insipid, unappealing color-one few
consumers would choose. Hence, canthaxanthin or astaxanthin or both are
added to the feed of farmed salmon.

http://www.healthcastle.com/wildsalmon-farmraisedsalmon.shtml
* David Suzuki Foundation: In January 2001, BBC News produced a program
"Warnings from the Wild, The Price of Salmon". The program cited a
pilot study conducted by Dr Easton with David Suzuki Foundation. The
study found that farm raised salmon and the feed they were fed appeared
to have a much higher level of contamination with respect to PCBs,
organo-chlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers than did
wild salmon. It concluded that it seems that contamination in farm fish
comes from the feed.

* EWG Report: In July 2003, the Environmental Working Group EWG
released a report stating that farm raised salmon purchased in the
United States contain the highest level of PCBs in the food supply
system. In the report, EWG reported that farm raised salmon have 16
times PCBs found in wild salmon, 4 times the levels in beef, and 3.4
times the levels in other seafood. EWG recommends that consumers choose
wild salmon instead of farm raised salmon, and they should eat an 8 oz
serving of farm raised salmon no more than once a month.

* Science Journal: In January 2004, the journal Science warned that
farm raised salmon contain 10 times more toxins (PCBs, dioxin, etc.)
than wild salmon. The study recommends that farm raised salmon should
be eaten once a month, perhaps every two months as they pose cancer
risks to the human beings.

We've talked about your willingness to post skewed evidence of animal
foods in the past. You're quick to point out when someone posts
misinformation on plant foods, making sure we all understand when a
plant food has been processed or grown with chemicals, but you freely
post misinformation on processed animal foods or animal foods that have
not been properly raised as though it represented all animal foods.
You can continue to do so, but I will continue to point out your
deception.

Max.

[PeterB]

Post by Max C.
Hey look everyone. Pearl is back with her vegan agenda.
Your article clearly states that it's reporting on a study of
studies, which has far less value than an actual study, and that its
findings differ from larger studies. So why is that? Could it be that
there was no accounting for how the fish were raised? Farm raised fish
foods are inferior to wild fish foods.
http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/fishy.html
In the wild, salmon forage the oceans feeding on colorful crustaceans,
plankton and algae, which naturally impart a beautiful shade of pink to
the flesh of their predators. But when salmon are farmed and unable to
forage, their flesh is an insipid, unappealing color-one few
consumers would choose. Hence, canthaxanthin or astaxanthin or both are
added to the feed of farmed salmon.
http://www.healthcastle.com/wildsalmon-farmraisedsalmon.shtml
* David Suzuki Foundation: In January 2001, BBC News produced a program
"Warnings from the Wild, The Price of Salmon". The program cited a
pilot study conducted by Dr Easton with David Suzuki Foundation. The
study found that farm raised salmon and the feed they were fed appeared
to have a much higher level of contamination with respect to PCBs,
organo-chlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers than did
wild salmon. It concluded that it seems that contamination in farm fish
comes from the feed.
* EWG Report: In July 2003, the Environmental Working Group EWG
released a report stating that farm raised salmon purchased in the
United States contain the highest level of PCBs in the food supply
system. In the report, EWG reported that farm raised salmon have 16
times PCBs found in wild salmon, 4 times the levels in beef, and 3.4
times the levels in other seafood. EWG recommends that consumers choose
wild salmon instead of farm raised salmon, and they should eat an 8 oz
serving of farm raised salmon no more than once a month.
* Science Journal: In January 2004, the journal Science warned that
farm raised salmon contain 10 times more toxins (PCBs, dioxin, etc.)
than wild salmon. The study recommends that farm raised salmon should
be eaten once a month, perhaps every two months as they pose cancer
risks to the human beings.
We've talked about your willingness to post skewed evidence of animal
foods in the past. You're quick to point out when someone posts
misinformation on plant foods, making sure we all understand when a
plant food has been processed or grown with chemicals, but you freely
post misinformation on processed animal foods or animal foods that have
not been properly raised as though it represented all animal foods.
You can continue to do so, but I will continue to point out your
deception.
Max.

Excellent points and commentary. Same for Roy. If this is
representative of your knowledge, I hope you both spend more time
combatting disinformation on mha in the future.

PeterB

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by PeterB

Post by Max C.
Hey look everyone. Pearl is back with her vegan agenda.
Your article clearly states that it's reporting on a study of
studies, which has far less value than an actual study, and that its
findings differ from larger studies. So why is that? Could it be that
there was no accounting for how the fish were raised? Farm raised fish
foods are inferior to wild fish foods.
http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/fishy.html
In the wild, salmon forage the oceans feeding on colorful crustaceans,
plankton and algae, which naturally impart a beautiful shade of pink to
the flesh of their predators. But when salmon are farmed and unable to
forage, their flesh is an insipid, unappealing color-one few
consumers would choose. Hence, canthaxanthin or astaxanthin or both are
added to the feed of farmed salmon.
http://www.healthcastle.com/wildsalmon-farmraisedsalmon.shtml
* David Suzuki Foundation: In January 2001, BBC News produced a program
"Warnings from the Wild, The Price of Salmon". The program cited a
pilot study conducted by Dr Easton with David Suzuki Foundation. The
study found that farm raised salmon and the feed they were fed appeared
to have a much higher level of contamination with respect to PCBs,
organo-chlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers than did
wild salmon. It concluded that it seems that contamination in farm fish
comes from the feed.
* EWG Report: In July 2003, the Environmental Working Group EWG
released a report stating that farm raised salmon purchased in the
United States contain the highest level of PCBs in the food supply
system. In the report, EWG reported that farm raised salmon have 16
times PCBs found in wild salmon, 4 times the levels in beef, and 3.4
times the levels in other seafood. EWG recommends that consumers choose
wild salmon instead of farm raised salmon, and they should eat an 8 oz
serving of farm raised salmon no more than once a month.
* Science Journal: In January 2004, the journal Science warned that
farm raised salmon contain 10 times more toxins (PCBs, dioxin, etc.)
than wild salmon. The study recommends that farm raised salmon should
be eaten once a month, perhaps every two months as they pose cancer
risks to the human beings.
We've talked about your willingness to post skewed evidence of animal
foods in the past. You're quick to point out when someone posts
misinformation on plant foods, making sure we all understand when a
plant food has been processed or grown with chemicals, but you freely
post misinformation on processed animal foods or animal foods that have
not been properly raised as though it represented all animal foods.
You can continue to do so, but I will continue to point out your
deception.
Max.

Excellent points and commentary. Same for Roy. If this is
representative of your knowledge, I hope you both spend more time
combatting disinformation on mha in the future.
PeterB

It's recommended to break one open in your mouth every few weeks to check
for rancidity.

[Max C.]

Post by PeterB
Excellent points and commentary. Same for Roy. If this is
representative of your knowledge, I hope you both spend more time
combatting disinformation on mha in the future.

Thanks for your kind words, Peter. I actually didn't realize I had
posted to mha, though I should have guessed pearl would cross post her
vegan BS to as many groups as possible. I see now that she cross
posted this junk to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, sci.med.nutrition,
misc.health.alternative, uk.politics.animals and talk.environment.
That alone should clue you in to her mission.

I use Google Groups to post to usenet, so when I click the reply link,
it doesn't give me an option to add or remove groups from the post by
default.

Max.

[PeterB]

Post by Max C.

Post by PeterB
Excellent points and commentary. Same for Roy. If this is
representative of your knowledge, I hope you both spend more time
combatting disinformation on mha in the future.

Thanks for your kind words, Peter. I actually didn't realize I had
posted to mha, though I should have guessed pearl would cross post her
vegan BS to as many groups as possible. I see now that she cross
posted this junk to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, sci.med.nutrition,
misc.health.alternative, uk.politics.animals and talk.environment.
That alone should clue you in to her mission.
I use Google Groups to post to usenet, so when I click the reply link,
it doesn't give me an option to add or remove groups from the post by
default.
Max.

Well, hopefully you won't be a stranger to mha. Take care.

PeterB

[pearl]

Post by Max C.
Hey look everyone. Pearl is back with her vegan agenda.

What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...

Benefits of Omega-3s Seem Fishy
CBS News - 49 minutes ago
(WebMD) The benefits of omega-3s in fighting heart disease
may be only so-so, according to a new review of research on
the fatty acids found in fish and some ...

Oily Fish Consumption May Not Reduce Health Risks, Study Shows
Bloomberg - 2 hours ago
March 24 (Bloomberg) -- The consumption of oily fish,
recommended for their fatty acids, may not provide the
expected health benefits, researchers said in a ...

Fish Oil Theory Flounders
Sky News, United Kingdom - 2 hours ago
Researchers studied the effects of omega 3 fats on death rates,
heart disease and cancer and found there is no evidence of a
"clear benefit" of omega 3 fats on ...

Fish Not a Proven Heart Protector: Study
Forbes - 3 hours ago
FRIDAY, March 24 (HealthDay News) -- The belief that the
omega 3 fats found in oily fish can help prevent heart disease
is far from proven, a new British study ...

Doubts cast on health benefits of oily fish
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia - 3 hours ago
Claims oily fish is good for people's health are not backed by
strong evidence, experts say. Researchers studied the effects of ...

Wonder ingredient not the good oil once touted
Australian, Australia - 3 hours ago
THE supposed wonder ingredient fish oil, the much-touted
omega 3 fats, may not be so wondrous after all. Despite
long-standing recommendations ...

Omega-3 fats
BBC News, UK - 6 hours ago
Experts have cast doubt on whether omega-3 fats can reduce
the risk of heart disease or cancer. Omega-3 fats are a type
of polyunsaturated ...

'No strong evidence for oily fish benefits'
Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom - 7 hours ago
Claims that oily fish is good for people's health are not
backed by strong evidence, a new study has found.
Researchers studied ...

Fish oil may not be so healthy after all
Daily Mail - UK, UK - 8 hours ago
Eating oily fish may not be as good for our health as once
believed, experts have claimed. Researchers studying death
rates, heart ...

Fish research not backed by strong evidence
RTE.ie, Ireland - 10 hours ago
New research in Britain suggests that claims that eating oily
fish can reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer are not
backed by strong evidence. ...

Oily fish 'no clear benefits'
This is London, UK - 10 hours ago
Claims that oily fish is good for people's health are not
backed by strong evidence, experts have said. Researchers
studied the ...

Doubts cast on fish oil benefits
BBC News, UK - 16 hours ago
There is no evidence of a clear benefit to health from
omega-3 fats which are found in fish oils, researchers
say. Consumption of ...

No evidence oily fish have health benefits, study finds
Independent, UK - 17 hours ago
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor. For at least 20 years
doctors have been urging their patients to eat more oily
fish to benefit the heart. ...

Benefits of fish oils questioned
Scotsman, United Kingdom - 17 hours ago
CLAIMS that oily fish is good for people's health are
not backed by strong evidence, experts said yesterday.
Researchers studied ...

http://tinyurl.com/mhmng

Post by Max C.
Your article clearly states that it's reporting on a study of
studies, which has far less value than an actual study, and that its
findings differ from larger studies.

You're confused. The news article I posted states:

"Other recent reviews of omega 3 trials found the fats
decrease mortality, but the publication of a large
contradictory trial has changed the overall picture."

Didn't you read far enough to notice that I actually found
and posted the abstract to the large contradictory trial(s)?

Post by Max C.
So why is that? Could it be that
there was no accounting for how the fish were raised? Farm raised fish
foods are inferior to wild fish foods.

It is probable that both farm-raised and wild fish were consumed.

Post by Max C.
http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/fishy.html
In the wild, salmon forage the oceans feeding on colorful crustaceans,
plankton and algae, which naturally impart a beautiful shade of pink to
the flesh of their predators. But when salmon are farmed and unable to
forage, their flesh is an insipid, unappealing color-one few
consumers would choose. Hence, canthaxanthin or astaxanthin or both are
added to the feed of farmed salmon.
http://www.healthcastle.com/wildsalmon-farmraisedsalmon.shtml
* David Suzuki Foundation: In January 2001, BBC News produced a program
"Warnings from the Wild, The Price of Salmon". The program cited a
pilot study conducted by Dr Easton with David Suzuki Foundation. The
study found that farm raised salmon and the feed they were fed appeared
to have a much higher level of contamination with respect to PCBs,
organo-chlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers than did
wild salmon. It concluded that it seems that contamination in farm fish
comes from the feed.
* EWG Report: In July 2003, the Environmental Working Group EWG
released a report stating that farm raised salmon purchased in the
United States contain the highest level of PCBs in the food supply
system. In the report, EWG reported that farm raised salmon have 16
times PCBs found in wild salmon, 4 times the levels in beef, and 3.4
times the levels in other seafood. EWG recommends that consumers choose
wild salmon instead of farm raised salmon, and they should eat an 8 oz
serving of farm raised salmon no more than once a month.
* Science Journal: In January 2004, the journal Science warned that
farm raised salmon contain 10 times more toxins (PCBs, dioxin, etc.)
than wild salmon. The study recommends that farm raised salmon should
be eaten once a month, perhaps every two months as they pose cancer
risks to the human beings.

Thank you for pointing out the dangers associated with farm-raised fish.

Of course you realise that these toxic pollutants are also in wild fish.

Be sensible.

'Four of the best and largest cohort studies in nutritional epidemiology
have now reported that eating nuts frequently is associated with a
decreased risk of coronary heart disease of the order of 30-50%. The
findings are very consistent in subgroup analyses and unlikely to be
due to confounding. Possible mechanisms include reduction in LDL
cholesterol, the antioxidant actions of vitamin E, and the effects on the
endothelium and platelet function of higher levels of nitric oxide.
Although nuts may account for a relatively small percentage of dietary
calories, the potential interacting effects of these factors on disease
risk may be considerable.
....'
http://www.clinicalcardiology.org/productcart/pc/supplements/CC22S3/CC22-3.fraser.html

Post by Max C.
We've talked about your willingness to post skewed evidence of animal
foods in the past. You're quick to point out when someone posts
misinformation on plant foods, making sure we all understand when a
plant food has been processed or grown with chemicals, but you freely
post misinformation on processed animal foods or animal foods that have
not been properly raised as though it represented all animal foods.
You can continue to do so, but I will continue to point out your
deception.
Max.

Do you not understand why I referenced the China Study? Do you
think that those animals raised in pre-1983/1990 rural Chinese and
Taiwanese villages were raised intensively? And you went to great
extremes to try to discredit that study.. . You owe me an apology.

[Max C.]

Post by pearl
What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You mean the one where I completely discredited you, as evidenced by
the numerous emails I received and by the pathetic name-calling you
resorted to when your position was completely debunked? Not really
anything to be sore about, as anyone can see here:

http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

Post by pearl
I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...

Nope. They're just a bunch of reporters that don't have the
intelligence to think for themselves or ask the tough questions. And
aren't they ALL just reporting on the same study you posted at the
beginning of this thread? (I've always loved how you think posting
in quantity somehow proves your point.) That just goes to show that
investigative reporting is dead. No one is willing to question the
scientists. That doesn't make the story true. It makes it
ill-informed.

I didn't see a single items in any of your BS there that asked about
the diets of the animals in question. If you like I can go back and
reference actual data from the China Study that shows cholesterol in
the diet is beneficial. It's right there in the link I just provided.

Max.

[Leif Erikson]

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You mean the one where I completely discredited you, as evidenced by
the numerous emails I received and by the pathetic name-calling you
resorted to when your position was completely debunked? Not really
http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

You kicked her skinny pimply ass, big-time. Good job!

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...

Nope. They're just a bunch of reporters that don't have the
intelligence to think for themselves or ask the tough questions.

There really is only *one* source there: her vaunted study of studies.
All those links were just standard news reports based on a press
release. They're all about the same thing. In fact, you catch that

Post by Max C.
And aren't they ALL just reporting on the same study you posted at the
beginning of this thread? (I've always loved how you think posting
in quantity somehow proves your point.)

Yep! The standard lesley flood of shit: "If you can't dazzle 'em with
brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit." Lesley has done that for years.

Post by Max C.
That just goes to show that
investigative reporting is dead. No one is willing to question the
scientists. That doesn't make the story true. It makes it
ill-informed.
I didn't see a single items in any of your BS there that asked about
the diets of the animals in question. If you like I can go back and
reference actual data from the China Study that shows cholesterol in
the diet is beneficial. It's right there in the link I just provided.
Max.

[Jan Drew]

Post by Leif Erikson

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You mean the one where I completely discredited you, as evidenced by
the numerous emails I received and by the pathetic name-calling you
resorted to when your position was completely debunked?

Puhleeeasseeee, let's not go into the receiving of emails. That's an old
trick used by many, often not true.


Not really

Post by Leif Erikson

Post by Max C.
http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

You kicked her skinny pimply ass, big-time. Good job!

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...

Nope. They're just a bunch of reporters that don't have the
intelligence to think for themselves or ask the tough questions.

There really is only *one* source there: her vaunted study of studies.
All those links were just standard news reports based on a press
release. They're all about the same thing. In fact, you catch that

Post by Max C.
And aren't they ALL just reporting on the same study you posted at the
beginning of this thread? (I've always loved how you think posting
in quantity somehow proves your point.)

Yep! The standard lesley flood of shit: "If you can't dazzle 'em with
brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit." Lesley has done that for years.

Post by Max C.
That just goes to show that
investigative reporting is dead. No one is willing to question the
scientists. That doesn't make the story true. It makes it
ill-informed.
I didn't see a single items in any of your BS there that asked about
the diets of the animals in question. If you like I can go back and
reference actual data from the China Study that shows cholesterol in
the diet is beneficial. It's right there in the link I just provided.
Max.

[vernon]

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You mean the one where I completely discredited you, as evidenced by
the numerous emails I received and by the pathetic name-calling you
resorted to when your position was completely debunked? Not really
http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

Post by pearl
I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...

Nope. They're just a bunch of reporters that don't have the
intelligence to think for themselves or ask the tough questions. And
aren't they ALL just reporting on the same study you posted at the
beginning of this thread? (I've always loved how you think posting
in quantity somehow proves your point.) That just goes to show that
investigative reporting is dead. No one is willing to question the
scientists. That doesn't make the story true. It makes it
ill-informed.
I didn't see a single items in any of your BS there that asked about
the diets of the animals in question. If you like I can go back and
reference actual data from the China Study that shows cholesterol in
the diet is beneficial. It's right there in the link I just provided.
Max.

Oh come now, cholesterol beneficial?

Cholesterol feeds the brain. For those who have none (brain) it's a
problem.

[Matti Narkia]

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:41:57 -0700 in article

Post by vernon
Cholesterol feeds the brain. For those who have none (brain) it's a
problem.

Cholesterol intake and serum cholesterol are irrelavant for brain's
cholseterol requirements, because cholesterol cannot get across
blood-brain barrier, brain makes its own cholesterola. Moreover, high
dietary or serum cholesterol seems to down-regulate brain's cholesterol
synthesis. References:

Vance JE, Hayashi H, Karten B.
Cholesterol homeostasis in neurons and glial cells.
Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2005 Apr;16(2):193-212. Review.
PMID: 15797830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15797830>

Bjorkhem I, Meaney S.
Brain cholesterol: long secret life behind a barrier.
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2004 May;24(5):806-15. Epub 2004 Feb 5.
Review.
PMID: 14764421 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/5/806>

Edmond J, Korsak RA, Morrow JW, Torok-Both G, Catlin DH.
Dietary cholesterol and the origin of cholesterol in the brain of
developing rats.
J Nutr. 1991 Sep;121(9):1323-30.
PMID: 1880610 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1880610>

Sparks DL, Connor DJ, Browne PJ, Lopez JE, Sabbagh MN.
HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) in the treatment of Alzheimer's
disease and why it would be ill-advise to use one that crosses the
blood-brain barrier.
J Nutr Health Aging. 2002;6(5):324-31.
PMID: 12474023 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12474023>

Lutjohann D, Stroick M, Bertsch T, Kuhl S, Lindenthal B, Thelen K,
Andersson U, Bjorkhem I, Bergmann Kv K, Fassbender K.
High doses of simvastatin, pravastatin, and cholesterol reduce brain
cholesterol synthesis in guinea pigs.
Steroids. 2004 Jun;69(6):431-8.
PMID: 15219793 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15219793>

[vernon]

Post by Matti Narkia
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:41:57 -0700 in article

Post by vernon
Cholesterol feeds the brain. For those who have none (brain) it's a
problem.

Summation of Matti Post.

Cholesterol is made by the body.

Ignored by Matti, no evidence that cholesterol intake changes anything
except make people fat.

Ignored by MATTI, ALL cholesterol in the body is made by the body. The body
decides how much to make dependant on everything BUT fat or cholesterol
independent, except for hydrogenated fats and ONLY hydrogenated (partial or
full) fats.

[Matti Narkia]

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:18:42 -0700 in article

Post by vernon
Summation of Matti Post.
Cholesterol is made by the body.

Most of it, but some of it is obtained from the diet, except in vegans.
Circulating cholesterol, which is produced in the liver and obtained from
the diet (except in vegans), does not get into the brain, which produces
its own cholesterol

Post by vernon
Ignored by Matti, no evidence that cholesterol intake changes anything
except make people fat.

Not true, you are ignoring the evidence, but evidence does not disappear
just because you ignore it.

Post by vernon
Ignored by MATTI, ALL cholesterol in the body is made by the body.

Only in vegans.

Post by vernon
The body
decides how much to make dependant on everything BUT fat or cholesterol
independent, except for hydrogenated fats and ONLY hydrogenated (partial or
full) fats.

Huh? Is that a coherent sentence?

[Alf Christophersen]

Post by Matti Narkia
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:41:57 -0700 in article

Post by vernon
Cholesterol feeds the brain. For those who have none (brain) it's a
problem.

Cholesterol intake and serum cholesterol are irrelavant for brain's
cholseterol requirements, because cholesterol cannot get across
blood-brain barrier, brain makes its own cholesterola. Moreover, high
dietary or serum cholesterol seems to down-regulate brain's cholesterol

Possibly are some of the feedback signal molecules also transported
over the brain barriere giving downtuning signals even in brain.
Perhaps not a good idea.

Just a wild guess based on knowledge about regulation theory and
enzyme kinetics back in biochemistry study (I worked with enzyme
kinetics and even tried to do simulations of regulated systems, but
computers was not good enough at that time, and the computer that
could have solved it was far to expensive to use for my thesis. So I
gave up that part of my thesis, together with a nearly finished
protein sequence program which would otherwise have been the very
first published in that area of biochemistry to my knowledge, but they
changed the computer a few week before and Simula 67 was not among the
compilers supported anymore on that new DEC VAX computer (in 1983)
:-(
But then DNA sequencing took over, anyway)

[vernon]

Post by Alf Christophersen

Post by Matti Narkia
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:41:57 -0700 in article

Post by vernon
Cholesterol feeds the brain. For those who have none (brain) it's a
problem.

Cholesterol intake and serum cholesterol are irrelavant for brain's
cholseterol requirements, because cholesterol cannot get across
blood-brain barrier, brain makes its own cholesterola. Moreover, high
dietary or serum cholesterol seems to down-regulate brain's cholesterol

Possibly are some of the feedback signal molecules also transported
over the brain barriere giving downtuning signals even in brain.
Perhaps not a good idea.
Just a wild guess based on knowledge about regulation theory and
enzyme kinetics back in biochemistry study (I worked with enzyme
kinetics and even tried to do simulations of regulated systems, but
computers was not good enough at that time, and the computer that
could have solved it was far to expensive to use for my thesis. So I
gave up that part of my thesis, together with a nearly finished
protein sequence program which would otherwise have been the very
first published in that area of biochemistry to my knowledge, but they
changed the computer a few week before and Simula 67 was not among the
compilers supported anymore on that new DEC VAX computer (in 1983)
:-(
But then DNA sequencing took over, anyway)

A VAX, whewy, practically king of the hill.

[Alf Christophersen]

Post by vernon
A VAX, whewy, practically king of the hill.

The old one which I used for much of my thesis work was a DEC 10 :-)
With Simula 67 compiler

[Matti Narkia]

Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:05:48 +0100 in article

Post by Alf Christophersen

Post by vernon
A VAX, whewy, practically king of the hill.

The old one which I used for much of my thesis work was a DEC 10 :-)
With Simula 67 compiler

Great computers :-). I managed a VAX system for 5 years in 80s and worked
with DEC Alpha/OpenVMS systems for more than a decade after that ;-). Not
to mention the DEC PDP11/RSX11 systems I worked with in 70s :-).

But then Ken Olsen, the founder and CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation,
said in 1977, "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in
his home." And the rest is history.

[Alf Christophersen]

Post by Matti Narkia
But then Ken Olsen, the founder and CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation,
said in 1977, "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in
his home." And the rest is history.

Yes, I know I know :-)

[vernon]

Post by Alf Christophersen

Post by vernon
A VAX, whewy, practically king of the hill.

The old one which I used for much of my thesis work was a DEC 10 :-)
With Simula 67 compiler

Not even an 11?

Nothing like PPT .

Maybe it's sort of like a night janitor said as I was developing digital mag
tape system. "They went one step too far when they took the crank off the
calculator."

[Neryl Chypho]

Post by vernon

Post by Alf Christophersen

Post by vernon
A VAX, whewy, practically king of the hill.

The old one which I used for much of my thesis work was a DEC 10 :-)
With Simula 67 compiler

Not even an 11?
Nothing like PPT .
Maybe it's sort of like a night janitor said as I was developing digital mag
tape system. "They went one step too far when they took the crank off the
calculator."

I remember when the ICL 1904A tripled its DISK memory up to 96KB!

In those days we could identify authorship of programs by listening to the
programs running. The console had a speaker.

Compilers were cunningly efficient (and tiny) in those days, and tapes were
many...

N.

[Peter Bowditch]

Post by vernon

Post by Alf Christophersen

Post by vernon
A VAX, whewy, practically king of the hill.

The old one which I used for much of my thesis work was a DEC 10 :-)
With Simula 67 compiler

Not even an 11?
Nothing like PPT .
Maybe it's sort of like a night janitor said as I was developing digital mag
tape system. "They went one step too far when they took the crank off the
calculator."

Computers were using digital magnetic tapes in the early 1960s. When
did you work on "developing" them, vern?

[pearl]

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You mean the one where I completely discredited you, as evidenced by
the numerous emails I received

lol! I hate to break this to you, but.. your 'mates' pitied you!

Post by Max C.
and by the pathetic name-calling you resorted to

I said that you were foolishly arrogant to assume that
you knew better than the researchers, and that's true.

Post by Max C.
when your position was completely debunked?

Not mine.

Post by Max C.
Not really
http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

Very clever... posting a long whine to a group I'm not subscribed to.
I suppose it makes it easier when your opponent isn't likely to reply.
You were dragged over the coals every which way on everything.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...

Nope. They're just a bunch of reporters that don't have the
intelligence to think for themselves or ask the tough questions. And
aren't they ALL just reporting on the same study you posted at the
beginning of this thread? (I've always loved how you think posting
in quantity somehow proves your point.) That just goes to show that
investigative reporting is dead. No one is willing to question the
scientists. That doesn't make the story true. It makes it
ill-informed.

You haven't read all (any?) of those articles to be able to say that.
Nor have you read the study that is being referred to. So, - so
much for 'investigative reporting', max. And must I remind you
once again that I *did* produce an abstract the trial/s in question?

Post by Max C.
I didn't see a single items in any of your BS there that asked about
the diets of the animals in question. If you like I can go back and
reference actual data from the China Study that shows cholesterol in
the diet is beneficial. It's right there in the link I just provided.

Wow... you really are dense. Socioeconomic factors.. dumbass.
- there you go! .. and boy, are you deserving!!

Make that pre- 1973-75.

'The information obtained from this survey included nutritional,
metabolic, hormonal, environmental, reproductive, demographic
and socioeconomic characteristics. The combined data from the
two surveys of 65 counties (130 communes) consisted of 367
items of information including cumulative disease-specific county
mortality rates (from the 1973-1975 retrospective study) and a
comprehensive set of dietary, lifestyle and environmental
characteristics. The analysis assumes the stability of biochemical
indicators and dietary patterns in the population over time. The
negligible migration in this population (an average of 94% of the
survey subjects were born in their county of residence), food
production and consumption patterns based on stable locally
available crops, and the remarkably constant trend in the national
food intake data (Piazza, 1986) underscore the validity of such
an assumption.
..
China has developed a unique system of decentralized planning
which has recently incorporated private initiative in agriculture,
industry, and trade. From the early 1950s to the mid-1970s the
Chinese government had strict control over agricultural
production and trade. It gave priority to staple foods over
preferred foods (legumes, meats, fruits) in order to ensure an
adequate supply of essential grain for all provinces. Until
recently government policy favored direct consumption of
grain over consumption of animal products requiring feedgrains
(Jamison and Piazza, 1987). However, policy has changed
markedly in the last few years. With the consolidation of the
new 'production responsibility system' the government expects
a rapid growth in the livestock sector (World Bank, 1985).
Cattle production will be limited by the carrying capacity of
China's grasslands, which are already overgrazed. Poultry and
pig production are more dependent on the availability of feed
concentrates. Such production has been increasing for the last
ten years, and there is now a concern that it might be necessary
to monitor the consumption of high-animal-fat food to prevent
deleterious effects both economic and nutritional.
...' (1991)
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/campbell_china2.html

(responsibility system
A practice, first adopted in agriculture in 1981 and later
extended to other sectors of the economy, by which local
managers are held responsible for the profits and losses of
the enterprise. This system partially supplanted the
egalitarian distribution method, whereby the state assumed
all profits and losses.
http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/china/cn_glos.html )

From an interview with Dr. T. Colin Campbell:

'"At the time, the Chinese government had just released a study
showing that cancer tended to occur more in certain Chinese
counties and much less in others, resulting in great differences
in mortality rates. Intrigued by this, we decided to go to China
and measure various factors with respect to diet and lifestyle
experiences and then compare those measurements with the
disease rates that the Chinese government had already obtained
for the years of 1973 to 1975 to see what relationships between
the two, if any, existed. We selected 130 villages in rural China,
which tended to be a very stable population (people lived in the
same village all their lives) and tended to produce and use locally
grown foods. From an epidemiological point of view, it was
very nice.

LK: What were some of the major findings from the China Study?

CC: Essentially that animal-based foods were a problem. In the
China Study, we found that as soon as animal-based proteins
started to appear in the diet in certain Chinese counties, blood
cholesterol levels, which were very low by Western standards
(about 80mg per deciliter) started going up and that various
cancers and heart disease started to appear. The association
between the increase in animal-based foods and the increase in
those diseases was highly significant, so much so that it made
me get to a point where I started to question the way I was
raised and made me switch to consuming a purely plant-based
diet.
..'
http://www.psmerg.org/avenues/avenues10/chinastudy.html

Now... we *know* that the cattle were grass-fed, and the
poultry and pigs -at that time- traditionally raised and fed.

What are you going to do now, max? Snip and evade,
and attack and lie about me some more? Surprise us.

[Leif Erikson]

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You mean the one where I completely discredited you, as evidenced by
the numerous emails I received

lol! I hate to break this to you, but.. your 'mates' pitied you!

He kicked your ass so hard, your nose started bleeding.

[Max C.]

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
and by the pathetic name-calling you resorted to

I said that you were foolishly arrogant to assume that
you knew better than the researchers, and that's true.

Why dont' we take a look at some of the lines you started hurling when
you couldn't debate based on the merits of your position, shall we?

Post by pearl
Your ignorant smears are contemptible
Twit
Another pile of slanderous delusional crap.
Hypothesis, my ass.
Sure, chief

And now in this post you've already started the name-calling. I must
really get under your skin. :)

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

Very clever... posting a long whine to a group I'm not subscribed to.
I suppose it makes it easier when your opponent isn't likely to reply.
You were dragged over the coals every which way on everything.

1 - Not really sure what you're talking about. You replied 10 times in
the link I provided above, so you clearly saw my posts.

2 - Funny how you seem to be the ONLY person that thinks you won that
debate. What a blissful state of denial you live in.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
when your position was completely debunked?

Not mine.

Yup, yours.

Post by pearl
You haven't read all (any?) of those articles to be able to say that.
Nor have you read the study that is being referred to. So, - so
much for 'investigative reporting', max. And must I remind you
once again that I *did* produce an abstract the trial/s in question?

Prove it. Show me where the diets of the fish are addressed in ANY of
the articles you've *already* posted. Once again, what we have here is
you *thinking* that quantity is the same as quality. You post the same
BS, just written by different people. It's still the same story.
They're all writing about the same press release. You just went to
Google News (or some news blogger) and pasted in all the stories about
the press release you could find. So, if the original study of studies
you posted didn't account for what the fish ate, there's no possible
way the reports can. I like to call that "logic." Try it. You might
like it.

Post by pearl
Wow... you really are dense. Socioeconomic factors.. dumbass.
- there you go! .. and boy, are you deserving!!

Ah, there's that name calling again. :) I love it when vegans can't
argue based on the merits of their completely wrong position. Tell you
what, why don't you use those socioeconomic factors to show us exactly
what the animals were eating? I can't wait to see a socioeconomic
factor report that states what went in the mouth of a cow. We're all
here waiting. And this time, why not try to put it in a nice, short,
tidy little post that makes your point, rather than rambling on for 10
pages about the same old BS.

Post by pearl
'The information obtained from this survey included nutritional,
metabolic, hormonal, environmental, reproductive, demographic
and socioeconomic characteristics. The combined data from the
two surveys of 65 counties (130 communes) consisted of 367

i> tems of information including cumulative disease-specific county

Post by pearl
mortality rates (from the 1973-1975 retrospective study) and a
comprehensive set of dietary, lifestyle and environmental
characteristics.

Of the humans... not the animals they ate... nor of the ways the foods
were prepared.

Post by pearl
Now... we *know* that the cattle were grass-fed, and the
poultry and pigs -at that time- traditionally raised and fed.

Really? We know for sure that those cattle weren't fed grains? Where
does it says that? We also know that those in the most rural areas
weren't eating their cattle, many if not MOST of those families didn't
even have access to animal foods AND they were using a LOT of powdered
milk, which I provided links to in our previous debate. We ALSO know
that, on the whole, animal foods provided protective factors to
longevity, THE most important aspect of the study. You can continue to
pick out the parts of the study that support your flawed position, but
it won't change the fact that the overall role of animal foods in the
China Study provided protection in all-cause death.

Post by pearl
What are you going to do now, max? Snip and evade,
and attack and lie about me some more? Surprise us.

Which parts about you were lies? It's all right there in the link I
provided. I can see why you wouldn't want anyone to be able to
reference our debate, and why you'd try to make it appear as though you
had no idea about it, but it's all right there for everyone to see.
I've already addressed almost everything you've said in this most
recent post of yours. I really don't see the need to do it again. You
proved you wrong then, and you're still wrong now.

You must really hate the fact that Google will have that debate in its
archives forever.

Max.

[pearl]

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
and by the pathetic name-calling you resorted to

I said that you were foolishly arrogant to assume that
you knew better than the researchers, and that's true.

Why dont' we take a look at some of the lines you started hurling when
you couldn't debate based on the merits of your position, shall we?

Post by pearl
Your ignorant smears are contemptible
Twit
Another pile of slanderous delusional crap.
Hypothesis, my ass.
Sure, chief

And now in this post you've already started the name-calling. I must
really get under your skin. :)

Why don't you copy and paste what I was replying to?

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

Very clever... posting a long whine to a group I'm not subscribed to.
I suppose it makes it easier when your opponent isn't likely to reply.
You were dragged over the coals every which way on everything.

1 - Not really sure what you're talking about. You replied 10 times in
the link I provided above, so you clearly saw my posts.

I decided to keep an eye on you, and justifiably so, as it turned out.

Post by Max C.
2 - Funny how you seem to be the ONLY person that thinks you won that
debate. What a blissful state of denial you live in.

Funny how you seem to think that. You are the one in denial.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
when your position was completely debunked?

Not mine.

Yup, yours.

Absolutely not.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
You haven't read all (any?) of those articles to be able to say that.
Nor have you read the study that is being referred to. So, - so
much for 'investigative reporting', max. And must I remind you
once again that I *did* produce an abstract the trial/s in question?

Prove it. Show me where the diets of the fish are addressed in ANY of
the articles you've *already* posted.

What kind of fish do most people normally eat?

Post by Max C.
Once again, what we have here is
you *thinking* that quantity is the same as quality. You post the same
BS, just written by different people. It's still the same story.
They're all writing about the same press release. You just went to
Google News (or some news blogger) and pasted in all the stories about
the press release you could find. So, if the original study of studies
you posted didn't account for what the fish ate, there's no possible
way the reports can. I like to call that "logic." Try it. You might
like it.

Blah blah blah. You're saying nothing of value. The point is that
I posted an item which is being widely reported in the MSM. To
be consistant, you should be saying they have a "vegan agenda".

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
Wow... you really are dense. Socioeconomic factors.. dumbass.
- there you go! .. and boy, are you deserving!!

Ah, there's that name calling again. :) I love it when vegans can't
argue based on the merits of their completely wrong position. Tell you
what, why don't you use those socioeconomic factors to show us exactly
what the animals were eating? I can't wait to see a socioeconomic
factor report that states what went in the mouth of a cow. We're all
here waiting. And this time, why not try to put it in a nice, short,
tidy little post that makes your point, rather than rambling on for 10
pages about the same old BS.

<yawn> Already posted below.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
'The information obtained from this survey included nutritional,
metabolic, hormonal, environmental, reproductive, demographic
and socioeconomic characteristics. The combined data from the
two surveys of 65 counties (130 communes) consisted of 367
items of information including cumulative disease-specific county
mortality rates (from the 1973-1975 retrospective study) and a
comprehensive set of dietary, lifestyle and environmental
characteristics.

Of the humans... not the animals they ate... nor of the ways the foods
were prepared.

Below. Oh wait... you've snipped it. (You're a joke, max).
-restore-

.... The analysis assumes the stability of biochemical
indicators and dietary patterns in the population over time. The
negligible migration in this population (an average of 94% of the
survey subjects were born in their county of residence), food
production and consumption patterns based on stable locally
available crops, and the remarkably constant trend in the national
food intake data (Piazza, 1986) underscore the validity of such
an assumption.
..
China has developed a unique system of decentralized planning
which has recently incorporated private initiative in agriculture,
industry, and trade. From the early 1950s to the mid-1970s the
Chinese government had strict control over agricultural
production and trade. It gave priority to staple foods over
preferred foods (legumes, meats, fruits) in order to ensure an
adequate supply of essential grain for all provinces. Until
recently government policy favored direct consumption of
grain over consumption of animal products requiring feedgrains
(Jamison and Piazza, 1987). However, policy has changed
markedly in the last few years. With the consolidation of the
new 'production responsibility system' the government expects
a rapid growth in the livestock sector (World Bank, 1985).
Cattle production will be limited by the carrying capacity of
China's grasslands, which are already overgrazed. Poultry and
pig production are more dependent on the availability of feed
concentrates. Such production has been increasing for the last
ten years, and there is now a concern that it might be necessary
to monitor the consumption of high-animal-fat food to prevent
deleterious effects both economic and nutritional.
...' (1991)
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/campbell_china2.html

...

From an interview with Dr. T. Colin Campbell:

'"At the time, the Chinese government had just released a study
showing that cancer tended to occur more in certain Chinese
counties and much less in others, resulting in great differences
in mortality rates. Intrigued by this, we decided to go to China
and measure various factors with respect to diet and lifestyle
experiences and then compare those measurements with the
disease rates that the Chinese government had already obtained
for the years of 1973 to 1975 to see what relationships between
the two, if any, existed. We selected 130 villages in rural China,
which tended to be a very stable population (people lived in the
same village all their lives) and tended to produce and use locally
grown foods. From an epidemiological point of view, it was
very nice.

LK: What were some of the major findings from the China Study?

CC: Essentially that animal-based foods were a problem. In the
China Study, we found that as soon as animal-based proteins
started to appear in the diet in certain Chinese counties, blood
cholesterol levels, which were very low by Western standards
(about 80mg per deciliter) started going up and that various
cancers and heart disease started to appear. The association
between the increase in animal-based foods and the increase in
those diseases was highly significant, so much so that it made
me get to a point where I started to question the way I was
raised and made me switch to consuming a purely plant-based
diet.
..'
http://www.psmerg.org/avenues/avenues10/chinastudy.html

--end restore--

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
Now... we *know* that the cattle were grass-fed, and the
poultry and pigs -at that time- traditionally raised and fed.

Really? We know for sure that those cattle weren't fed grains? Where
does it says that?

'[...] priority to staple foods over preferred foods (legumes,
meats, fruits) in order to ensure an adequate supply of
essential grain for all provinces. Until recently government
policy favored direct consumption of grain over consumption
of animal products requiring feedgrains (Jamison and Piazza,
1987). [...] Cattle production will be limited by the carrying
capacity of China's grasslands, which are already overgrazed.'

Post by Max C.
We also know that those in the most rural areas
weren't eating their cattle, many if not MOST of those families didn't
even have access to animal foods

Those who did.

'LK: What were some of the major findings from the China Study?

CC: Essentially that animal-based foods were a problem. In the
China Study, we found that as soon as animal-based proteins
started to appear in the diet in certain Chinese counties, blood
cholesterol levels, which were very low by Western standards
(about 80mg per deciliter) started going up and that various
cancers and heart disease started to appear. The association
between the increase in animal-based foods and the increase in
those diseases was highly significant, so much so that it made
me get to a point where I started to question the way I was
raised and made me switch to consuming a purely plant-based
diet.
..'
http://www.psmerg.org/avenues/avenues10/chinastudy.html

Post by Max C.
AND they were using a LOT of powdered
milk, which I provided links to in our previous debate. We ALSO know
that, on the whole, animal foods provided protective factors to
longevity, THE most important aspect of the study.

Socioeconomic factors.

Post by Max C.
You can continue to
pick out the parts of the study that support your flawed position, but
it won't change the fact that the overall role of animal foods in the
China Study provided protection in all-cause death.

Socioeconomic factors.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
What are you going to do now, max? Snip and evade,
and attack and lie about me some more? Surprise us.

Which parts about you were lies? It's all right there in the link I
provided.

The thread continues. You posted a link to your initial pile-o-crap.

Post by Max C.
I can see why you wouldn't want anyone to be able to
reference our debate, and why you'd try to make it appear as though you
had no idea about it, but it's all right there for everyone to see.
I've already addressed almost everything you've said in this most
recent post of yours. I really don't see the need to do it again. You
proved you wrong then, and you're still wrong now.

You were on the wrong track then, and you still are.

Your current evasion is noted.

Post by Max C.
You must really hate the fact that Google will have that debate in its
archives forever.
Max.

Not I.

[Max C.]

Post by pearl
Why don't you copy and paste what I was replying to?

Because it doesn't matter. My point was that you were incapable of
debating on the merits of your position and so resorted to
name-calling.

Post by pearl
I decided to keep an eye on you, and justifiably so, as it turned out.

LOL!!! I prove that you told a lie and this is the best you can come
up with? The only person you're actually fooling is yourself.

Post by pearl
Funny how you seem to think that. You are the one in denial.

oOOOooohh. "I know you are but what am I?" I love those thought
provoking rebuttals of yours.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
Yup, yours.

Absolutely not.

Says you... and ONLY you.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
Prove it. Show me where the diets of the fish are addressed in ANY of
the articles you've *already* posted.

What kind of fish do most people normally eat?

I see. You can't answer the questions so you post more questions of
your own. You're not even trying to disguise your ignorance any more.

Furthermore, this statement of yours is absolute proof of your vegan
agenda. If you didn't have a vegan agenda, you'd be warning
everyone about *farm raised* fish, not trying to make it appear as
though *all* fish are bad. It's the same tactics you've been
trying to use since I first read a post of yours months ago... and
probably long before then.

Post by pearl
Blah blah blah. You're saying nothing of value. The point is that
I posted an item which is being widely reported in the MSM. To
be consistant, you should be saying they have a "vegan agenda".

Oh I'm sorry. Did those reporters sit down and cross post their
stories to half a dozen news groups? Are you saying that you get paid
to post these stories to news groups? Those reporters and doing their
jobs and that is all. You're not fooling anyone.

Post by pearl
Below. Oh wait... you've snipped it. (You're a joke, max).

I snipped it because you seem to be the only person that thinks the
answer is in there. When I ask you to clarify the exact space where it
speaks of the diets of the animals, you post the entire article again,
which means you have no answer. You just hope that someone will be
confused enough by the (mis)information overload to think you're right.
There's no one in any of these groups that will fall for such poor
debating tactics. You have no point, and it's evidenced by your
inability to answer even the simplest questions.
T. Colin Campbell is a fraud, which I completely proved in our last
debate. I really don't care what your opinion is of him. I provided
clear facts about his biased take on the data. The fact that you're
willing to ignore those facts does not concern me. I'm just here to
make sure your misinformation doesn't get passed of as fact by
providing clear evidence of your position and agenda.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
Really? We know for sure that those cattle weren't fed grains? Where
does it says that?

'[...] priority to staple foods over preferred foods (legumes,
meats, fruits) in order to ensure an adequate supply of
essential grain for all provinces. Until recently government
policy favored direct consumption of grain over consumption
of animal products requiring feedgrains (Jamison and Piazza,
1987). [...] Cattle production will be limited by the carrying
capacity of China's grasslands, which are already overgrazed.'

LOL!!! You read this and assume that the few cows that were eaten in
the first study were eating grass? You're quite the twisted one.
Let's analyze. "Until recently government policy favored direct
consumption of grain over consumption of animal products requiring
feedgrains" So, it says right there they were eating grains.

Then it says "Cattle production will be limited by the carrying
capacity of China's grasslands, which are already overgrazed." Meaning
that in the future, if plans go well, cattle raising will be limited.
NONE of that paragraph means that cattle are fed a diet of all grass.
In fact, we have no idea from that paragraph how much grass cows ate,
but we DO know that they were eating grains. You have no point.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
AND they were using a LOT of powdered
milk, which I provided links to in our previous debate. We ALSO know
that, on the whole, animal foods provided protective factors to
longevity, THE most important aspect of the study.

Socioeconomic factors.

Repetition doesn't make your position any more valid. In fact, you
keep repeating yourself because you can't answer the questions I've
asked.

I'm going to snip the rest of your China Study BS because I've already
proven you wrong on all of it. You not being able to accept that isn't
my problem. Anyone wanting to judge for themselves already has the
link I provided above to that debate. Your opinion of the outcome of
that debate doesn't concern me.

Post by pearl
The thread continues. You posted a link to your initial pile-o-crap.

You obviously didn't follow the link. It is a link to the entire
debate, with ALL of your replies, as well as the replies of several
other group visitors. None of those visitors agreed with your
position. Once again, you're the only one that thinks you're right.
It must be fun in pearl-land. Population - 1.

Post by pearl
You were on the wrong track then, and you still are.

Says you and only you. That doesn't concern me.

Post by pearl
Your current evasion is noted.

oOOOoo! So you're keeping notes. That's good. Maybe you'll look back
at them and learn something.

So, to bottom line it, unless you actually have something of tangible
value about fish to add to this thread, I'm done. It's obvious that
since you've been proven wrong about fish, you're just grasping at
anything that could possibly make you right... no matter what the
topic. We've probably drilled so far down in this thread that no one
else is reading it, so my work here is done. Once again, I've made
sure your vegan BS didn't go unchecked, and several people in this
thread understand the difference between farm raised fish full of PCBs
and lacking essential nutrients and wild fish that can be very
beneficial to longevity.

Max.

[pearl]

"Max C." <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

pearl wrote:

-pr-

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
I said that you were foolishly arrogant to assume that
you knew better than the researchers, and that's true.

-er-

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
Why don't you copy and paste what I was replying to?

Because it doesn't matter.

Of course it does. My comments were perfectly justifiable.

Post by Max C.
My point was that you were incapable of
debating on the merits of your position and so resorted to
name-calling.

You're projecting.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
I decided to keep an eye on you, and justifiably so, as it turned out.

LOL!!! I prove that you told a lie and this is the best you can come
up with? The only person you're actually fooling is yourself.

You what? You're completely delusional.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
Funny how you seem to think that. You are the one in denial.

oOOOooohh. "I know you are but what am I?" I love those thought
provoking rebuttals of yours.

You project. Hurl crap, and expect it right back in your face.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
Yup, yours.

Absolutely not.

Says you... and ONLY you.

Wrong again.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
Prove it. Show me where the diets of the fish are addressed in ANY of
the articles you've *already* posted.

What kind of fish do most people normally eat?

I see. You can't answer the questions so you post more questions of
your own. You're not even trying to disguise your ignorance any more.

Evasion noted. I have already said that it's probable that both
wild and farmed fish were consumed, however, as has been
pointed out, these were controlled trials, so it's possible that
the subjects of the trial were advised to consume wild fish in
order to avoid confounding from the toxins known to be in
farmed fish (to a greater extent). Now answer the question.

Post by Max C.
Furthermore, this statement of yours is absolute proof of your vegan
agenda. If you didn't have a vegan agenda, you'd be warning
everyone about *farm raised* fish, not trying to make it appear as
though *all* fish are bad. It's the same tactics you've been
trying to use since I first read a post of yours months ago... and
probably long before then.

Nonsense, and I have. Your acknowledgement that highly toxic
pollutants are also to be found in wild fish is what's missing.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
Blah blah blah. You're saying nothing of value. The point is that
I posted an item which is being widely reported in the MSM. To
be consistant, you should be saying they have a "vegan agenda".

Oh I'm sorry. Did those reporters sit down and cross post their
stories to half a dozen news groups? Are you saying that you get paid
to post these stories to news groups? Those reporters and doing their
jobs and that is all. You're not fooling anyone.

The role of the media is to inform and entertain. News groups
are now a part of the network. I'll continue to inform, and you..

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
Below. Oh wait... you've snipped it. (You're a joke, max).

I snipped it because you seem to be the only person that thinks the
answer is in there.

You snipped it because the answer is there and you know it.

Post by Max C.
When I ask you to clarify the exact space where it
speaks of the diets of the animals, you post the entire article again,

No I didn't.

Post by Max C.
which means you have no answer.

I posted the answer.

Post by Max C.
You just hope that someone will be
confused enough by the (mis)information overload to think you're right.
There's no one in any of these groups that will fall for such poor
debating tactics. You have no point, and it's evidenced by your
inability to answer even the simplest questions.

Projection.

Post by Max C.
T. Colin Campbell is a fraud,

'19. ... In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it
may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical
of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are
acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government
or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. '
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

'Colin Campbell, PhD, is the project director of the
China-Oxford-Cornell Diet and Health Project (the China Study),
a 20-year study of nutrition and health. He is a Jacob Gould
Schurman Professor Emeritus of nutritional biochemistry at
Cornell University. In more than 40 years of research, he has
received more than 70 grant-years of peer-reviewed research
funding and authored more than 300 research papers. ..'
http://www.psmerg.org/avenues/avenues10/chinastudy.html

Post by Max C.
which I completely proved in our last
debate. I really don't care what your opinion is of him. I provided
clear facts about his biased take on the data. The fact that you're
willing to ignore those facts does not concern me. I'm just here to
make sure your misinformation doesn't get passed of as fact by
providing clear evidence of your position and agenda.

You misinterpreted the data; whether from sheer stupidity or as a
desperate attempt to save your position and agenda, the fact that
you are willing to ignore the facts is clear evidence of your bias.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
Really? We know for sure that those cattle weren't fed grains? Where
does it says that?

'[...] priority to staple foods over preferred foods (legumes,
meats, fruits) in order to ensure an adequate supply of
essential grain for all provinces. Until recently government
policy favored direct consumption of grain over consumption
of animal products requiring feedgrains (Jamison and Piazza,
1987). [...] Cattle production will be limited by the carrying
capacity of China's grasslands, which are already overgrazed.'

LOL!!! You read this and assume that the few cows that were eaten in
the first study were eating grass? You're quite the twisted one.
Let's analyze. "Until recently government policy favored direct
consumption of grain over consumption of animal products requiring
feedgrains" So, it says right there they were eating grains.

Cattle? Policy favored the direct consumption of grains by the
human population. Bovines (cattle) do not require feedgrains.

Post by Max C.
Then it says "Cattle production will be limited by the carrying
capacity of China's grasslands, which are already overgrazed." Meaning
that in the future, if plans go well, cattle raising will be limited.

Meaning that cattle have been grazing in the past, and that
supplemental feeding of grain to cattle was not an option.

Post by Max C.
NONE of that paragraph means that cattle are fed a diet of all grass.
In fact, we have no idea from that paragraph how much grass cows ate,
but we DO know that they were eating grains. You have no point.

Only you could conclude that giving priority to human consumption
of grains translates to feeding grains to animals that don't require it.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
AND they were using a LOT of powdered
milk, which I provided links to in our previous debate. We ALSO know
that, on the whole, animal foods provided protective factors to
longevity, THE most important aspect of the study.

Socioeconomic factors.

Repetition doesn't make your position any more valid. In fact, you
keep repeating yourself because you can't answer the questions I've
asked.

' The decline in infectious and communicable diseases follows an
increase in, and more equitable distribution of, economic resources.
......'
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/campbell_china2.html

Post by Max C.
I'm going to snip the rest of your China Study BS because I've already
proven you wrong on all of it. You not being able to accept that isn't
my problem. Anyone wanting to judge for themselves already has the
link I provided above to that debate. Your opinion of the outcome of
that debate doesn't concern me.

You've proven that you haven't a leg to stand on. Hence the antics.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
The thread continues. You posted a link to your initial pile-o-crap.

You obviously didn't follow the link. It is a link to the entire
debate, with ALL of your replies, as well as the replies of several
other group visitors. None of those visitors agreed with your
position. Once again, you're the only one that thinks you're right.
It must be fun in pearl-land. Population - 1.

"Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion
on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
You were on the wrong track then, and you still are.

Says you and only you. That doesn't concern me.

Say the researchers. That doesn't concern you either. lol.

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
Your current evasion is noted.

oOOOoo! So you're keeping notes. That's good. Maybe you'll look back
at them and learn something.
So, to bottom line it, unless you actually have something of tangible
value about fish to add to this thread, I'm done. It's obvious that
since you've been proven wrong about fish, you're just grasping at
anything that could possibly make you right... no matter what the
topic. We've probably drilled so far down in this thread that no one
else is reading it, so my work here is done. Once again, I've made
sure your vegan BS didn't go unchecked, and several people in this
thread understand the difference between farm raised fish full of PCBs
and lacking essential nutrients and wild fish that can be very
beneficial to longevity.

Nuts.

[Max C.]

You have provided nothing in this latest reply but your opinion, which
is worthless, so my work here is done. I'll leave it to those reading
the debate to decide for themselves which of us is right or wrong.

Good day.

Max.

[Mr. Natural-Health]

Post by Max C.
Yup, yours.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Mighty Christian of yours, Christian.

I always knew that you were a fraud. Now, I have the proof in print!

You have my condolences, Liar.

[Leif Erikson]

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.

Post by pearl
What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

Not really
http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

Very clever... posting a long whine to a group I'm not subscribed to.

You STUPID, STUPID, HIV+ LYING SLUT:

Path:
g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.tiscali.de!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!newsfeed.esat.net!reader01.news.esat.net!not-for-mail
From: "pearl" <***@signguestbook.ie>
Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.environment,sci.med.nutrition,soc.culture.usa,misc.health.alternative
Subject: Fw: Got milk? You've got problems
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:17:25 +0100


That's a thread YOU started, you lying WHORE. YOU posted it to
sci.med.nutrition - how in the fuck is Max supposed to know that you're
not subscribed to it, but instead are doing a flood-of-bullshit
drive-by CROSS-POSTING?

You ASSHOLE.

[Leif Erikson]

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
Hey look everyone. Pearl is back with her vegan agenda.

What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You couldn't give a hiding to a crippled mouse.

Post by pearl
I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...
Benefits of Omega-3s Seem Fishy
CBS News - 49 minutes ago
(WebMD) The benefits of omega-3s in fighting heart disease
may be only so-so, according to a new review of research

There we go *again*: a study of studies, rather than an actual primary
research study. How's YOUR skinned arse feeling, you lying slut?

[snip tiresome references to the same thing]

[pearl]

"Leif Erikson" <***@yahoo.com>

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

[Leif Erikson]

Post by pearl
Faking quotes,

Faking nothing. You are a FRAUD, a total CHARLATAN. You don't know
anything about any of this. All you ever do is flood the newsgroup
with bullshit that you haven't read and *cannot* understand.

[Jan Drew]

Take you squabble Back where it belongs, please. Along with your vulgar
language.

"Leif Erikson" <***@yahoo.com> wrote

[ ]

[Mr. Natural-Health]

Post by Max C.
Hey look everyone. Pearl is back with her vegan agenda.

Hey Look everyone. Max Christian is back with his snobby Christian
Agenda.

Why do you care so much about Diet, Christian? Ain't you in a rush to
get to heaven, or are you having too much fun being a snob and an Arse
on these ngs?

Tell us, so that we can understand you snobbery better. :)

[Dr. Zarkov]

Post by Max C.
Hey look everyone. Pearl is back with her vegan agenda.
Your article clearly states that it's reporting on a study of
studies, which has far less value than an actual study, and that its
findings differ from larger studies. So why is that? Could it be that
there was no accounting for how the fish were raised? Farm raised fish
foods are inferior to wild fish foods.

Nonsense. It was a meta-analysis of 48 randomized *controlled* studies
(36 913 subjects) and 41 cohort studies. Such studies are quite as
valuable as others. In fact, the recent study that reported omega 3's
were as effective as statins was just such a review (Studer M, Briel M,
Leimenstoll B, Glass TR, Bucher HC. Effect of different antilipidemic
agents and diets on mortality: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2005
Apr 11; 165:725-30).

...

Post by Max C.
We've talked about your willingness to post skewed evidence of animal
foods in the past. You're quick to point out when someone posts
misinformation on plant foods, making sure we all understand when a
plant food has been processed or grown with chemicals, but you freely
post misinformation on processed animal foods or animal foods that have
not been properly raised as though it represented all animal foods.
You can continue to do so, but I will continue to point out your
deception.

More nonsense. An ad hominem added to the unwarranted and untrue
assumption made about this report.

[Max C.]

Post by Dr. Zarkov
Nonsense. It was a meta-analysis of 48 randomized *controlled* studies
(36 913 subjects) and 41 cohort studies. Such studies are quite as
valuable as others. In fact, the recent study that reported omega 3's
were as effective as statins was just such a review (Studer M, Briel M,
Leimenstoll B, Glass TR, Bucher HC. Effect of different antilipidemic
agents and diets on mortality: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2005
Apr 11; 165:725-30).

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is... your
opinion... as was my comment. We'll have to agree to disagree.

However, can you please show me where, in this study of studies, the
diets of the fish were addressed? My guess is that the vast majority
of the studies *in* this study (if not all of them) didn't account for
fish sources or fish diets. If the ORIGINAL studies didn't control for
those factors, how can a meta-analysis?

A study of studies is going to lose something in the translation. It's
no different than reading ten books on any subject and then giving a
summary report on what you've read. There's no way all variables can
be accounted for, and as such, the final study is less useful for
specific details.

Max.

[PeterB]

This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.

PeterB

[Sdores]

Finally we agree, at least about fish oil. UM MOM Susan

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

[Jan Drew]

While we are on the subject of oils. Many people don't know, cooking oils
should be refrigerated, as they can get rancid easily at room temperature.

Post by Sdores
Finally we agree, at least about fish oil. UM MOM Susan

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

[vernon]

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

Fish oil is the best, but

No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol can
raise cholesterol.

Reducing meat and increasing vegs and fruits reduce cholesterol. The
reduction in meat isn't the stimulus.

BTW eating deer horns does not cause one to grow horns either.

[Sdores]

Do you mean real deers? You can eat the horns? Or do you mean a
supplement? Never heard of this. What does it do? UM MOM Susan

Post by vernon

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

Fish oil is the best, but
No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol
can raise cholesterol.
Reducing meat and increasing vegs and fruits reduce cholesterol. The
reduction in meat isn't the stimulus.
BTW eating deer horns does not cause one to grow horns either.

[vernon]

Post by Sdores
Do you mean real deers? You can eat the horns? Or do you mean a
supplement? Never heard of this. What does it do? UM MOM Susan

Joke, joke jjoke.

Same as eating cholesterol will raise cholesterol in the blood.

Post by Sdores

Post by vernon

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

Fish oil is the best, but
No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol
can raise cholesterol.
Reducing meat and increasing vegs and fruits reduce cholesterol. The
reduction in meat isn't the stimulus.
BTW eating deer horns does not cause one to grow horns either.

[Sdores]

Ok, OVER my head! :) UM MOM Susan

Post by vernon

Post by Sdores
Do you mean real deers? You can eat the horns? Or do you mean a
supplement? Never heard of this. What does it do? UM MOM Susan

Joke, joke jjoke.
Same as eating cholesterol will raise cholesterol in the blood.

Post by Sdores

Post by vernon

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

Fish oil is the best, but
No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol
can raise cholesterol.
Reducing meat and increasing vegs and fruits reduce cholesterol. The
reduction in meat isn't the stimulus.
BTW eating deer horns does not cause one to grow horns either.

[Juhana Harju]

Sdores wrote:
: Ok, OVER my head! :) UM MOM Susan

Actually dietary cholesterol cholesterol _does_ slightly affect serum
cholesterol:

Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 May;73(5):885-91.

Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases the ratio of total cholesterol to
high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in humans: a meta-analysis.

Weggemans RM, Zock PL, Katan MB.

Division of Human Nutrition and Epidemiology, Wageningen University,
Wageningen, Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Several epidemiologic studies found no effect of egg consumption
on the risk of coronary heart disease. It is possible that the adverse
effect of eggs on LDL-cholesterol is offset by their favorable effect on HDL
cholesterol. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to review the effect of dietary
cholesterol on the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol. DESIGN: Studies were
identified by MEDLINE and Biological Abstracts searches (from 1974 to June
1999) and by reviewing reference lists. In addition, we included data from a
more recently published study. Studies were included if they had a crossover
or parallel design with a control group, if the experimental diets differed
only in the amount of dietary cholesterol or number of eggs and were fed for

or =14 d, and if HDL-cholesterol concentrations were reported. Of the 222

studies identified, 17 studies involving 556 subjects met these criteria.
RESULTS: The addition of 100 mg dietary cholesterol/d increased the ratio of
total to HDL cholesterol by 0.020 units (95% CI: 0.010, 0.030), total
cholesterol concentrations by 0.056 mmol/L (2.2 mg/dL) (95% CI: 0.046, 0.065
mmol/L; 1.8, 2.5 mg/dL), and HDL-cholesterol concentrations by 0.008 mmol/L
(0.3 mg/dL) (95% CI: 0.005, 0.010 mmol/L; 0.2, 0.4 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS:
Dietary cholesterol raises the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol and,
therefore, adversely affects the cholesterol profile. The advice to limit
cholesterol intake by reducing consumption of eggs and other
cholesterol-rich foods may therefore still be valid. PMID: 11333841

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11333841&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum


::: "vernon" <***@there.com> wrote:

:::: No study has ever shown that eating
:::: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.

[Max C.]

Post by Juhana Harju
Actually dietary cholesterol cholesterol _does_ slightly affect serum
(snip study)

This is not proof. What kind of eggs were used? What was the lipid
profile of those eggs? What were the hens fed?

It would appear that this study assumes that because a person ate more
eggs, and hence more cholesterol, that the additional cholesterol MUST
have affected serum cholesterol. It doesn't appear to take anything
else in to consideration. Not all eggs are created equal.

Max.

[vernon]

Post by Max C.

Post by Juhana Harju
Actually dietary cholesterol cholesterol _does_ slightly affect serum
(snip study)

This is not proof. What kind of eggs were used? What was the lipid
profile of those eggs? What were the hens fed?
It would appear that this study assumes that because a person ate more
eggs, and hence more cholesterol, that the additional cholesterol MUST
have affected serum cholesterol. It doesn't appear to take anything
else in to consideration. Not all eggs are created equal.
Max.

Nothing to do with lipid profile.
Lecithin

[Max C.]

Post by vernon
Nothing to do with lipid profile.

Completely incorrect. The further away from an ideal ratio you get
with regards to n-3 and n-6 PUFAs, the higher you can expect your
cholesterol levels to be.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8827697&dopt=Abstract
"Serum cholesterol, triacylglycerol and nonesterified fatty acid
concentrations decreased as the n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio of the diet
decreased."

I'm not saying that lecithin has nothing to do with it, but you can't
say it has "nothing to do with lipid profile."

Max.

[vernon]

Post by Max C.

Post by vernon
Nothing to do with lipid profile.

Completely incorrect. The further away from an ideal ratio you get
with regards to n-3 and n-6 PUFAs, the higher you can expect your
cholesterol levels to be.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8827697&dopt=Abstract
"Serum cholesterol, triacylglycerol and nonesterified fatty acid
concentrations decreased as the n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio of the diet
decreased."
I'm not saying that lecithin has nothing to do with it, but you can't
say it has "nothing to do with lipid profile."
Max.

The results were from lecithin. If anything the lipid was a catalyst.
Lecithin can't work without a carrier.

[Max C.]

Unless you can provide some sources to verify your position, I gotta
tell you, I don't buy it.

Max.

[vernon]

Post by Max C.
Unless you can provide some sources to verify your position, I gotta
tell you, I don't buy it.
Max.

Fine.
It's your life.
Look up real research including the one posted.

[Max C.]

Wait... now that I've thought about your statement a little longer, I'm
not even sure it makes sense in the context of the study I posted. Are
you saying that the rats fed the high ratio n-3 to n-6 diet would have
had more lecithin? If so, why? They were all plant oils.

Max.

[vernon]

Post by Max C.
Wait... now that I've thought about your statement a little longer, I'm
not even sure it makes sense in the context of the study I posted. Are
you saying that the rats fed the high ratio n-3 to n-6 diet would have
had more lecithin? If so, why? They were all plant oils.
Max.

Eggs.

[vernon]

Post by Juhana Harju
: Ok, OVER my head! :) UM MOM Susan
Actually dietary cholesterol cholesterol _does_ slightly affect serum
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 May;73(5):885-91.
Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases the ratio of total cholesterol to
high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in humans: a meta-analysis.

Eggs are good for you. The ratio change (increase in "good" cholesterol)
is due to the high level of lecithin in eggs, not that there is some
cholesterol.
The shift is not due to the Cholesterol content of the egg.

[Alf Christophersen]

Post by vernon

Post by Juhana Harju
: Ok, OVER my head! :) UM MOM Susan
Actually dietary cholesterol cholesterol _does_ slightly affect serum
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 May;73(5):885-91.
Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases the ratio of total cholesterol to
high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in humans: a meta-analysis.

Eggs are good for you. The ratio change (increase in "good" cholesterol)
is due to the high level of lecithin in eggs, not that there is some
cholesterol.
The shift is not due to the Cholesterol content of the egg.

H,. When ratio of total cholesterol to HDL increases, it is not
because HDL is increased, but because the other cholesterols are
increased, thus lowering HDL/LDL ratio.
Which is not healthy

[vernon]

Post by Alf Christophersen

Post by vernon

Post by Juhana Harju
: Ok, OVER my head! :) UM MOM Susan
Actually dietary cholesterol cholesterol _does_ slightly affect serum
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 May;73(5):885-91.
Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases the ratio of total cholesterol to
high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in humans: a meta-analysis.

Eggs are good for you. The ratio change (increase in "good" cholesterol)
is due to the high level of lecithin in eggs, not that there is some
cholesterol.
The shift is not due to the Cholesterol content of the egg.

H,. When ratio of total cholesterol to HDL increases, it is not
because HDL is increased, but because the other cholesterols are
increased, thus lowering HDL/LDL ratio.
Which is not healthy

Fine
Catch up with reality, not 1990 stuff.

[vernon]

Post by Sdores
Ok, OVER my head! :) UM MOM Susan

Oh, I didn't answer your question. Yes some grind the horns and have all
matter of wild reasons to take it.

Post by Sdores

Post by vernon

Post by Sdores
Do you mean real deers? You can eat the horns? Or do you mean a
supplement? Never heard of this. What does it do? UM MOM Susan

Joke, joke jjoke.
Same as eating cholesterol will raise cholesterol in the blood.

Post by Sdores

Post by vernon

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

Fish oil is the best, but
No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol
can raise cholesterol.
Reducing meat and increasing vegs and fruits reduce cholesterol. The
reduction in meat isn't the stimulus.
BTW eating deer horns does not cause one to grow horns either.

[Alf Christophersen]

Post by vernon

Post by Sdores
Ok, OVER my head! :) UM MOM Susan

Oh, I didn't answer your question. Yes some grind the horns and have all
matter of wild reasons to take it.

Believing a specific organ only found in males get more stiffer :-)

[vernon]

Post by Alf Christophersen

Post by vernon

Post by Sdores
Ok, OVER my head! :) UM MOM Susan

Oh, I didn't answer your question. Yes some grind the horns and have all
matter of wild reasons to take it.

Believing a specific organ only found in males get more stiffer :-)

Yeh, I was going to say horny but most wouldn't got it.

[Jan Drew]

Post by Sdores
Do you mean real deers? You can eat the horns? Or do you mean a
supplement? Never heard of this. What does it do? UM MOM Susan

Susan, Susan, Susan.

There is no such word as deers.

He is pulling your leg.

Where is Peter Bowditch to say?

Whooooooooooosssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh right over her head?

Post by Sdores

Post by vernon

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

Fish oil is the best, but
No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol
can raise cholesterol.
Reducing meat and increasing vegs and fruits reduce cholesterol. The
reduction in meat isn't the stimulus.
BTW eating deer horns does not cause one to grow horns either.

[Sdores]

I posted that it was over my head. UM MOM Susan

Post by Jan Drew

Post by Sdores
Do you mean real deers? You can eat the horns? Or do you mean a
supplement? Never heard of this. What does it do? UM MOM Susan

Susan, Susan, Susan.
There is no such word as deers.
He is pulling your leg.
Where is Peter Bowditch to say?
Whooooooooooosssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh right over her head?

Post by Sdores

Post by vernon

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

Fish oil is the best, but
No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol
can raise cholesterol.
Reducing meat and increasing vegs and fruits reduce cholesterol. The
reduction in meat isn't the stimulus.
BTW eating deer horns does not cause one to grow horns either.

[Peter Bowditch]

Post by Jan Drew

Post by Sdores
Do you mean real deers? You can eat the horns? Or do you mean a
supplement? Never heard of this. What does it do? UM MOM Susan

Susan, Susan, Susan.
There is no such word as deers.
He is pulling your leg.
Where is Peter Bowditch to say?
Whooooooooooosssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh right over her head?

Well, Jan, it's like this ...

1) There are quacks out there who tell people that eating powdered
deer antlers can cure things, so it is possible for someone to miss
when a joke is made about eating deer horns.

2) Antlers are right over heads anyway, so why comment?

Post by Jan Drew

Post by Sdores

Post by vernon

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

Fish oil is the best, but
No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol
can raise cholesterol.
Reducing meat and increasing vegs and fruits reduce cholesterol. The
reduction in meat isn't the stimulus.
BTW eating deer horns does not cause one to grow horns either.

[Jan Drew]

"Peter lying Bowditch" blathered

Post by Peter Bowditch

Post by Jan Drew

Post by Sdores
Do you mean real deers? You can eat the horns? Or do you mean a
supplement? Never heard of this. What does it do? UM MOM Susan

Susan, Susan, Susan.
There is no such word as deers.
He is pulling your leg.
Where is Peter Bowditch to say?
Whooooooooooosssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh right over her head?

Well, Jan, it's like this ...
1) There are quacks out there who tell people that eating powdered
deer antlers can cure things, so it is possible for someone to miss
when a joke is made about eating deer horns.

Well, Peter, it's like this....

1) Sue asked did you mean real deers?

There is no such word as deers.

It indeed was over her head.

You didn't say it because she is a *gang* member. Period.

Post by Peter Bowditch

Post by Jan Drew

Post by Sdores

Post by vernon

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

Fish oil is the best, but
No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol
can raise cholesterol.
Reducing meat and increasing vegs and fruits reduce cholesterol. The
reduction in meat isn't the stimulus.
BTW eating deer horns does not cause one to grow horns either.

--
Peter lying Bowditch

[cathyb]

Post by Jan Drew
"Peter lying Bowditch" blathered

Post by Peter Bowditch

Post by Jan Drew

Post by Sdores
Do you mean real deers? You can eat the horns? Or do you mean a
supplement? Never heard of this. What does it do? UM MOM Susan

Susan, Susan, Susan.
There is no such word as deers.
He is pulling your leg.
Where is Peter Bowditch to say?
Whooooooooooosssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh right over her head?

Well, Jan, it's like this ...
1) There are quacks out there who tell people that eating powdered
deer antlers can cure things, so it is possible for someone to miss
when a joke is made about eating deer horns.

Well, Peter, it's like this....
1) Sue asked did you mean real deers?
There is no such word as deers.
It indeed was over her head.
You didn't say it because she is a *gang* member. Period.

He didn't say it because Susan already had. Er, period.

Post by Jan Drew

Post by Peter Bowditch

Post by Jan Drew

Post by Sdores

Post by vernon

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

Fish oil is the best, but
No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol
can raise cholesterol.
Reducing meat and increasing vegs and fruits reduce cholesterol. The
reduction in meat isn't the stimulus.
BTW eating deer horns does not cause one to grow horns either.

--
Peter lying Bowditch

[Peter Bowditch]

Post by cathyb

Post by Jan Drew
"Peter lying Bowditch" blathered

Post by Peter Bowditch

Post by Jan Drew

Post by Sdores
Do you mean real deers? You can eat the horns? Or do you mean a
supplement? Never heard of this. What does it do? UM MOM Susan

Susan, Susan, Susan.
There is no such word as deers.
He is pulling your leg.
Where is Peter Bowditch to say?
Whooooooooooosssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh right over her head?

Well, Jan, it's like this ...
1) There are quacks out there who tell people that eating powdered
deer antlers can cure things, so it is possible for someone to miss
when a joke is made about eating deer horns.

Well, Peter, it's like this....
1) Sue asked did you mean real deers?
There is no such word as deers.
It indeed was over her head.
You didn't say it because she is a *gang* member. Period.

He didn't say it because Susan already had. Er, period.

That, too.

Post by cathyb

Post by Jan Drew

Post by Peter Bowditch

Post by Jan Drew

Post by Sdores

Post by vernon

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

Fish oil is the best, but
No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol
can raise cholesterol.
Reducing meat and increasing vegs and fruits reduce cholesterol. The
reduction in meat isn't the stimulus.
BTW eating deer horns does not cause one to grow horns either.

--
Peter lying Bowditch

[Juhana Harju]

vernon wrote:

: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.

That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson JE and
Willett WC. Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a
critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5/F2

[vernon]

Post by Juhana Harju
: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.
That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson JE and
Willett WC. Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a
critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.

NOT a study, just hype.

[Juhana Harju]

vernon wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
: news:***@individual.net...
:: vernon wrote:
::
::: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
::: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
::: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.
::
:: That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson
:: JE and
:: Willett WC. Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease:
:: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.
:
: NOT a study, just hype.

Incredible ignorance.

[vernon]

Post by Juhana Harju
::: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
::: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
::: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.
:: That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson
:: JE and
:: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.
: NOT a study, just hype.
Incredible ignorance.
--
Juhana

They didn't take (use) people who had ALL other dietary input identical.

Phony study.

People who have high fat intake are (typically) subject to higher
cholesterol. Of these, they (typically) have more heart disease. What is
CONVENIENTLY left out is the other bad dietary habits. People who consume
high amounts of fat almost always have an unusually high intake of sugar
and low fiber.

BTW
Cholesterol is a symptom, not a cause. As a matter of FACT high good
cholesterol is counter to heart problems, hence the MASSIVE drive by pharms
to come out with something to "raise" the good. Of course you knew that.

[Jan Drew]

Post by Juhana Harju
::: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
::: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
::: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.
:: That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson
:: JE and
:: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.
: NOT a study, just hype.
Incredible ignorance.
--
Juhana

Plus ARROGANCE.

[Peter Bowditch]

Post by Juhana Harju
::: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
::: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
::: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.
:: That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson
:: JE and
:: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.
: NOT a study, just hype.
Incredible ignorance.

Oh, I see you've met Vernon.

[Jan Drew]

"Peter lying Bowditch" blathered

Post by Peter Bowditch

Post by Juhana Harju
::: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
::: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
::: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.
:: That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson
:: JE and
:: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.
: NOT a study, just hype.
Incredible ignorance.

Oh, I see you've met Vernon.

Lay off the sauce.

Post by Peter Bowditch
--
Peter Bowditch

[Jan Drew]

Post by vernon

Post by Juhana Harju
: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.
That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson JE and
Willett WC. Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a
critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.

NOT a study, just hype.

So much for believing anything Vernon says.

REFERENCES TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MAJOR TYPES OF DIETARY...
NUT CONSUMPTION AND RISK...
INTERVENTION TRIALS OF DIETARY...
FISH AND MARINE N-3...
ALPHA-LINOLENIC ACID (ALA)
THE BALANCE BETWEEN N-3...
DIETARY CHOLESTERAL AND EGGS
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES



1.. Mokdad AH, Serdula MK, Dietz WH, Bowman BA, Marks JS, Koplan JP: The
spread of the obesity epidemic in the United States, 1991-1998. JAMA 282:
1519-1522, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2.. Mokdad AH, Ford ES, Bowman BA, Nelson DE, Engelgau MM, Vinicor F,
Marks JS: Diabetes trends in the U.S.: 1990-1998. Diabetes Care 23:
1278-1283, 2000.[Abstract]
3.. Keys A: "Seven Countries: A Multivariate Analysis of Death and
Coronary Heart Disease." Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.
4.. Kromhout D, Menotti A, Bloemberg B, Aravanis C, Blackburn H, Buzina R,
Dontas AS, Fidanza F, Giampaoli S, Jansen A, et al.: Dietary saturated and
trans fatty acids and cholesterol and 25-year mortality from coronary heart
disease: the Seven Countries Study. Prev Med 24: 308-315, 1995.[Medline]
5.. McGee DL, Reed DM, Yano K, Kagan A, Tillotson J: Ten-year incidence of
coronary heart disease in the Honolulu Heart Program: Relationship to
nutrient intake. Am J Epidemiol 119: 667-676, 1984.[Abstract]
6.. Kushi LH, Lew RA, Stare FJ, Ellison CR, el Lozy M, Bourke G, Daly L,
Graham I, Hickey N, Mulcahy R, J K: Diet and 20-year mortality from coronary
heart disease: The Ireland-Boston Diet-Heart study. N Engl J Med 312:
811-818, 1985.[Abstract]
7.. Kromhout D, De Lezenne Coulander C: Diet, prevalence and 10-year
mortality from coronary heart disease in 871 middle-aged men: the Zutphen
Study. Am J Epidemiol 119: 733-741, 1984.[Abstract]
8.. Garcia-Palmieri MR, Sorlie P, Tillotson J, Costas Jr R, Cordero E,
Rodriguez M: Relationship of dietary intake to subsequent coronary heart
disease incidence: The Puerto Rico Heart Health Program. Am J Clin Nutr 33:
1818-1827, 1980.[Abstract]
9.. Gordon T, Kagan A, Garcia-Palmieri M, Kannel WB, Zukel WJ, Tillotson
J, Sorlie P, Hjortland M: Diet and its relation to coronary heart disease
and death in three populations. Circulation 63: 500-515, 1981.[Abstract]
10.. Morris JN, Marr JW, Clayton DG: Diet and Heart: a postscript. BMJ 2:
1307-1314, 1977.[Medline]
11.. Shekelle RB, Shryock AM, Paul O, Lepper M, Stamler J, Liu S, Raynor
Jr WJ: Diet, serum cholesterol, and death from coronary heart disease: The
Western Electric Study. N Engl J Med 304: 65-70, 1981.[Abstract]
12.. Pietinen P, Ascherio A, Korhonen P, Hartman AM, Willett WC, Albanes
D, Virtamo J: Intake of fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease in a
cohort of Finnish men: The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention
Study. Am J Epidemiol 145: 876-887, 1997.[Abstract]
13.. Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Giovannucci EL, Spiegelman D, Stampfer MJ,
Willett WC: Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease in men: cohort
follow up study in the United States. BMJ 313: 84-90, 1996.[Abstract/Free
Full Text]
14.. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rimm E, Colditz GA, Rosner BA,
Hennekens CH, Willett WC: Dietary fat intake and risk of coronary heart
disease in women. N Engl J Med 337: 1491-1499, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full
Text]
15.. Kris-Etherton P, Yu S: Individual fatty acids on plasma lipids and
lipoproteins: human studies. Am J Clin Nutr 65(Suppl): 1628S-1644S,
1997.[Abstract]
16.. Temme E, Mensink RP, Hornstra G: Comparison of the effects of diets
enriched in lauric, palmitic, or oleic acids on serum lipids and
lipoproteins in healthy women and men. Am J Clin Nutr 63: 897-903,
1996.[Abstract]
17.. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Ascherio A, Colditz GA, Speizer FE,
Hennekens CH, Willett WC: Dietary saturated fat and their food sources in
relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women. Am J Clin Nutr 70:
1001-1008, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18.. Yu S, Derr J, Etherton TD, Kris-Etherton P: Plasma
cholesterol-predictive equations demonstrate that stearic acid is neutral
and monounsaturated fatty acids are hypocholesterolemic. Am J Clin Nutr 61:
1129-1139, 1995.[Abstract]
19.. Aro A, Jauhiainen M, Partanen R, Salminen I, Mutanen M: Stearic acid,
trans fatty acids, and dairy fat: effects on serum and lipoprotein lipids,
apolipoproteins, lipoprotein(a), and lipid transfer proteins in healthy
subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 65: 1491-1426, 1997.
20.. Mitropoulos KA, Miller GJ, Martin JC, Reeves BEA, Cooper J: Dietary
fat induces changes in factor VII coagulant activity through effects on
plasma free stearic acid concentration. Arterioscler Thromb 14: 214-222,
1994.[Abstract]
21.. Furguson J, Mackay N, McNicol G: Effect of feeding fat on
fibrinolysis, Stypven time, and platelet aggregation in Africans, Asians,
and Europeans. J Clin Pathol 23: 580-585, 1970.[Medline]
22.. Grundy SM, Bilheimer D, Blackburn H, Brown WV, Kwiterovich POJ,
Mattson F, Schonfeld G, Weidman WH: Rationale of the diet-heart statement of
the American Heart Association. Report of Nutrition Committee. Circulation
65: 839A-854A, 1982.[Medline]
23.. Sacks F: Dietary fats and coronary heart disease. Overview. J
Cardiovasc Risk 1: 3-8, 1994.[Medline]
24.. Dolecek TA: Epidemiological evidence of relationships between dietary
polyunsaturated fatty acids and mortality in the multiple risk factor
intervention trial. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 200: 177-182, 1992.[Abstract]
25.. Keys A, Parlin RW: Serum-cholesterol response to changes in dietary
lipids. Am J Clin Nutr 19: 175-181, 1966.[Medline]
26.. Hegsted DM, McGandy RB, Myers ML, Stare FJ: Quantitative effects of
dietary fat on serum cholesterol in man. Am J Clin Nutr 17: 281-295,
1965.[Medline]
27.. Lovejoy J, DiGirolamo M: Habitual dietary intake and insulin
sensitivity in lean and obese adults. Am J Clin Nutr 55: 1174-1179,
1992.[Abstract]
28.. Lovejoy JC: Dietary fatty acids and insulin resistance. Curr
Atheroscler Rep 1: 215-220, 1999.[Medline]
29.. Hu F, Salmeron J, Manson J, Stampfer M, Colditz G, Rimm E, Willett W:
Dietary fat and risk of type 2 diabetes in women [Abstract]. Am J Epidemiol
149: S1, 1999.[Medline]
30.. Abeywardena MY, McLennan PL, Charnock JS: Differential effects of
dietary fish oil on myocardial prostaglandin I2 and thromboxane A2
production. Am J Physiol 260: H379-385, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31.. Jacobs D, Blackburn G, Higgins M, Reed D, Iso H, McMillan G, Neaton
J, Nelson J, Potter J, Rifkind B, Rossouw J, Shekeller R, Usuf S: Report of
the Conference on Low Blood Cholesterol: Mortality Associations. Circulation
86: 1046-1060, 1992.[Abstract]
32.. Posner BM, Cobb JL, Belanger AJ, Cupples A, D'Agostino RB, Stokes III
J: Dietary lipid predictors of coronary heart disease in men. Arch Intern
Med 151: 1181-1187, 1991.[Abstract]
33.. Esrey KL, Joseph L, Grover SA: Relationship between dietary intake
and coronary heart disease mortality: Lipid research clinics prevalence
follow-up study. J Clin Epidemiol 49: 211-216, 1996.[Medline]
34.. Mensink RP, Katan MB: Effect of dietary fatty acids on serum lipids
and lipoproteins: a meta-analysis of 27 trials. Arterioscler and Thromb 12:
911-919, 1992.[Abstract]
35.. Garg A, Grundy SM, Koffler M: Effect of high carbohydrate intake on
hyperglycemia, islet cell function, and plasma lipoproteins in NIDDM.
Diabetes Care 15: 1572-1580, 1992.[Abstract]
36.. Parthasarathy S, Khoo JC, Miller E, Barnett J, Witztum JL, Steinberg
D: Low density lipoprotein rich in oleic acid is protected against oxidative
modification: Implications for dietary prevention of atherosclerosis. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 87: 3894-3898, 1990.[Abstract]
37.. Aro A, Kardinaal AFM, Salminen I, Kark JD, Riemersma RA,
Delgado-Rodriguez M, Gomez-Aracena J, Huttunen JK, Kohlmeier L, Martin BC,
Martin-Moreno JM, Mazaev VP, Ringstad J, Thamm M, van't Veer P, Kok FJ:
Adipose tissue isomeric trans fatty acids and risk of myocardial infarction
in nine countries: the EURAMIC study. Lancet 345: 273-278, 1995.[Medline]
38.. Roberts TL, Wood DA, Riemersma RA, Gallagher PJ, Lampe FC: Trans
isomers of oleic and linoleic acids in adipose tissue and sudden cardiac
death. Lancet 345: 278-282, 1995.[Medline]
39.. Judd JT, Clevidence BA, Muesing RA, Wittes J, Sunkin ME, Podczasy JJ:
Dietary trans fatty acids: effects of plasma lipids and lipoproteins of
healthy men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 59: 861-868, 1994.[Abstract]
40.. Lichtenstein AH, Ausman LM, Carrasco W, Jenner JL, Ordovas JM,
Schaefer EJ: Hydrogenation impairs the hypolipidemic effect of corn oil in
humans. Aterioscler Thromb 13: 154-161, 1993.[Abstract]
41.. Mensink RPM, Katan MB: Effect of dietary trans fatty acids on
high-density and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in healthy
subjects. N Engl J Med 323: 439-45, 1990.[Abstract]
42.. Zock PL, Katan MB: Hydrogenation alternatives: effects of trans fatty
acids and stearic acid versus linoleic acid on serum lipids and lipoproteins
in humans. J Lipid Res 33: 399-410, 1992.[Abstract]
43.. Willett WC, Ascherio A: Trans fatty acids: Are the effects only
marginal? Am J Public Health 84: 722-724, 1994.[Abstract]
44.. Nestel P, Noakes M, Belling Bea: Plasma lipoprotein and Lp[a] changes
with substitution of elaidic acid for oleic acid in the diet. J Lipid Res
33: 1029-1036, 1992.[Abstract]
45.. Sundram K, Ismail A, Hays KC, Jeyamalar R, Pathmanathan R: Trans
(Elaidic) fatty acids adversely affect the lipoprotein profile relative to
specific saturated fatty acids in humans. J Nutr 127: 514S-520S,
1997.[Medline]
46.. Utermann G: The mysteries of lipoprotein (a). Science 246: 904-910,
1989.[Medline]
47.. Katan MB, Zock PL: Trans fatty acids and their effects on
lipoproteins in humans. Annu Rev Nutr 15: 473-493, 1995.[Medline]
48.. Hokanson JE, Austin MA: Plasma triglyceride level is a risk factor
for cardiovascular disease independent of high-density lipoprotein
cholesterol level: a meta-analysis of population-based prospective studies.
J Cardiovasc Risk 3: 213-219, 1996.[Medline]
49.. Stampfer MJ, Krauss RM, Ma J, Blance PJ, Holl LG, Sacks FM, Hennekens
CH: A prospective study of triglyceride level, low-density lipoprotein
particle diameter, and risk of myocardial infarction. JAMA 276: 882-888,
1996.[Abstract]
50.. Hill EG, Johnson SB, Lawson LD, Mahfouz MM, Holman RT: Perturbation
of the metabolism of essential fatty acids by dietary partially hydrogenated
vegetable oil. Proc Natl Acad Sci 79: 953-957, 1982.[Abstract]
51.. Kinsella JE, Bruckner G, Mai J, Shimp J: Metabolism of trans fatty
acids with emphasis on the effects of trans, trans-octadecadienoate on lipid
composition, essential fatty acid, and prostaglandins: an overview. Am J
Clin Nutr 34: 2307-2318, 1981.[Abstract]
52.. Jones D: Trans fatty acids and dieting [Letter]. Lancet 341: 1093,
1993.
53.. Ascherio A, Katan MB, Zock PL, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC: Trans fatty
acids and coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 340: 1994-1998, 1999.[Free
Full Text]
54.. Katan MB: Trans fatty acids and plasma lipoproteins. Nutr Rev 58:
188-191, 2000.[Medline]
55.. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ: Nut consumption and risk of coronary heart
disease: A review of epidemiologic evidence. Curr Atheroscl Rep 1: 204-209,
1999.
56.. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rimm GA, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Speizer
FE, Hennekens CH, Willett WC: Frequent nut consumption and risk of coronary
heart disease: prospective cohort study. BMJ 317: 1341-1345,
1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
57.. Fraser GE, Sabate J, Beeson WL, Strahan TM: A possible protective
effect of nut consumption on risk of coronary heart disease. The Adventist
Health Study. Arch Intern Med 152: 1416-1424, 1992.[Abstract]
58.. Sabate J: Does nut consumption protest against ischemic heart
disease. Eur J Clin Nutr 47: S71-S75, 1993.[Medline]
59.. Abbey M, Noakes M, Belling GB, Nestel P: Partial replacement of
saturated fatty acids with almonds or walnuts lowers total plasma
cholesterol and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol. Am J Clin Nutr 59:
995-999, 1994.[Abstract]
60.. Spiller GA, Jenkins D, Gragen LN, Gates JE, Bosello O, Berra K, Rudd
C, Stevenson M, Superko R: Effect of a diet high in monounsaturated fat from
almonds on plasma cholesterol and lipoproteins. J Am Coll Nutr 11: 126-130,
1992.[Abstract]
61.. O'byrne DJ, Knauft DA, Shireman RB: Low fat-monounsaturated rich
diets containing high-oleic peanuts improve serum lipoprotein profiles.
Lipids 32: 687-695, 1997.[Medline]
62.. Willett WC: "Nutritional Epidemiology," 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 1998.
63.. Oliver MF: It is more important to increase the intake of unsaturated
fats than to decrease the intake of saturated fats: evidence from clinical
trials relating to ischemic heart disease. Am J Clin Nutr 66: 980S-986S,
1997.[Abstract]
64.. Sacks FM: Dietary factors. In Hennekens CH (ed): "Clinical Trials in
Cardiovascular Disease: A Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease."
Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, pp 423-431, 1999.
65.. Dayton S, Pearce ML, Hashimoto S, Dixon WJ, Tomiyasu U: A controlled
clinical trial of a diet high in unsaturated fat in preventing complications
of atherosclerosis. Circulation 40:(Suppl II): 1-63, 1969.[Medline]
66.. Turpeinen O, Karvonen MJ, Pekkarinen M, Miettinen M, Elosuo R,
Paavilainen E: Dietary prevention of coronary heart disease: The Finnish
Mental Hospital Study. Int J Epidemiol 8: 99-118, 1979.[Abstract]
67.. Frantz Jr ID, Dawson EA, Ashman PL, Gatewood LC, Bartsch GE, Kuba K,
Brewer ER: Test of effect of lipid lowering by diet on cardiovascular risk.
The Minnesota Coronary Survey. Arteriosclerosis 9: 129-135, 1989.[Abstract]
68.. Leren P: The Oslo Diet-Heart Study. Acta Med Scand 466(Suppl): 5-92,
1966.
69.. Leren P: The Oslo Diet-Heart Study. Eleven-year report. Circulation
42: 935-942, 1970.[Medline]
70.. Morris JN, Ball KP, Antonis A, et al: Controlled trial of soya-bean
oil in myocardial infarction. Lancet 2: 693-699, 1968.[Medline]
71.. Ball KP, Hanington E, McAllen PM, Pilkington TRE, Richards JM,
Sharland DE, Sowry GSC, Wilkinson P, Clarke JAC, Murland C, Wood J, Medical
Research Council Committee: Low-fat diet in myocardial infarction-A
controlled trial. Lancet 2: 501-504, 1965.[Medline]
72.. Burr ML, Fehily AM, Gilbert JF, Rogers S, Holliday RM, Sweetnam PM,
Elwood PC, Deadman NM: Effects of changes in fat, fish, and fibre intakes on
death and myocardial reinfarction: diet and reinfarction trial (DART):
Lancet 2: 757-761, 1989.[Medline]
73.. deLorgeril M, Renaud S, Mamelle N, Salen P, Martin J-L, Monjaud I,
Guidollet J, Touboul P, Delaye J: Mediterranean alpha-linolenic acid-rich
diet in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Lancet 343:
1454-1459, 1994.[Medline]
74.. de Lorgeril M, Salen P, Martin JL, Monjaud I, Delaye J, Mamelle N:
Mediterranean diet, traditional risk factors, and the rate of cardiovascular
complications after myocardial infarction: final report of the Lyon Diet
Heart Study. Circulation 99: 779-785, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
75.. Singh RB, Rastogi SS, Verman R, Laxmi B, Singh R, Ghosh S, Niaz MA:
Randomised controlled trial of cardioprotective diet in patients with recent
acute myocardial infarction: results of one year follow up. BMJ 304:
1015-1019, 1992.[Medline]
76.. Arntzenius AC, Kromhout D, Barth JD, Reiber JH, Bruschke AV, Buis B,
van Gent CM, Kempen-Voogd N, Strikwerda S, van der Velde EA: Diet,
lipoproteins, and the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. The Leiden
Intervention Trial. N Engl J Med 312: 805-811, 1985.[Abstract]
77.. Watts GF, Lewis B, Brunt JNH, Lewis ES, Coltart DJ, Smith LD, Mann
JI, Swan AV: Effects of coronary artery disease of lipid-lowering diet, or
diet plus cholestyramine, in the St. Thomas' Atherosclerosis Regression
Study (STARS). Lancet 339: 563-569, 1992.[Medline]
78.. Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Armstrong WT, Ports
TA, McLanahan SM, Kirkeeide RL, Brand RJ, Gould KL: Can lifestyle changes
reverse coronary heart disease? The Lifestyle Heart Trial. Lancet 336:
129-133, 1990.[Medline]
79.. Ornish D, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Brown SE, Gould KL, Merritt TA,
Sparler S, Armstrong WT, Ports TA, Kirkeeide RL, Hogeboom C, Brand RJ:
Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease. JAMA
280: 2001-2007, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
80.. Schuler G, Hambrecht R, Schlierf G, Niebauer J, Hauer K, Neumann J,
Hoberg E, Drinkmann A, Bacher F, Grunze M, et al.: Regular physical exercise
and low-fat diet. Effects on progression of coronary artery disease.
Circulation 86: 1-11, 1992.[Abstract]
81.. Haskell WL, Alderman EL, Fair JM, Maron DJ, Mackey SF, Superko HR,
Williams PT, Johnstone IM, Champagne MA, Krauss RM, et al.: Effects of
intensive multiple risk factor reduction on coronary atherosclerosis and
clinical cardiac events in men and women with coronary artery disease. The
Stanford Coronary Risk Intervention Project (SCRIP). Circulation 89:
975-990, 1994.[Abstract]
82.. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group: Mortality
after 16 years for participants randomized to the Multiple Risk Factor
Intervention Trial. Circulation 94: 946-951, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
83.. Strandberg TE, Salomaa VV, Naukkarinen VA, Vanhanen HT, Sarna SJ,
Miettinen TA: Long-term mortality after 5-year multifactorial primary
prevention of cardiovascular diseases in middle-aged men. JAMA 266:
1225-1229, 1991.[Abstract]
84.. Brown BG, Zhao XQ, Sacco DE, Albers JJ: Lipid lowering and plaque
regression. New insights into prevention of plaque disruption and clinical
events in coronary disease. Circulation 87: 1781-1791, 1993.[Abstract]
85.. Newman WP, Propst MT, Middaugh JP, Rogers DR: Atherosclerosis in
Alaska natives and non-natives. Lancet 341: 1056-1057, 1993.[Medline]
86.. Middaugh J: Cardiovascular deaths among Alaskan natives, 1980-1986.
Am J Public Health 80: 282-285, 1990.[Abstract]
87.. Kromann N, Green A: Epidemiological studies in Upernavik District,
Greenland. Acta Med Scand 208: 401-406, 1980.[Medline]
88.. Bang HO, Dyerberg J, Hjorne N: The composition of food consumed by
Greenland Eskimos. Acta Med Scand 200: 69-73, 1976.[Medline]
89.. Hirai A, Hamazaki T, Terano T, Nishikawa T, Tamura Y, Kumagai A,
Jajiki J: Eicosapentaenoic acid and platelet function in Japanese. Lancet 2:
1132-1133, 1980.[Medline]
90.. Kagawa Y, Nishizawa M, Suzuki M, Miyatake T, Hamamoto T, Goto K,
Motonaga E, Izumikawa H, Hirata H, Ebihara A: Eicosapolyenoic acids of serum
lipids of Japanese islanders with low incidence of cardiovascular disease. J
Nutr Sci Vitaminol 28: 441-453, 1982.[Medline]
91.. Kromhout D, Bosschieter EB, Coulander C: The inverse relation between
fish consumption and 20-year mortality from coronary heart disease. N Engl J
Med 312: 1205-1209, 1985.[Abstract]
92.. Daviglus ML, Stamler J, Orencia AJ, Dyer AR, Liu K, Greenland P,
Walsh MK, Morris D, Shekelle RB: Fish consumption and the 30-year risk of
fatal myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 336: 1046-1053,
1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
93.. Albert CM, Hennekens CH, O'Donnell CJ, Ajani UA, Carey VJ, Willett
WC, Ruskin JN, Manson JE: Fish consumption and the risk of sudden cardiac
death. JAMA 279: 23-28, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
94.. Morris MC, Manson JE, Rosner B, Buring JE, Willett WC, Hennekens CH:
Fish consumption and cardiovascular disease in the Physicians' Health Study:
a prospective study. Am J Epidemiol 142: 166-175, 1995.[Abstract]
95.. Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci EL, Willett WC: Dietary
intake of marine n-3 fatty acids, fish intake, and the risk of coronary
heart disease among men. N Engl J Med 332: 977-982, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full
Text]
96.. Burr ML, Fehily AM, Gilbert JF, Rogers S, Holliday RM, Sweetnam PM,
Elwood PC, Deadman NM: Effects of changes in fat, fish, and fibre intakes on
death and myocardial reinfarction: diet and reinfarction trial. Lancet 2:
757-761, 1989.[Medline]
97.. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto
miocardico: Dietary supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and
vitamin E after myocardial infarction: results from the GISSI-Prevenzione
trial. Lancet 354: 447-455, 1999.[Medline]
98.. Harris WS: Fish oils and plasma lipid and lipoprotein metabolism in
humans: a critical review. J Lipid Res 30: 785-807, 1989.[Abstract]
99.. von Shacky C: n-3 fatty acids and the prevention of coronary
atherosclerosis. Am J Clin Nutr 71: 224S-227S, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full
Text]
100.. Kang JX, Leaf A: Prevention of fatal cardiac arrhythmias by
polyunsaturated fatty acids. Am J Clin Nutr 71: 202S-207S, 2000.[Medline]
101.. DeCaterina R, Liao JK, Libby P: Fatty acid modulation of endothelial
activation. Am J Clin Nutr 71: 213S-223S, 2000.[Medline]
102.. Goodfellow J, Bellamy MF, Ramsey MW, Jones CJ, Lewis MJ: Dietary
supplementation with marine omega-3 fatty acids improve systemic large
artery endothelial function in subjects with hypercholesterolemia. J Am Coll
Cardiol 35: 265-270, 2000.[Medline]
103.. Fleischhauer FJ, Yan WD, Fischell TA: Fish oil improves
endothelium-dependent coronary vasodilation in heart transplant recipients.
J Am Coll Cardiol 21: 982-989, 1993.[Medline]
104.. Neuringer M, Connor WE: n-3 Fattay acids in the brain and retina:
evidence for their essentiality. Nutr Rev. 44: 285-294, 1986.[Medline]
105.. Neuringer M, Anderson GJ, Connor WE: The essentiality of n-3 fatty
acids for the development and function of the retina and brain. Ann Rev
Nutr. 8: 517-541, 1988.[Medline]
106.. Nelson GJ, Chamberlain JG: The effect of dietary alpha-linolenic
acid on blood lipids and lipoproteins in humans. In Cunnane SC, Thompson LU
(eds): "Flaxseed in Human Nutrition." Champaign, IL: AOAC Press, pp 99-127,
1995.
107.. Bjerve KS, Mostad IL, Thoresen L: Alpha-linolenic acid deficiency in
patients on long-term gastric-tube feeding: estimation of linolenic acid and
long-chain unsaturated n-3 fatty acid requirement in man. Am J Clin Nutr 45:
66-77, 1987.[Abstract]
108.. Holman RT, Johnson SB, Hatch TF: A case of human linolenic acid
deficiency involving neurological abnormalities. Am J Clin Nutr 35: 617-623,
1982.[Abstract]
109.. Cunnane SC: Metabolism and function of alpha-linolenic acid in
humans. In Cunnane SC, Thompson LU (eds): "Flaxseed in Human Nutrition."
Champaign, IL: AOAC Press, pp 99-127, 1995.
110.. Adam O, Wolfram G, Zollner N: Effect of alpha-linolenic acid in the
human diet on linoleic acid metabolism and prostaglandin biosythesis. J
Lipid Res 27: 421-426, 1986.[Abstract]
111.. Renaud S, Nordoy A: "Small is beautiful": alpha-linolenic acid and
eicosapentaenoic acid in man [Letter]. Lancet 1: 1169, 1983.[Medline]
112.. Kang JX, Leaf A: Antiarrhythmic effects of polyunsaturated fatty
acids: Recent studies. Circulation 94: 1774-1780, 1996.[Free Full Text]
113.. Siebert BD, McLennan PL, Woodhouse JA, Charnock JS: Cardiac
arrthythmia in rats in response to dietary n-3 fatty acids from red meat,
fish oil and canola oil. Nutr Res 13: 1407-1418, 1993.
114.. McLennan PL, Dallimore JA: Dietary canola oil modifies myocardial
fatty acids and inhibits cardiac arrthythmias in rats. J Nutr 125:
1003-1009, 1995.[Medline]
115.. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rimm E, Wolk A, Colditz GA, Hennekens
CH, Willett WC: Dietary intake of alpha-linolenic acid and risk of ischemic
heart disease among women. Am J Clin Nutr 69: 890-897, 1999.[Abstract/Free
Full Text]
116.. Connor WE: Alpha-linolenic acid in health and disease [Comment]. Am
J Clin Nutr 69: 827-8, 1999.[Free Full Text]
117.. Garg ML, Wierzbicki AA, Thomson ABR, Clandinin MT: Dietary saturated
fat level alters the competition between alpha-linolenic and linoleic acid.
Lipids 24: 334-339, 1989.[Medline]
118.. Chan JK, McDonald BE, Gerrard JM, Bruce VM, Weaver BJ, Holub BJ:
Effect of dietary alpha-linolenic acid and its ratio to linoleic acid on
platelet and plasma fatty acids and thrombogenesis. Lipids 28: 811-817,
1993.[Medline]
119.. Kinsella JE: Effects of polyunsaturated fatty acids on factors
related to cardiovascular disease. Am J Cardiol 60: 23G-32G, 1987.[Medline]
120.. Kinsella JE: Food lipids and fatty acids: Importance in food
quality, nutrition, and health. Food Technol 42: 124-145, 1988.
121.. Nair SSD, Leitch JW, Falconer J, Garg ML: Prevention of cardiac
arrhythmia by dietary (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids and their mechanism
of action. J Nutr 127: 383-393, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
122.. Berry EM: Dietary fatty acids in the management of diabetes
mellitus. Am J Clin Nutr 66: 991S-997S, 1997.[Abstract]
123.. Krauss RM, Eckel RH, Howard B, Appel LJ, Daniels SR, Deckelbaum RJ,
Erdman Jr JW, Kris-Etherton P, Goldberg IJ, Kotchen TA, Lichtenstein AH,
Mitch WE, Mullis R, Robinson K, Wylie-Rosett J, St Jeor S, Suttie J, Tribble
DL, Bazzarre TL: AHA Dietary Guidelines Revision 2000: A Statement for
Healthcare Professionals from the Nutrition Committee of the American Heart
Association. Circulation 102: 2284-2299, 2000.[Free Full Text]
124.. Stamler J, Shekelle R: Dietary cholesterol and human coronary heart
disease. Arch Pathol Lab Med 112: 1032-1040, 1988.[Medline]
125.. Hegsted DM, McGandy RB, Myers ML, Stare FJ: Quantitative effects of
dietary fat on serum cholesterol in man. Am J Clin Nutr 17: 281-295,
1965.[Medline]
126.. Clarke R, Frost C, Collins R, Appleby P, Peto R: Dietary lipids and
blood cholesterol: quantitative meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies. BMJ
314: 112-117, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
127.. Howell WH, McNamara DJ, Tosca MA, Smith BT, Gaines JA: Plasma lipid
and lipoprotein responses to dietary fat and cholesterol: a meta-analysis.
Am J Clin Nutr 65: 1747-1764, 1997.[Abstract]
128.. McGill HC: The relationship of dietary cholesterol to serum
cholestrol concentration and to atherosclerosis in man. Am J Clin Nutr 32:
2664-2702, 1979.[Medline]
129.. Hegsted DM: Serum-cholesterol response to dietary cholesterol: a
re-evaluation. Am J Clin Nutr 44: 299-305, 1986.[Abstract]
130.. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rimm E, Colditz GA, Rosner BA,
Hennekens CH, Willett WC: Dietary fat intake and the risk of coronary heart
disease in women. N Engl J Med 337: 1491-1499, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full
Text]
131.. National Cholesterol Education Program: Report of the Expert Panel
on Population Strategies for Blood Cholesterol Reduction: Executive Summary.
Arch Intern Med 151: 1071-1084, 1991.[Medline]
132.. Krauss RM, Deckelbaum RJ, Ernst N, Fisher E, Howard BV, Knopp RH,
Kotchen T, Lichtenstein AH, McGill HC, Pearson TA, Prewitt TE, Stone NJ, Van
Horn L, Weinberg R: Dietary guidelines for healthy American adults: A
statement for health professionals from the nutrition committee, American
Heart Association. Circulation 94: 1795-1800, 1996.[Free Full Text]
133.. Hopkins PN: Effects of dietary cholesterol on serum cholesterol: a
meta-analysis and review. Am J Clin Nutr 55: 1060-1070, 1992.[Abstract]
134.. Dawber TR, Nickerson RJ, Brand FN, Pool J: Eggs, serum cholesterol,
and coronary heart disease. Am J Clin Nutr 36: 617-625, 1982.[Abstract]
135.. Snowdon DA, Phillips RL, Fraser GE: Meat consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease. Prev Med 13: 490-500, 1984.[Medline]
136.. Fraser GE: Diet and coronary heart disease: beyond dietary fats and
low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol. Am J Clin Nutr 59 (Suppl): 1117S-1123S,
1994.[Abstract]
137.. Gramenzi A, Gentile A, Fasoli M, Negri E, Parazzini F, La Vecchia C:
Association between certain foods and risk of acute myocardial infarction in
women. BMJ 300: 771-773, 1990.[Medline]
138.. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Rimm EB, Manson JE, Ascherio A, Colditz GA,
Rosner BA, Spiegelman D, Speizer FE, Sacks FM, Hennekens CH, Willett WC: A
prospective study of egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease in
men and women. JAMA 281: 1387-1394, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
139.. Sacks F, Salazar J, Miller L, Foster JM, Sutherland M, Samonds KW,
Albers JJ, Kass EH: Ingestion of egg raises plasma low density lipoproteins
in free-living subjects. Lancet 647-649, 1984.
140.. Hopkins PN: Effects of dietary cholesterol on serum cholesterol: a
meta-analysis and review. Am J Clin Nutr 55: 1060-1070, 1992.[Abstract]
141.. Willett WC: Is dietary fat a major determinant of body fat? Am J
Clin Nutr 67: 556S-562S, 1998.[Abstract]
142.. Roberts SB: High-glycemic index foods, hunger, and obesity: is there
a connection? Nutr Rev 58: 163-169, 2000.[Medline]
143.. US Department of Agriculture-US Department of Health and Human
Services: "Nutrition and your health: Dietary guidelines for Americans."
Homes and Garden Bulletin No. 232. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office, 2000.




begin 666 uarrow.gif
M1TE&.#EA"P`)`*(``-_I]H:***@E7O+[3[0!1NO___P```````"'Y! ``````
D+ `````+``D`0 ,66+K<SD,0$EX!+LY-K8U5HVWAR$U!`@`[
`
end

begin 666 dot.gif
M1TE&.#EA"P`)`( ``/___T)"2B'Y! ``````+ `````+``D`0 (,A(^I&;V/
(6H"TRHH*`#L`
`
end

[PeterB]

Post by Juhana Harju
: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.
That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson JE and
Willett WC. Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a
critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5/F2
--
Juhana

But he's right that it doesn't matter. Serum cholesterol means nothing
if there are no lesions in the coronary arteries for it to attach to.
That's a function of collagen production, which points to the need for
higher intake of vitamin C. Lots of people have high cholesterol
without heart disease. Lots of people have normal cholesterol and
never make it to 50.

PeterB

[Juhana Harju]

PeterB wrote:
: Juhana Harju wrote:
:: vernon wrote:
::
::: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
::: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
::: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.
::
:: That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson
:: JE and Willett WC. Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart
:: disease: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.
::
:: http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5
::
:: http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5/F2
:
: But he's right that it doesn't matter.

He did not say that. It was a question wheather dietary fats have an effect
on serum cholesterol. And they do.

: Serum cholesterol means
: nothing if there are no lesions in the coronary arteries for it to
: attach to. That's a function of collagen production, which points to
: the need for higher intake of vitamin C. Lots of people have high
: cholesterol without heart disease. Lots of people have normal
: cholesterol and never make it to 50.

There are multiple mechanisms and risk factors involved in atheroschlerosis.
Cholesterol is not the only one, but still it is one risk factor, among many
others.

[vernon]

Post by Juhana Harju
::: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
::: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
::: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.
:: That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson
:: JE and Willett WC. Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart
:: disease: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.
:: http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5
:: http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5/F2
: But he's right that it doesn't matter.
He did not say that. It was a question wheather dietary fats have an effect
on serum cholesterol. And they do.
: Serum cholesterol means
: nothing if there are no lesions in the coronary arteries for it to
: attach to. That's a function of collagen production, which points to
: the need for higher intake of vitamin C. Lots of people have high
: cholesterol without heart disease. Lots of people have normal
: cholesterol and never make it to 50.
There are multiple mechanisms and risk factors involved in
atheroschlerosis.
Cholesterol is not the only one, but still it is one risk factor, among many
others.
--
Juhana

You need to learn to read studies for the complete message.

[Ron Peterson]

Post by PeterB
But he's right that it doesn't matter. Serum cholesterol means nothing
if there are no lesions in the coronary arteries for it to attach to.
That's a function of collagen production, which points to the need for
higher intake of vitamin C. Lots of people have high cholesterol
without heart disease. Lots of people have normal cholesterol and
never make it to 50.

How much vitamin C is needed in the diet to keep lesions from forming?

[Jan Drew]

Post by Ron Peterson

Post by PeterB
But he's right that it doesn't matter. Serum cholesterol means nothing
if there are no lesions in the coronary arteries for it to attach to.
That's a function of collagen production, which points to the need for
higher intake of vitamin C. Lots of people have high cholesterol
without heart disease. Lots of people have normal cholesterol and
never make it to 50.

How much vitamin C is needed in the diet to keep lesions from forming?
--
Ron

Dunno, Ron, how much?

[Matti Narkia]

24 Mar 2006 09:42:46 -0800 in article

Post by Ron Peterson

Post by PeterB
But he's right that it doesn't matter. Serum cholesterol means nothing
if there are no lesions in the coronary arteries for it to attach to.
That's a function of collagen production, which points to the need for
higher intake of vitamin C. Lots of people have high cholesterol
without heart disease. Lots of people have normal cholesterol and
never make it to 50.

How much vitamin C is needed in the diet to keep lesions from forming?

Wrong question. Why do you think that just taking vitamin C would keep
lesions from forming?

[vernon]

Post by PeterB

Post by Juhana Harju
: No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
: cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating
: cholesterol can raise cholesterol.
That is simply not true. Look at the Harvard review by Hu FB, Manson JE and
Willett WC. Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a
critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19.
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5/F2
--
Juhana

But he's right that it doesn't matter. Serum cholesterol means nothing
if there are no lesions in the coronary arteries for it to attach to.
That's a function of collagen production, which points to the need for
higher intake of vitamin C. Lots of people have high cholesterol
without heart disease. Lots of people have normal cholesterol and
never make it to 50.
PeterB

Lesions or irritations (one step below lesion)
Homosysteins can "irritate". The body produces cholesterol as a defense,
not a blocker.
I'm not a 100% about how C works but it is a defensive catalyst and is not
counter to positive. I never cease to be amazed at new findings. I know
also that they have proved that C softens the walls of veins and arteries (a
good thing)

Oh, yes, we mustn't forget that cholesterol is absolutely necessary for
proper brain function and helps prevent aneurism. I have seen evidence of
the first one here.

[Matti Narkia]

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:48:12 -0700 in article

Post by vernon
Oh, yes, we mustn't forget that cholesterol is absolutely necessary for
proper brain function and helps prevent aneurism. I have seen evidence of
the first one here.

Cholesterol cannot pass blood-brain barrier, brain makes its own
cholesterol, see for example

Bjorkhem I, Meaney S.
Brain cholesterol: long secret life behind a barrier.
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2004 May;24(5):806-15. Epub 2004 Feb 5.
Review.
PMID: 14764421 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/5/806>

[vernon]

Post by Matti Narkia
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:48:12 -0700 in article

Post by vernon
Oh, yes, we mustn't forget that cholesterol is absolutely necessary for
proper brain function and helps prevent aneurism. I have seen evidence of
the first one here.

Cholesterol cannot pass blood-brain barrier, brain makes its own
cholesterol, see for example
Bjorkhem I, Meaney S.
Brain cholesterol: long secret life behind a barrier.
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2004 May;24(5):806-15. Epub 2004 Feb 5.
Review.
PMID: 14764421 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/5/806>
--
Matti Narkia

You have no idea what you posted.

[Matti Narkia]

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:22:51 -0700 in article

Post by vernon

Post by Matti Narkia
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:48:12 -0700 in article

Post by vernon
Oh, yes, we mustn't forget that cholesterol is absolutely necessary for
proper brain function and helps prevent aneurism. I have seen evidence of
the first one here.

Cholesterol cannot pass blood-brain barrier, brain makes its own
cholesterol, see for example
Bjorkhem I, Meaney S.
Brain cholesterol: long secret life behind a barrier.
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2004 May;24(5):806-15. Epub 2004 Feb 5.
Review.
PMID: 14764421 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/5/806>

You have no idea what you posted.

You have absolutely no idea what you write about ;-).

[Alf Christophersen]

Post by vernon
No study has EVER shown that fats (other than hydrogenated) changes
cholesterol in a body. No study has ever shown that eating cholesterol can
raise cholesterol.

But many reports has shown the benefit of ALA on cholesterol.

And, when it comes to saturated fatty acids, not all of them rise
chances of getting a heart attack. Some refined analysis rather show a
protecting effect against CHD. While some PUFA decrease cholesterol
and increase chance of CHD at same time.

Like 8-isoprostane formation is not healthy in cardiac vessels.

[Rob]

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

And the Okinawans seem to do just fine on their diet which includes
fish and pork.

Rob

[Juhana Harju]

Rob wrote:
: PeterB wrote:
:: This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
:: to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
:: proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
:: motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association
:: to recommend consuming more fatty fish.

I agree.

: And the Okinawans seem to do just fine on their diet which includes
: fish and pork.

Again this myth of high pork consumption in Okinawa pops up. According to
the Okinawan centenarian study the long-lived Okinawan elders eat _very_
_little_ any meat, including pork. Their main sources of protein are fish
and soy products. This has been discussed previously in sci.med.nutrition
and I have presented data and references about this.

[Max C.]

Post by Juhana Harju
Again this myth of high pork consumption in Okinawa pops up. According to
the Okinawan centenarian study the long-lived Okinawan elders eat _very_
_little_ any meat, including pork. Their main sources of protein are fish
and soy products. This has been discussed previously in sci.med.nutrition
and I have presented data and references about this.

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/food_in_china.html

"And what do Okinawans eat? The main meat of the diet is pork, and not
the lean cuts only. Okinawan cuisine, according to gerontologist
Kazuhiko Taira, "is very healthy-and very, very greasy," in a 1996
article that appeared in Health Magazine. And the whole pig is
eaten-everything from "tails to nails." Local menus offer boiled pigs
feet, entrail soup and shredded ears. Pork is cooked in a mixture of
soy sauce, ginger, kelp and small amounts of sugar, then sliced and
chopped up for stir fry dishes. Okinawans eat about 100 grams of meat
per day-compared to 70 in Japan and just over 20 in China-and at
least an equal amount of fish, for a total of about 200 grams per day,
compared to 280 grams per person per day of meat and fish in America.
Lard-not vegetable oil-is used in cooking."

I have read more than once that those conducting the Okinawan
centenarian study freely omitted information that didn't fit their
preconceived notions of a healthy diet. If that's true (obviously I
have no way to know for sure) then the study wouldn't be representative
of the true Okinawan diet.

Max.

[pearl]

Post by Max C.

Post by Juhana Harju
Again this myth of high pork consumption in Okinawa pops up. According to
the Okinawan centenarian study the long-lived Okinawan elders eat _very_
_little_ any meat, including pork. Their main sources of protein are fish
and soy products. This has been discussed previously in sci.med.nutrition
and I have presented data and references about this.

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/food_in_china.html
"And what do Okinawans eat? The main meat of the diet is pork, and not
the lean cuts only. Okinawan cuisine, according to gerontologist
Kazuhiko Taira, "is very healthy-and very, very greasy," in a 1996
article that appeared in Health Magazine. And the whole pig is
eaten-everything from "tails to nails." Local menus offer boiled pigs
feet, entrail soup and shredded ears. Pork is cooked in a mixture of
soy sauce, ginger, kelp and small amounts of sugar, then sliced and
chopped up for stir fry dishes. Okinawans eat about 100 grams of meat
per day-compared to 70 in Japan and just over 20 in China-and at
least an equal amount of fish, for a total of about 200 grams per day,
compared to 280 grams per person per day of meat and fish in America.
Lard-not vegetable oil-is used in cooking."

1996.

Post by Max C.
I have read more than once that those conducting the Okinawan
centenarian study freely omitted information that didn't fit their
preconceived notions of a healthy diet. If that's true (obviously I
have no way to know for sure) then the study wouldn't be representative
of the true Okinawan diet.

'The traditional meat in Okinawa was pork but its consumption
was limited to ceremonial occasions. Thus, the Okinawan elders
have consumed very little meat over the course of their lives.'
http://www.okinawa-diet.com/news/20041214_cnn.html

'It's a similar story in Okinawa, where the island's youth are
increasingly succumbing to the lure of fast food. "The young
people are eating hamburgers and pork and don't do enough
exercise," Suzuki says. "Okinawan male life expectancy used
to be No. 1 in Japan. It started to decline 10 years ago, and
hit 26th out of 47 prefectures in the 2000 census. I expect it
to decline even further in the next census." The change is
almost entirely due to a much higher mortality among
younger people, according to Suzuki. "The elders are living
longer but the young are dying younger." If any further
evidence is needed of the dramatic effect a change in diet
can produce, Suzuki points to the example of an Okinawan
community in South America. Recruited to work on rubber
plantations, several hundred thousand islanders moved to
Brazil in the 1930s and switched to eating large amounts of
beef because it was widely available and cheap. According
to Suzuki, they now live an average 64 years-17 years lower
than the Okinawa average.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501030721/story4.html

[Juhana Harju]

pearl wrote:
: "Max C." <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
::: Again this myth of high pork consumption in Okinawa pops up.
::: According to the Okinawan centenarian study the long-lived Okinawan
::: elders eat _very little_ any meat, including pork. Their main
::: sources of protein are fish and soy products. This has been
::: discussed previously in sci.med.nutrition and I have presented data
::: and references about this.
::
:: http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/food_in_china.html
::
:: "And what do Okinawans eat? The main meat of the diet is pork, and
:: not the lean cuts only.

And you think, Max, that the web pages of Weston A. Price is a reliable
source of information? My source is The Okinawa Program written by the
Okinawa centenarian study lead researchers. Read the book and you'll know
more.

: 'The traditional meat in Okinawa was pork but its consumption
: was limited to ceremonial occasions. Thus, the Okinawan elders
: have consumed very little meat over the course of their lives.'
: http://www.okinawa-diet.com/news/20041214_cnn.html
:
: 'It's a similar story in Okinawa, where the island's youth are
: increasingly succumbing to the lure of fast food. "The young
: people are eating hamburgers and pork and don't do enough
: exercise," Suzuki says. "Okinawan male life expectancy used
: to be No. 1 in Japan. It started to decline 10 years ago, and
: hit 26th out of 47 prefectures in the 2000 census. I expect it
: to decline even further in the next census." The change is
: almost entirely due to a much higher mortality among
: younger people, according to Suzuki. "The elders are living
: longer but the young are dying younger." If any further
: evidence is needed of the dramatic effect a change in diet
: can produce, Suzuki points to the example of an Okinawan
: community in South America. Recruited to work on rubber
: plantations, several hundred thousand islanders moved to
: Brazil in the 1930s and switched to eating large amounts of
: beef because it was widely available and cheap. According
: to Suzuki, they now live an average 64 years-17 years lower
: than the Okinawa average.
: http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501030721/story4.html

That is correct, Pearl. The diet of Okinawan elders is well documented.
Younger generations eat more meat but their health is deteriorating as a
result.

[Max C.]

Post by Juhana Harju
And you think, Max, that the web pages of Weston A. Price is a reliable
source of information? My source is The Okinawa Program written by the
Okinawa centenarian study lead researchers. Read the book and you'll know
more.

Show everyone here one shred of evidence that the Weston Price
Foundation has any reason to mislead the public. The paragraph I
posted says that the Okinawans over 100 years of age ate, *ON AVERAGE*,
200 grams of meat per day. That's hardly occasional.

And thanks for posting that paragraph, pearl. Another glaring example
of your vegan agenda. It delicately dances around the fact that young
Okinawans are now eating FAST FOOD, and blatantly ignores the fact that
they're eating highly refined junk food and rancid / trans fats. From
that, you readily place the blame on all meat. It's FAR more likely
that the reason is the refined PLANT FOODS. French fries, bread,
frying oil, high fructose corn syrup... basically the usual list of
cheap carbs.

Furthermore, are we REALLY to believe that one reason for the longevity
of Okinawans is canola oil!?! It was only invented a few decades ago.
Anyone that believes canola oil gives those people long life needs to
be added to the "kook list" fast! To come to such an obviously
incorrect conclusion means the "researchers" are desperate to prove
their current position rather than report facts. The book also jumps
all over the place on recommendations of amounts of soy and how to
prepare it.

I think a decent, open-minded review of the book should be read by
anyone considering to believe the Okinawan Centenarian Study. See
here:

http://www.notmilk.com/forum/595.html

"After three hundred pages of reading about the Okinawa way,
the authors turn a halfway decent study into a typical
Atkins-style menu book.

Chapter Ten is titled "Four Weeks to Everlasting Health,"
and the day-by-day menus contradict everything the authors
may have learned, and their cumulative lack of wisdom makes
me sick to my stomach.

On the first day, the good doctors would have you eat
toasted waffles with maple syrup, bagels with cream cheese,
and vanilla ice cream. On day 2, they add yogurt to their
dairy-laced menu. What's with these guys? Before the week
ends, one is eating skim milk, Manhattan clam chowder,
Caesar salad, potatoes with sour cream, and creamed peaches."

Yum! I'll bet that's EXACTLY what the Okinawans eat. Puh-Leeze.

Max.

[pearl]

Post by Max C.
And thanks for posting that paragraph, pearl. Another glaring example
of your vegan agenda. It delicately dances around the fact that young
Okinawans are now eating FAST FOOD, and blatantly ignores the fact that
they're eating highly refined junk food and rancid / trans fats. From
that, you readily place the blame on all meat. It's FAR more likely
that the reason is the refined PLANT FOODS. French fries, bread,
frying oil, high fructose corn syrup... basically the usual list of
cheap carbs.

That you delicately danced around and blatantly ignored
the following is another glaring example of your agenda.

'The traditional meat in Okinawa was pork but its consumption
was limited to ceremonial occasions. Thus, the Okinawan elders
have consumed very little meat over the course of their lives.'
http://www.okinawa-diet.com/news/20041214_cnn.html

'Okinawan male life expectancy used to be No. 1 in Japan.'

Were Japanese elsewhere then eating refined and processed
plant foods, trans fats, etc? Was the meat eaten in the rest
of Japan "rancid"; or is it that they were eating more of it?

'If any further evidence is needed of the dramatic effect a
change in diet can produce, Suzuki points to the example
of an Okinawan community in South America. Recruited
to work on rubber plantations, several hundred thousand
islanders moved to Brazil in the 1930s and switched to
eating large amounts of beef because it was widely available
and cheap. According to Suzuki, they now live an average
64 years- 17 years lower than the Okinawa average.'
http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501030721/story4.html

Were they eating refined and processed junk foods?

[vernon]

Post by pearl

Post by Max C.
And thanks for posting that paragraph, pearl. Another glaring example
of your vegan agenda. It delicately dances around the fact that young
Okinawans are now eating FAST FOOD, and blatantly ignores the fact that
they're eating highly refined junk food and rancid / trans fats. From
that, you readily place the blame on all meat. It's FAR more likely
that the reason is the refined PLANT FOODS. French fries, bread,
frying oil, high fructose corn syrup... basically the usual list of
cheap carbs.

That you delicately danced around and blatantly ignored
the following is another glaring example of your agenda.
'The traditional meat in Okinawa was pork but its consumption
was limited to ceremonial occasions. Thus, the Okinawan elders
have consumed very little meat over the course of their lives.'
http://www.okinawa-diet.com/news/20041214_cnn.html
'Okinawan male life expectancy used to be No. 1 in Japan.'
Were Japanese elsewhere then eating refined and processed
plant foods, trans fats, etc? Was the meat eaten in the rest
of Japan "rancid"; or is it that they were eating more of it?
'If any further evidence is needed of the dramatic effect a
change in diet can produce, Suzuki points to the example
of an Okinawan community in South America. Recruited
to work on rubber plantations, several hundred thousand
islanders moved to Brazil in the 1930s and switched to
eating large amounts of beef because it was widely available
and cheap. According to Suzuki, they now live an average
64 years- 17 years lower than the Okinawa average.'
http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501030721/story4.html
Were they eating refined and processed junk foods?

Like it or not,
when all else is equal, vegans have an average life expectancy 20 years
shorter than non vegans.

This can be further exacerbated by adding certain oils such as canola and
even further thru hydrogenation.
Add plenty of sugar and you have poisoned yourself.

[vernon]

Post by Juhana Harju
:: This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
:: to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
:: proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
:: motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association
:: to recommend consuming more fatty fish.
I agree.
: And the Okinawans seem to do just fine on their diet which includes
: fish and pork.
Again this myth of high pork consumption in Okinawa pops up. According to
the Okinawan centenarian study the long-lived Okinawan elders eat _very_
_little_ any meat, including pork. Their main sources of protein are fish
and soy products. This has been discussed previously in sci.med.nutrition
and I have presented data and references about this.
--
Juhana

Lots of fish. Less soy than meat.

Soy byproducts, yes, but not as source of protein.

[vernon]

Post by Rob

Post by PeterB
This is nothing more than a product of junk science analysis designed
to keep people on their heart meds. FAR more studies (hundreds) have
proven the cardiovascular health benefits of fatty fish, which has
motivated even the normally recalcitrant American Heart Association to
recommend consuming more fatty fish. The potential ill effects of
encapsulated fish oil points to products that are often cheap and
rancid. I'm sure they didn't bother to check. Rancid oils promote
disease just like a trans fat. The quote from the dimwitted dietician
is a joke (as is usually the case.) Normal intake of fatty fish, or
non-rancid quality fish oil supplements (preferrably liquid since
rancidity cannot be concealed) is one of the best things anyone
(ESPECIALLY heart patients) can do for themselves. Dont' fall for this
pharma peddling trash.
PeterB

And the Okinawans seem to do just fine on their diet which includes
fish and pork.
Rob

True, but they don't pack the oil in little capsules 3 months in advance.

[M Dunne]

You should cross-post this sort of stuff to sci.life-extension: there are
knowledgeable professionals there.

M.D.

Post by pearl
UK News
Is oily fish really healthy?
Friday, 24th March 2006, 07:52
Category: Healthy Living
LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Eating oily fish
may not be as good for you as doctors thought,
according to new research.
A study does not find evidence of a clear health
benefit of the omega 3 fats found in fish such as
mackerel and salmon.
The findings published online by the British
Medical Journal do not rule out an important
effect of the fatty acids, but suggest that the
evidence should be reviewed regularly, say
the researchers.
Consumption of long chain omega 3 fatty acids,
found in oily fish and fish oils, and a shorter
chain omega 3 found in oily fish and fish oils,
and another type of omega 3 found in some
plant oils, is believed to protect against heart
disease.
UK guidelines encourage the general public
to eat more oily fish, and higher amounts are
advised after a heart attack.
Researchers analysed 89 studies to assess
the health effects of the omega 3 fats on total
death rates, heart disease, cancer, and strokes.
Each study involved a treatment group and
a control group and investigated the effect of
omega 3 intake on health for at least six months.
Pooling the results showed no strong evidence
that omega 3 fats have an effect on total
mortality or combined cardiovascular events.
Other recent reviews of omega 3 trials found
the fats decrease mortality, but the publication
of a large contradictory trial has changed the
overall picture.
The authors cannot say exactly why the
results of this trial differ from the other large
studies in this field.
They therefore conclude that it is not clear
whether omega 3 fats reduce or increase total
mortality, heart disease, cancer, or strokes.
UK guidelines advising people to eat more
oily fish should continue at present but the
evidence should be reviewed regularly, say
the authors.
Added dietitian Dr Lee Hooper, of the
University of East Anglia: "But it is probably
not appropriate to recommend a high intake
of omega 3 fats for people who have angina
but have not had a heart attack.
"To understand the effects of omega 3 fats
on health, we need more high quality
randomised controlled trials of long duration
that also report the associated harms."
In an accompanying editorial epidemiologist
Eric Brunner, of the Royal Free and University
College London Medical School, London,
warned: "We are faced with a paradox. Health
recommendations advise increased consumption
of oily fish and fish oils.
"However, industrial fishing has depleted the
world's fish stocks by some 90% since 1950,
and rising fish prices reduce affordability
particularly for people with low incomes.
"Global production trends suggest that,
although fish farming is expanding rapidly,
we probably do not have a sustainable
supply of long chain omega 3 fats."
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=WU2423768O&news_headline=is_oily_fish_really_healthy
J Membr Biol. 2005 Jul;206(2):155-63.
Is fish oil good or bad for heart disease?
Two trials with apparently conflicting results.
Burr ML, Dunstan FD, George CH.
Department of Epidemiology, Statistics and
Public Health, Cardiff University, Wales, UK.
Two successive randomized trials examined
the effect of an increased intake of fatty fish,
or the use of fish oil supplements, in reducing
mortality in men with heart disease. The Diet
and Reinfarction Trial (DART) was conducted
in 2033 men who were recovering from acute
myocardial infarction (MI). Those who were
advised to eat fatty fish (or who opted to take
fish oil capsules instead) had a 29% reduction
in all-cause mortality over the following two
years compared with those not so advised.
The effect appeared in the first few months
of the trial. The Diet and Angina Randomized
Trial (DART 2) involved 3114 men with stable
angina. Advice to eat fatty fish did not reduce
mortality, and taking fish oil capsules was
associated with a higher risk of cardiac and
sudden death. The adverse effects of fish or
fish oil were restricted to men not taking
beta-blockers or dihydropyridine calcium-
channel blockers, and were greater in those
taking digoxin. Evidence from other sources
strongly suggests an anti-arrhythmic action of
fish oil, particularly after MI or in the presence
of acute ischemia. The apparently conflicting
results of the two trials may reflect different
actions of n-3 fatty acids in acute and chronic
conditions, together with different effects of
eating fish and taking fish oil capsules. A
mechanism is proposed that could account
for these findings.
PMID: 16456725 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16456725&dopt=Abstract
Clin. Cardiol. 22, (Suppl. III), III-11-III-15 (1999)
Nut Consumption, Lipids, and Risk of a Coronary Event
Gary E. Fraser, M.B. Ch.B., Ph.D.
Center for Health Research, School of Public Health,
Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, USA
Summary: In the past, many have avoided nuts
because of their high fat content. The Dietary
Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet,
however, recommends regular consumption of
this food along with seeds and dried beans
(4-5 servings per week) as part of a diet to
control hypertension. Nuts are nutrient-dense
and most of their fat is unsaturated. They are
also perhaps the best natural source of vitamin E
and are relatively concentrated repositories of
dietary fiber, magnesium, potassium, and arginine,
the dietary precursor of nitric oxide. Human
feeding studies have demonstrated reductions
of 8-12% in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)
cholesterol when almonds and walnuts are
substituted for more traditional fats. Other
studies show that macadamias and hazelnuts
appear at least as beneficial as fats in commonly
recommended diets. Whether consuming
modest quantities of nuts daily may promote
weight gain is not known with certainty, but
preliminary data suggest that this is unlikely.
Four of the best and largest cohort studies in
nutritional epidemiology have now reported
that eating nuts frequently is associated with a
decreased risk of coronary heart disease of
the order of 30-50%. The findings are very
consistent in subgroup analyses and unlikely
to be due to confounding. Possible
mechanisms include reduction in LDL
cholesterol, the antioxidant actions of
vitamin E, and the effects on the endothelium
and platelet function of higher levels of nitric
oxide. Although nuts may account for a
relatively small percentage of dietary calories,
the potential interacting effects of these
factors on disease risk may be considerable.
....'
http://www.clinicalcardiology.org/productcart/pc/supplements/CC22S3/CC22-3.fraser.html

[Leif Erikson]

Post by pearl
UK News
Is oily fish really healthy?
Friday, 24th March 2006, 07:52
Category: Healthy Living
LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Eating oily fish
may not be as good for you as doctors thought,
according to new research.

And yet, when doctors allegedly "think" there's something "wrong" with
testing drugs on animals, lesley the foot-rubbing WHORE slavishly posts
the story in which doctors, who are NOT experts in drug testing
protocols, are semi-quoted saying testing on animals "doesn't work".

You can always count on lesley to be dishonest and inconsistent.

[Leif Erikson]

[the usual flood of bullshit]

The study apparently found no reason *not* to eat fatty fish, but at
least some of the studies indicated health benefits for some groups.
So: it may help you, and it the study doesn't find any indication it
will hurt you.

Eat the fish.