Fattier Milk = Slimmer Kids

[swamp]

Apr 26, 2013 14:43:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

In other words, there's actually ZERO link between a diet high in saturated fat and heart disease. And there's NO link between high cholesterol and atherosclerosis. None.

My BIL is a cardiologist and says there is something to that.  HOwever, it is also dependent on genetics.  Some people it does affect, others it doesn't. 

He follows a paleo diet, which for an italian dude, is torturous.

[kittensaver]

www.amazon.com/Everyday-Paleo-Around-World-Gluten-Free/dp/1936608308/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367006111&sr=1-1&keywords=paleo+italian

You're welcome

[Deleted]

If you don't eat manicotti you are no longer allowed to call yourself an Italian!

[swamp]

Apr 26, 2013 14:58:09 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

If you don't eat manicotti you are no longer allowed to call yourself an Italian!

You need to go revoke his Eye-Talian card.

[Deleted]

I think the literature shows some correlation in men over 60, otherwise, and it pains me to say, Paul is more right than wrong here...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 26, 2013 14:43:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 26, 2013 14:37:58 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Actually, you paid no attention to the content at all.  There's actually no scientific link between cholesterol and heart disease at all.  None.  It's like global warming.  The whole lipid hypothesis is a concoction, a fabrication, a total fraud.

LOL Paul. I stopped watching your videos a long time ago as they are mostly bogus nonsense. But feel free to load up on those fatty ribs and other foods. I doubt you will see 9/19/2025.

Too bad.  For you.  The bogus nonsense is that eating what they use to fatten animals for slaughter is "healthy".  But whatever floats your boat.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

105 year old woman reveals the secret to long longevity: Bacon.

[a href="http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/6715/20130508/105-year-old-texas-woman-reveals-baconbehi-long.htm"]Bacon[/a]


www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/6715/20130508/105-year-old-texas-woman-reveals-baconbehi-long.htm

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 26, 2013 15:17:41 GMT -5 oped said:

I think the literature shows some correlation in men over 60, otherwise, and it pains me to say, Paul is more right than wrong here...

I know some people think so, but I do not post this stuff off the top of my head.  What most of the actual science on this shows is that a hardening of the arteries is a symptom of what is now broadly being labeled as "metabolic syndrome" - think "Diabetes Spectrum"-- which includes a number of maladies from inflammation and obesity all the way to diabetes and congestive heart failure.  The cause? Sugar.  

And they mean sugar in the broad sense- an over-abundance of carbohydrates.  

So, what is driving the attack on cholesterol and saturated fat in spite of the fact that there's no scientific link between a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol and heart disease (yes, you read that right)?  Politics and money.

The American Heart Association makes most of its money selling the right to stick their little label on products.  If one day it ever became widely known that, for example, Honey Nut Cheerios, and not bacon was the cause of heart disease- the folks at the AHA would be out a lot of dough-- and probably in for a lawsuit or three.

I challenge everyone here to do something for ONE week:  keep your carbohydrate intake below 100g daily, keep your daily calorie intake to 2,500 for the guys (unless you're VERY active) and 2,000 or fewer for the ladies.  And do not eat ANY (as in ZERO) foods containing wheat.

My prediction- you'll lose somewhere between one and three pounds, you will have more energy, and if you suffer from maladies that exhibit themselves by way of inflammation you're going to feel a hundred times better.  It's amazing. I am going on about four months of a roughly "paleo" diet (the hardest part for me was teaching myself to drink black coffee- which I now prefer.  I've always like unsweet tea, but coffee took a minute).  I'm down 17 pounds, and I have the energy I had when I was 25.  I would not have thought this possible.  I thought all of my lethargy was due to age, and my weight gain was a result of being lethargic and eating too much (it was- but if you take care of the root of it-- energy level, you solve a lot of issues).  

[Tennesseer]

May 9, 2013 6:36:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

105 year old woman reveals the secret to long longevity: Bacon.

[a href="http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/6715/20130508/105-year-old-texas-woman-reveals-baconbehi-long.htm"]Bacon

[/a]


www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/6715/20130508/105-year-old-texas-woman-reveals-baconbehi-long.htm[/quote]

Mme Jeanne Calment smoked right in the face of superstition - She was listed as the world's oldest human whose birth date could be certified, and died at 122. She had begun smoking as a young woman. At 117 she quit smoking (by that age she was just smoking two or three cigarettes per day because she was blind and was too proud to ask often for someone to light her cigarettes for her). But she resumed smoking when she was 118 because, as she said, not smoking made her miserable and she was too old to be made miserable. She also said to her doctor: "Once you've lived as long as me, only then can you tell me not to smoke." Good point! [USA Today, "Way to go, champ," 10/18/95].

www.forces.org/static_page/oldest.php

Smoking and eating bacon = long life.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

As a general rule, you can live longer as a contrarian on health issues. Whatever T.H.E.Y. say, just do the opposite, and you'll be fine. Now, there are some exceptions, but they aren't as obvious as you might think. I, for one, do not enjoy smoking. I will have to occasional cigar- I really DO enjoy smoking cigars. However, I don't like the after effects of smelling like a dirty ashtray. So, I don't plan on taking up smoking anytime soon- nor would I call it a "harmless" activity. However, among the several things we all generally regard as unhealthy-- we place too much emphasis on smoking in particular.

I wouldn't go so far as to call smoking a "healthy" habit- particularly the factory-made, fiberglass filter, fire-retardant-laden store-bought kind. However, the risks of smoking- including it's rather dubious causal link to cancer- are greatly over-stated. Our collective national freak-out over smoking is probably also tied into the the fact that the nation has gained an average of 8 pounds over the last 25 years. In fact, there are tremendous health benefits of nicotine- chief among them improved cognitive ability and prevention of Alzheimer's disease.

At best, and mind you this is according to wildly biased data from WHO and CDC which should automatically tell you that this is the best they can do- smoking is a "risk factor" for lung cancer. The statement that "smoking causes lung cancer" is misleading.

Again, not going to take it up anytime soon- my grandma died from COPD and smoking DOES cause emphysema, and it is a risk factor for heart disease and stroke. Interestingly enough, though, the emphysema isn't caused by all that smoke and tar. It's caused because nicotine is a bronchodilator, and over time, it causes the bronchial passages to lose their flexibility-- you might be surprised to learn that asthma sufferers are at the same risk of emphysema as smokers- due to brochodilator treatments such as steroids, and inhaler's.

However, while that link you (TN) posted might seem outlandish, you do have to ask yourself: If smoking is a definitive cause of all the maladies it has supposedly been shown to cause- why does it fail the scientific method so often? I mentioned my grandmother died from emphysema, but she was 84. She started smoking when she was 15, and didn't quit until she was 70. For a good number of her smoking years, she was a 2 packer. Even after that, she'd have a smoke or two every now and again. And she wasn't diagnosed with COPD until 78. Not saying she didn't have it- but she wasn't symptomatic to the point of seeking treatment until almost 80 years of age. Granted, if she could come back and do it all again, smoking would probably not be something she repeated.

Here's an interesting read for you: www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm

Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer

(According to WHO/CDC Data)*

By: James P. Siepmann, MD

Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. I initially was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying "smoking causes lung cancer"1,2, but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything else like that.)

When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now, if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then their answer based upon current evidence should have be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone uses the word "cause."

Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less. I personally would not smoke cigarettes and take that risk, nor recommend cigarette smoking to others, but the numbers were less than I had been led to believe. I only did the data on white males because they account for the largest number of lung cancers in the US, but a similar analysis can be done for other groups using the CDC data.

You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

And btw, I read somewhere that if you total up all the deaths due to "fill in the blank" you will come up with a number greater than the population of the United States. I'll try to find that information. And I will hold that I'm remembering it wrong- but, and here's the meat of it: if you die of a gunshot wound to the chest, and you're considered obese, you're a diabetic, and you're a smoker-- then your death will count as related to ALL of those categories. They do the same thing with drinking and driving stats. If an on-coming car skids on black ice and hits you head on, or a deer jumps out in front of your car, and you have ANY (not just above the legal limit- but ANY) alcohol in your system that is detectable with a blood test, then that crash was "alcohol related".

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 9, 2013 9:58:53 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Paul I get your point, but as a former smoker-

Smoking is a stupid, filthy, expensive, annoying (to others) habit that will usually compromise one's health or kill them over time.

My mother smoked most of her life.  She has COPD, and non- Hodgkins Lymphoma.  The cancer is a very mild form, thank goodness, and will probably never harm her, but the COPD is definitely the result of smoking, and could kill her eventually.  She is 83, so she is getting older.

Smoking does not always kill, or even always compromise one's health, but the odds aren't good.  And in the meantime, it's other effects are almost completely deleterious.

I quit when I was 26.  By that time I was smoking 2-3 packs a day.  I noticed I got winded faster than I used to.  My fingers where I held the cigarettes were brown from nicotine.  I didn't notice it, but I and everything I was around reeked of stale cigarette smoke.  In the morning, right before I reached for my first cigarette, I hacked up a ball or two of disgusting brownish phlem.  Nice.

The benefits of smoking?  It tasted good after eating (although the smoke impaired taste buds didn't taste the food thoroughly) and it was nice after sex.

The benefits of quitting?  Phlem and hacking cough gone within a week.  Energy levels up almost immediately. Percieved lung capacity recovered within months. No more stink.  Lots more cash.  Good health.

I imagine you would agree with this, I got that from your post.  I just gotta trash the butts though.

2 to 3 packs a day?  How did you even find the TIME?  

I was a 'social' smoker for awhile.  Waited until the ripe old age of 23 to start (I'm a genius, I know) and one day I noticed that I finished a pack- first time I'd done that.  Ever.  So, I 'slowed down' and I limited myself to 5 per day.  I continued bullshitting myself about 'social' smoking, and not smoking 'that much' for a year or so, and one day I just got disgusted with myself for being such an idiot that I quit cold turkey and never looked back.  Now, I do smoke about 2 to 3 cigars a month.  Ever other couple of Friday nights I'll go for a walk and light up.  Cigars have issues- lip, throat cancers, and as I found out recently they are a risk factor (as is all tobacco) for blood clots (I quit after a recent experience with DVT-- a blood clot in my leg- and actually haven't smoked anything since).  So they are far from harmless, but as I'm fond of saying- you don't necessarily live longer if you quit using tobacco.  It just seems longer. 

[Deleted]

I know some people think so, but I do not post this stuff off the top of my head

  I speculate that your "stuff" has it's origin quite a bit lower.

[Tennesseer]

[

know some people think so, but I do not post this stuff off the top of my head.

See 'The 800 Pound Gorilla In Cleveland' thread for evidence to the contrary.

[mmhmm]

The real scientific fact in this matter is:  We don't know what causes atherosclerosis.  There are a number of theories, but none are proven to be THE cause.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 26, 2013 14:51:21 GMT -5 swamp said:

Apr 26, 2013 14:43:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

In other words, there's actually ZERO link between a diet high in saturated fat and heart disease. And there's NO link between high cholesterol and atherosclerosis. None.

My BIL is a cardiologist and says there is something to that.  HOwever, it is also dependent on genetics.  Some people it does affect, others it doesn't. 

He follows a paleo diet, which for an italian dude, is torturous.

Pizza, Italian food, and burritos are my long lost loves.  And no, the "bowl" idea just doesn't cut it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 9, 2013 14:38:46 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The real scientific fact in this matter is:  We don't know what causes atherosclerosis.  There are a number of theories, but none are proven to be THE cause.

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio

The guy I got the Paleo diet information suggests:

70% total fat on a calorie basis
31% saturated fat
7% polyunsaturated fat
25% monounsaturated fat
7% other fats
27% protein
3% carbohydrates 

He also highly recommends MOVING, but nothing extreme.  Walking is JUST FINE, and btw it is NOT proven that running and "cardio" workouts have any added heart health benefits.  Moving is the key, but you don't have to do anything too strenuous.  And strength training- again, you don't have to go nuts.  You don't even have to lift weights.  His strength training consists of karate training, push ups, sit ups, and the military's famous "8 Count Body Builders" (It's basically The West Point fitness plan).

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

TN & mmhmm - you don't have to kill yourselves disagreeing with me.

[mmhmm]

And there's NO link between high cholesterol and atherosclerosis. None.

This is not true.  In some populations there is definitely a link.  In other populations, no clear link can be found.  People don't fit in comfortable little boxes.  What's true for one isn't, necessarily, true for another.  As I said, we don't know what causes atherosclerosis, and we aren't clear as to what contributes to it in all demographics.  Studies are ongoing.

[mmhmm]

May 9, 2013 14:57:26 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

TN & mmhmm - you don't have to kill yourselves disagreeing with me.

Who's disagreeing with you, paul?  I'm disagreeing with the garbage you're regurgitating.  It's not your garbage.  You just bought it from somebody else.

Believe what you will and eat what you like.  That's true for everyone.  We're free to do as we wish as long as we're not hurting someone else.

[Deleted]

We're free to do as we wish as long as we're not hurting someone else.

  Good day! mmhmm

[mmhmm]

Hiya, snowbird!  Hope you're having a good day!  Sun is shining here and it's beautiful out!

[Deleted]

It's start to getting real warm in here. mmhmm
Have a great day.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 9, 2013 15:01:09 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

And there's NO link between high cholesterol and atherosclerosis. None.

This is not true.  In some populations there is definitely a link.  In other populations, no clear link can be found.  People don't fit in comfortable little boxes.  What's true for one isn't, necessarily, true for another.  As I said, we don't know what causes atherosclerosis, and we aren't clear as to what contributes to it in all demographics.  Studies are ongoing.

Actually, it's 100% true.  The lipid hypothesis has been a government fraud from the start. Most of what you believe about diet and nutrition is thanks to George McGovern and the “United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs” .  Look it up.  It's a fun read.

[mmhmm]

No, paul, it is NOT 100% true.  You're not educated in this area.  I am.  There is more to this than just what you can find on the internet and regurgitate here.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 10, 2013 11:26:50 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

No, paul, it is NOT 100% true.  You're not educated in this area.  I am.  There is more to this than just what you can find on the internet and regurgitate here.

Actually, this is precisely why you're at a disadvantage on the subject.  Your education is your weakness.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Find ONE study that links saturated fat and cholesterol to atherosclerosis and heart disease.

[mmhmm]

May 10, 2013 11:40:29 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 10, 2013 11:26:50 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

No, paul, it is NOT 100% true.  You're not educated in this area.  I am.  There is more to this than just what you can find on the internet and regurgitate here.

Actually, this is precisely why you're at a disadvantage on the subject.  Your education is your weakness.

Bull hockey, paul.  I'm done with you.  I'm not about to sit here and argue with an uneducated person who's waxing eloquent in his area of ignorance.  Not on your life.  You're wrong.  Dead wrong.

People, listen to your doctors and other healthcare professionals.  Never, never, never give heed to the blathering ignorant, and don't get your medical guidance from articles on the damned internet!

[Deleted]

May 10, 2013 11:44:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 10, 2013 11:40:29 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Actually, this is precisely why you're at a disadvantage on the subject.  Your education is your weakness.

Bull hockey, paul.  I'm done with you.  I'm not about to sit here and argue with an uneducated person who's waxing eloquent in his area of ignorance.  Not on your life.  You're wrong.  Dead wrong.

People, listen to your doctors and other healthcare professionals.  Never, never, never give heed to the blathering ignorant, and don't get your medical guidance from articles on the damned internet!

mmhmm, are you infering that Paul is a "blathering idiot" ?

[mmhmm]

mmhmm, are you infering that Paul is a "blathering idiot" ?

Did I use the term "blathering idiot", jma?