Fattier Milk = Slimmer Kids

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

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!

All you have to do is fine ONE study that shows a scientifically verifiable causal link between saturated fat and cholesterol and heart disease / atherosclerosis.  Just one.  And you can't do it, so you're going to bail.

I am not going to tell anyone not to listen to their doctor, that's not my intention.  My intention is to familiarize people with a wealth of information from scientists and doctors who have been looking at the data for decades and who have come to the conclusion that the lipid hypothesis is wrong, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet is making people fat, and causing heart disease.

health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/cholesterol-myths-may-surprise-you

Carbohydrates are the culprit.  You NEED fat, including saturated fats, and cholesterol.  And statin drugs are killing people.  

Life insurance companies know a surprising secret about cholesterol that most doctors never tell patients: When it comes to rating your risk for a fatal heart attack, the least important cholesterol number is your level of LDL (bad) cholesterol. In fact, life insurance actuaries don’t even look at LDL levels, because large studies show it’s the worst predictor of heart attack risk.

Instead, life insurance companies use a simple math formula to rate your heart attack risk: They divide your total cholesterol by the level of HDL (good) cholesterol.

“If the ratio is below three, and there’s no inflammation in your arteries, you’re practically bulletproof against heart attacks and strokes, even if your LDL is high,” reports Amy Doneen, MSN, ARNP, medical director of the Heart Attack & Stroke Prevention Center in Spokane, Washington.

Here’s a look at eight common cholesterol myths.

I'm not telling anyone what to do.  I'm just saying what a lot of medical experts are now slowly beginning to discover, accept, and/or admit:  our war on cholesterol and saturated fat has largely been misguided.  Filling up on "whole grains" is one of the WORST things a person can do-- bar none.  A serving of "whole grain bread" for example, has a higher glycemic index than a tablespoon of refined table sugar.  

www.nathanyoungsblog.com/wheat-bread-vs-snickers-bar/

Just post ONE study. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/the-lipid-hypothesis/

The lipid hypothesis of heart disease is, as Dickens wrote of Scrooge’s partner, Jacob Marley, dead as a doornail, yet, like Marley’s ghost, it continues to haunt us. Why? Because the idea that cholesterol causes heart disease–the lipid hypothesis–has been so frequently repeated for so many years that doctors have forgotten that it is only a hypothesis, not a fact.

In simplistic terms the lipid hypothesis is as follows:
a) cholesterol and/or fat in the diet leads to cholesterol and/or fat in the blood;
b) cholesterol and/or fat in the blood causes plaque formation in the arteries and, consequently, heart disease; and, therefore
c) cholesterol and/or fat in the diet causes heart disease.

Sounds simple enough, but problem is there is no hard science behind it. There is a bit of weak, but not fully convincing science that purports to prove a. Less science yet that proves b. Yet we’re all to believe a leads to b and, therefore, causes c.



One scientifically verified fact disproves the whole lot: only about half the people who have heart attacks have elevated cholesterol levels.

Let’s look at the above statement, which is absolutely true, in view of how we determine the causes of other diseases. We know that the measles virus causes measles–there is no doubt about it. Doctors can find the evidence of measles virus infection in anyone who has measles; and there is no instance that I’m aware of in which an individual is teeming with the measles virus, yet doesn’t ultimately manifest the symptoms of measles.

If half the time that people were diagnosed with measles they were found to have no evidence of the measles virus, and half the time they were swarming with an infection of measles virus yet never developed measles, would we still say that the measles virus caused measles? I don’t think so. Infectious disease specialists starting with Dr. Koch, the German physician who derived the eponymous postulates that define an infective disease back in the nineteenth century, have specific criteria to determine whether a specific bacteria or virus causes a specific disease

[mmhmm]

All I have to do, paul, is counter your garbage.  There's not one other thing I HAVE to do.  As long as you insist on propounding on things you know nothing about, I'll continue to counter your garbage.

[Deleted]

May 10, 2013 12:07:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

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

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

Oops, looks like I'm the blathering idiot. It should of been, are you infering Paul is blathering ignorant ?

[mmhmm]

May 10, 2013 12:53:14 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 10, 2013 12:07:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

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

Oops, looks like I'm the blathering idiot. It should of been, are you infering Paul is blathering ignorant ?

*chuckle*  Just a mis-read, jma.  Yes, I'm doing more than infer.  Paul is blathering ignorance as though it were proven, "100% fact".  It isn't.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 10, 2013 12:30:37 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

All I have to do, paul, is counter your garbage.  There's not one other thing I HAVE to do.  As long as you insist on propounding on things you know nothing about, I'll continue to counter your garbage.

If you think I and/or the sources I've cited are 100% wrong, you should be able to document that claim with at least ONE study that shows ANY scientifically verifiable evidence that there is any causal link between heart disease / atherosclerosis and saturated fat and cholesterol.  It's not that tough a request- on the contrary, it's the minimum you HAVE to do to support your claim. 

Now, I'm frying bacon for BLT's tomorrow.  I'm serving them on my own homemade version of "Paleo Bread" (coconut variety) www.julianbakery.com/bread-product/paleo-bread-coconut/?gclid=CKqctbKwjLcCFcIv4AodlnsAmA 

[mmhmm]

You're very wrong, again, paul.  As I said, I don't HAVE to do anything.  There's no need to support my knowledge in the face of your ignorance.  It's beneath me.

I made my point.  Intelligent people will listen to their healthcare providers and ignore know-nothings on this subject.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 10, 2013 16:37:18 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

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

I love it.  This is a large faction (maybe a majority) of modern conservatism in the United States boiled down to it's essence.  Absolutely marvelous, and I mean that in the classical sense of that word.  I marvel at the continual and varied celebration of ignorance.

I understand a healthy skepticism and reluctance to take every medical or scientific hypothysis or theory as gospel, and I think most thinkers in the scientific community do as well.  The continual trashing of all things educated and scientific stuns me though.  Absolutely stuns me.  Especially since a dominance in knowledge of science, engineering and technology has helped our economy thrive for generations, and it is precisely these people who are in short supply now and in the projected future.

Quick, lets ridicule them!

Actually, modern liberalism is intellectually deficient precisely because they've declared themselves intellectually superior to a bunch of rubes in an obliging media.  Liberalism has enjoyed so much time in its own superbly constructed echo chamber, and they've done such a bang up job with indoctrination that whenever a conservative explains- or exposes, reposts, or otherwise challenges the status quo-- the ignorant declare it the celebration of ignorance.  From anthropogenic global warming (aka 'climate change' because the prophecy didn't quite pan out), to abortion, and now health and nutrition- the establishment's pronouncements are all failing.  When conservatives point this out, those marinating in ignorance call it "celebrating ignorance".

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 10, 2013 16:48:48 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

You're very wrong, again, paul.  As I said, I don't HAVE to do anything.  There's no need to support my knowledge in the face of your ignorance.  It's beneath me.

I made my point.  Intelligent people will listen to their healthcare providers and ignore know-nothings on this subject.

I'm not telling anyone not to listen to their healthcare providers.  I'm simply stating that when they find information to the contrary from reputable doctors and scientists, to bring this information to their health care professional to get their opinion; and to seek second and third opinions.  If there's nothing to it- they'll let people know.  I would, however, greatly encourage you that if you get the "eye roll" treatment, you seek the opinion of someone who can EXPLAIN their position from a scientific / medical point of view and not merely "I'm the expert, you're a shithead, I know more than you so do as I say" position.  True experts care and do not fear questions.

There are a LOT of crackpot theories out there on the internet- I would not, for example, recommend these deadly ideas about "natural cures" for this that or the other.  Neither, btw, would Steve Jobs.

However, I'm spot on when I point out that there are no scientifically verifiable studies showing a causal link between saturated fat and cholesterol and heart disease.  This is an empirical statement- either it's correct, or it's not.  It is verified correct by me.  I have been searching for 5 months for someone to take up the challenge- while losing weight, gaining muscle, and increasing in energy and watching my son's grades improve from B-C to A-B.

So, if you're going to say I'm 100% wrong- that ought to be pretty easy to back up.

The reality is that the lipid hypothesis was completely debunked years ago- around the same time as the Goldwater Senate Committee on nutrition and human needs put politics over science.  Most of the information we now have come from places with benevolent sounding names like "The Center for Science in the Public Interest" (CSPI) which is an entirely politically motivated, left wing, vegetarian organization.  Because of their vegetarian and vegan philosophy they are incapable of objective study, and unwilling to accept actual science.  

Documentaries like "Forks Over Knives" promote vegan and vegetarian propaganda all dressed up like science.  

The real science is coming out slowly but surely- obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, atherosclerosis are the result of 40 years of a politically-driven fad diet that shuns all the foods human beings have traditionally prized.  Actual research is bearing out that there's good reason we want fatty, salty goodness- because it's what we need.

[mmhmm]

It's not all about lipids and cholesterol, paul.  There's this little matter of pesky bacteria.  There are also other indicators that several factors may well be in play.  Medical science doesn't know yet.  Neither do you.

[djAdvocate]

May 10, 2013 16:37:18 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

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

I love it.  This is a large faction (maybe a majority) of modern conservatism in the United States boiled down to it's essence.  Absolutely marvelous, and I mean that in the classical sense of that word.  I marvel at the continual and varied celebration of ignorance.

this is nothing new, of course.  anti-intellectualism has been a wide vein in conservatism for over half a century.

I understand a healthy skepticism and reluctance to take every medical or scientific hypothysis or theory as gospel, and I think most thinkers in the scientific community do as well.  The continual trashing of all things educated and scientific stuns me though.  Absolutely stuns me.  Especially since a dominance in knowledge of science, engineering and technology has helped our economy thrive for generations, and it is precisely these people who are in short supply now and in the projected future.

Quick, lets ridicule them!

science and information challenge belief and dogma.  modern conservatism are high on belief and dogma.  it is that LIV problem. 

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2013 8:39:02 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 10, 2013 16:37:18 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I love it.  This is a large faction (maybe a majority) of modern conservatism in the United States boiled down to it's essence.  Absolutely marvelous, and I mean that in the classical sense of that word.  I marvel at the continual and varied celebration of ignorance.

I understand a healthy skepticism and reluctance to take every medical or scientific hypothysis or theory as gospel, and I think most thinkers in the scientific community do as well.  The continual trashing of all things educated and scientific stuns me though.  Absolutely stuns me.  Especially since a dominance in knowledge of science, engineering and technology has helped our economy thrive for generations, and it is precisely these people who are in short supply now and in the projected future.

Quick, lets ridicule them!

Actually, modern liberalism is intellectually deficient precisely because they've declared themselves intellectually superior to a bunch of rubes in an obliging media.

wait, let me get this straight.  you are saying that liberals are dumb because they challenge the unfounded assertions of pundits?  is that what your claim is? 

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2013 8:39:02 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 10, 2013 16:37:18 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

From anthropogenic global warming (aka 'climate change' because the prophecy didn't quite pan out), to abortion, and now health and nutrition- the establishment's pronouncements are all failing.  When conservatives point this out, those marinating in ignorance call it "celebrating ignorance".

point what out, exactly?  that there is uncertainty in anthropogenic global warming?  i don't know a single liberal that denies it.
what is your assertion about abortion?  i am not following that.
and what about nutrition?  what claims about dietary fat and heart disease do liberals deny?

[swamp]

I didn't know liberals and conservatives followed different diets........

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2013 10:34:25 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

When conservatives point this out, those marinating in ignorance call it "celebrating ignorance".

Science is neither liberal nor conservative Paul.  Science strives for objectivity.  While our scientific knowledge base certainly evolves over time, it has no political agenda.

if he is claiming that science is inherently liberal, then i would say that there are as many liberals who support his hypothesis as those that would not:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy

there is considerable controversy here, with a lot of conflicting data.  outcome: undetermined.

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2013 12:02:48 GMT -5 swamp said:

I didn't know liberals and conservatives followed different diets........

liberals eat their young, doncha' know?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 13, 2013 11:57:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 13, 2013 8:39:02 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

From anthropogenic global warming (aka 'climate change' because the prophecy didn't quite pan out), to abortion, and now health and nutrition- the establishment's pronouncements are all failing.  When conservatives point this out, those marinating in ignorance call it "celebrating ignorance".

point what out, exactly?  that there is uncertainty in anthropogenic global warming?  i don't know a single liberal that denies it.
what is your assertion about abortion?  i am not following that.
and what about nutrition?  what claims about dietary fat and heart disease do liberals deny?

This year's Milken Institute Annual Global Forum, ""What were you thinking?" asked brother Al, "It's not a hoax. It is happening. It is real. And we are doing it."- Al Gore.

Al Gore is not alone.  He said this to cheers from people who share his twisted worldview.

By the way...2013?  COLDEST spring since 1975- so far.  Could be the coldest spring on record.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 13, 2013 10:34:25 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

When conservatives point this out, those marinating in ignorance call it "celebrating ignorance".

Science is neither liberal nor conservative Paul.  Science strives for objectivity.  While our scientific knowledge base certainly evolves over time, it has no political agenda.

I agree completely.  Unfortunately, the left has hitched their wagon to some pretty dubious pseudo-science from AGW to the lipid hypothesis.  Can you imagine what would happen to government power if it was suddenly discovered there's no real obesity epidemic, and to the extent there is a problem- we could solve it by IGNORING government rather than listening to what they have to say about diet and nutrition?  The fact is that the liberal agenda is to grow government, and growing government means growing government.  You don't get more research dollars telling people you can't find any evidence of man-made global warming and contradicting the President of the United State's alternative energy / green jobs political agenda.  You don't get more money telling members of Congress who control research dollars that there's no scientific link between saturated fat and cholesterol and heart disease.  You sure as shit don't get more research money telling them that in fact higher cholesterol is associated with lower incidence of cancer, stroke, and is in fact associated with longevity.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 13, 2013 10:34:25 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

When conservatives point this out, those marinating in ignorance call it "celebrating ignorance".

Science is neither liberal nor conservative Paul.  Science strives for objectivity.  While our scientific knowledge base certainly evolves over time, it has no political agenda.

I agree completely.  Unfortunately, the left has hitched their wagon to some pretty dubious pseudo-science from AGW to the lipid hypothesis.  Can you imagine what would happen to government power if it was suddenly discovered there's no real obesity epidemic, and to the extent there is a problem- we could solve it by IGNORING government rather than listening to what they have to say about diet and nutrition?  The fact is that the liberal agenda is to grow government, and growing government means growing government.  You don't get more research dollars telling people you can't find any evidence of man-made global warming and contradicting the President of the United State's alternative energy / green jobs political agenda.  You don't get more money telling members of Congress who control research dollars that there's no scientific link between saturated fat and cholesterol and heart disease.  You sure as shit don't get more research money telling them that in fact higher cholesterol is associated with lower incidence of cancer, stroke, and is in fact associated with longevity.

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2013 12:29:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 13, 2013 11:57:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

point what out, exactly?  that there is uncertainty in anthropogenic global warming?  i don't know a single liberal that denies it.
what is your assertion about abortion?  i am not following that.
and what about nutrition?  what claims about dietary fat and heart disease do liberals deny?

This year's Milken Institute Annual Global Forum, ""What were you thinking?" asked brother Al, "It's not a hoax. It is happening. It is real. And we are doing it."- Al Gore.

doing what, exactly.  i love statements like this, because they are utterly meaningless.

Al Gore is not alone.  He said this to cheers from people who share his twisted worldview.

lots of people cheer meaningless things.

By the way...2013?  COLDEST spring since 1975- so far.  Could be the coldest spring on record.

don't really care about issue.  but can you provide a link so i at least know what you are talking about?

so, what was your assertion about abortion?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

No, not really dj. You don't read anything I post anyway- so it's a waste of my time.

[Deleted]

May 13, 2013 12:06:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 13, 2013 12:02:48 GMT -5 swamp said:

I didn't know liberals and conservatives followed different diets........

liberals eat their young, doncha' know?

dj,

Who has been saying that!

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2013 15:53:04 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

No, not really dj. You don't read anything I post anyway- so it's a waste of my time.

you would be hard pressed to find a post of yours in the last 18 months that i did NOT read, Paul.

if i ask you for backup, it is not to embarass you.  you do that well enough on your own.  it is because i am curious.

but given this response i am also starting to doubt your assertion that you are here to convert people to your perspective.
 

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2013 16:02:16 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 13, 2013 12:06:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

liberals eat their young, doncha' know?

dj,

Who has been saying that!

that was my attempt at sick humor.  forgive me if it missed the target wildly.

[Deleted]

May 13, 2013 16:54:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 13, 2013 16:02:16 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

dj,

Who has been saying that!

that was my attempt at sick humor.  forgive me if it missed the target wildly.

I know that dj.  I was just having some fun with you. 

[djAdvocate]

never mind, Paul.  i found it:

iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Second-coldest-start-to-spring-in-US-history1.jpg

two problems with your assertion.  first, this is not global temp.  it is US temp.
second, it follows the warmest start in the same period.
third, this is a snapshot picture.  so it is not really looking at climate.
and finally, this snapshot is at odds with the GLOBAL temperature data.

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2013 16:59:11 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 13, 2013 16:54:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that was my attempt at sick humor.  forgive me if it missed the target wildly.

I know that dj.  I was just having some fun with you. 

whew!!! 

[Deleted]

Hello, dj.

[mmhmm]

May 13, 2013 12:05:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 13, 2013 10:34:25 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Science is neither liberal nor conservative Paul.  Science strives for objectivity.  While our scientific knowledge base certainly evolves over time, it has no political agenda.

if he is claiming that science is inherently liberal, then i would say that there are as many liberals who support his hypothesis as those that would not:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy

there is considerable controversy here, with a lot of conflicting data.  outcome: undetermined.

Bingo!

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Well, if you want to say the "outcome is undetermined" I guess that's technically accurate.  Since there isn't a single study linking heart disease and saturated fat and cholesterol, you can say it is "undetermined" and you would not be, um, "100% wrong".  It's kind of like man made global warming- interesting hypothesis.  Proven? Not so much...