Alt med persecution

"Jeff" wrote in message
ink.net...

"vernon" wrote in message
g.com...

(...)


Vein wall irritation causes your body to create and apply cholesterol as
a protection.

But the problem is in the arterioles and arteries.
(...)

Vessels, all of them.


Call it decision or whatever. The body creates cholesterol in response
to some other deficiency or excess.

But there is no decision.

That IS a decision by the body.


It's sort of like your body "decides" to cause swelling, redness and
soreness when you hit your thumb with a hammer.

It doesn't decide anything. It is a reaction.

Why the reaction unless there is a decision to react?


How about using clear thought and descriptions of that thought?

I do, but because your mind is made up and you obviously have not studied,
tou are just plain lost.


Jeff



How much MAY be a problem.

And what type.

What the medical world knows is if cholesterol is artificially
controlled there is a slight statistical advantage.
In case you didn't know (which you probably don't), eating
chollesterol doesn't raise cholesterol any more than eating deer horns
causes one to grow horns.

Larger problems include eating saturated fats and too many calories. I
would be most surprised if you can back your claim that the amount of
cholesterol eaten has no effect on blood cholesterol.

Many tests have been run since your 1980s knowledge. EVERY one gives
fats and cholesterol a pass.

References please.

You are the one arguing against everything discovereed since 200. You are
saying that you have not kept up with research and yet you comment.


Hydrogenated fats or oils are a totally different problem. (example:
substituting butter with margarine is a disaster)
All previous tests of people with high intake of fats did not take into
acount those same persons habitual "LOW" intake of fruit, vegetables and
especially fiber. That was the culprit.

What kind of tests? Blood cholesterol tests? EKGs?

Or do you mean studies?

Studies ARE tests. Studies also require tests.
All studies (to be valid) require "testing" the observation against other
observations and then adjusting the base to see if the resultant tests are
compatible.
Often the "tests" need adjusting.

"Studies" is a cute term used by acememics who love the term.
"Testing" is the term used by the actual performers of the "evaluation".
One can study for years and not know causes or reactions. One can "study"
canceer for years and onlly know that it is a growth.
Study = contemplate = as in contemplating one's navel.


"Too many calories" is true. VERY TRUE. Too much sugar and simple
carbohydrates are deadly. It is not easy to get a "huge" amount of
calories from salads with oils and vinegar, and regular vegetables and
fruits and fish (oily fish). Maybe excess but nothing like the typical
intake of the typical person supposedly on a weight loss diet.

Of course it is true. I said it. ;-)

My pont being that cholesterol and heart disease is much much more to do
with what is NOT eaten. Even in older studies it waas often pointed out
that there was an imbalance.


jeff

"vernon" wrote in message
g.com...

"Jeff" wrote in message
ink.net...

"vernon" wrote in message
g.com...

(...)


Vein wall irritation causes your body to create and apply cholesterol as
a protection.

But the problem is in the arterioles and arteries.
(...)

Vessels, all of them.

Clogged veins and venules rarely cause a heart attack.


Call it decision or whatever. The body creates cholesterol in response
to some other deficiency or excess.

But there is no decision.

That IS a decision by the body.

No, it isn't. The body is simply carrying out its biochemical functions.
The nervous system makes decisions.



It's sort of like your body "decides" to cause swelling, redness and
soreness when you hit your thumb with a hammer.

It doesn't decide anything. It is a reaction.

Why the reaction unless there is a decision to react?

So when gas on your stove is on fire when you heat your soup, the gas
molecules are deciding to react?

When I drive my car on the street, are the tires deciding to do something?
And what if they decide not to turn?


How about using clear thought and descriptions of that thought?

I do, but because your mind is made up and you obviously have not studied,
tou are just plain lost.

That's your opinion. My opinion is based on 6 years of undergraduate school
with a double major in biological research / pyschobiology, 4 years of
medical school and 4 years of graduate school in neuroscience, and plenty of
study on the subject before and after.

Jeff



Jeff



How much MAY be a problem.

And what type.

What the medical world knows is if cholesterol is artificially
controlled there is a slight statistical advantage.
In case you didn't know (which you probably don't), eating
chollesterol doesn't raise cholesterol any more than eating deer horns
causes one to grow horns.

Larger problems include eating saturated fats and too many calories. I
would be most surprised if you can back your claim that the amount of
cholesterol eaten has no effect on blood cholesterol.

Many tests have been run since your 1980s knowledge. EVERY one gives
fats and cholesterol a pass.

References please.

You are the one arguing against everything discovereed since 200. You are
saying that you have not kept up with research and yet you comment.


Hydrogenated fats or oils are a totally different problem. (example:
substituting butter with margarine is a disaster)
All previous tests of people with high intake of fats did not take into
acount those same persons habitual "LOW" intake of fruit, vegetables and
especially fiber. That was the culprit.

What kind of tests? Blood cholesterol tests? EKGs?

Or do you mean studies?

Studies ARE tests. Studies also require tests.
All studies (to be valid) require "testing" the observation against other
observations and then adjusting the base to see if the resultant tests are
compatible.
Often the "tests" need adjusting.

"Studies" is a cute term used by acememics who love the term.
"Testing" is the term used by the actual performers of the "evaluation".
One can study for years and not know causes or reactions. One can "study"
canceer for years and onlly know that it is a growth.
Study = contemplate = as in contemplating one's navel.


"Too many calories" is true. VERY TRUE. Too much sugar and simple
carbohydrates are deadly. It is not easy to get a "huge" amount of
calories from salads with oils and vinegar, and regular vegetables and
fruits and fish (oily fish). Maybe excess but nothing like the typical
intake of the typical person supposedly on a weight loss diet.

Of course it is true. I said it. ;-)

My pont being that cholesterol and heart disease is much much more to do
with what is NOT eaten. Even in older studies it waas often pointed out
that there was an imbalance.


jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"vernon" wrote in message
g.com...

"Jeff" wrote in message
ink.net...

"vernon" wrote in message
g.com...

(...)


Vein wall irritation causes your body to create and apply cholesterol
as a protection.

But the problem is in the arterioles and arteries.
(...)

Vessels, all of them.

Clogged veins and venules rarely cause a heart attack.


Where did I say heart "attack"?
Heart disease or circulation problems is what we are talking about.



Call it decision or whatever. The body creates cholesterol in response
to some other deficiency or excess.

But there is no decision.

That IS a decision by the body.

No, it isn't. The body is simply carrying out its biochemical functions.
The nervous system makes decisions.

The electrophysical system is what makes the decision.
What's with the "nervous system"?




It's sort of like your body "decides" to cause swelling, redness and
soreness when you hit your thumb with a hammer.

It doesn't decide anything. It is a reaction.

Why the reaction unless there is a decision to react?

So when gas on your stove is on fire when you heat your soup, the gas
molecules are deciding to react?

Yes. Go get a science lesson.
You don't really think the gas has a nervous system, do you?
Molecular interaction of ANY type is electromagnetics where an imbalance
exists and the "decision" or the feild is to cause a variation in the status
quo.


When I drive my car on the street, are the tires deciding to do something?
And what if they decide not to turn?

Yes.
You would burn a hole.



How about using clear thought and descriptions of that thought?

I do, but because your mind is made up and you obviously have not
studied, tou are just plain lost.

That's your opinion. My opinion is based on 6 years of undergraduate
school with a double major in biological research / pyschobiology, 4 years
of medical school and 4 years of graduate school in neuroscience, and
plenty of study on the subject before and after.

I wondered where you got all the misinformation and erratic science
terminology.
What you descibed above is trivial applications sciencce using crutch
science.
You mind is made up based on the input.

This News Group is here because of misinformation that continues in medical
schools despite a plethora of evidence against "typical" traditional
teaching. Notice "traditional" not scientific or Aristotle based techniques
used in REAL science.


Jeff



Jeff



How much MAY be a problem.

And what type.

What the medical world knows is if cholesterol is artificially
controlled there is a slight statistical advantage.
In case you didn't know (which you probably don't), eating
chollesterol doesn't raise cholesterol any more than eating deer
horns causes one to grow horns.

Larger problems include eating saturated fats and too many calories. I
would be most surprised if you can back your claim that the amount of
cholesterol eaten has no effect on blood cholesterol.

Many tests have been run since your 1980s knowledge. EVERY one gives
fats and cholesterol a pass.

References please.

You are the one arguing against everything discovereed since 200. You
are saying that you have not kept up with research and yet you comment.


Hydrogenated fats or oils are a totally different problem. (example:
substituting butter with margarine is a disaster)
All previous tests of people with high intake of fats did not take into
acount those same persons habitual "LOW" intake of fruit, vegetables
and especially fiber. That was the culprit.

What kind of tests? Blood cholesterol tests? EKGs?

Or do you mean studies?

Studies ARE tests. Studies also require tests.
All studies (to be valid) require "testing" the observation against other
observations and then adjusting the base to see if the resultant tests
are compatible.
Often the "tests" need adjusting.

"Studies" is a cute term used by acememics who love the term.
"Testing" is the term used by the actual performers of the "evaluation".
One can study for years and not know causes or reactions. One can
"study" canceer for years and onlly know that it is a growth.
Study = contemplate = as in contemplating one's navel.


"Too many calories" is true. VERY TRUE. Too much sugar and simple
carbohydrates are deadly. It is not easy to get a "huge" amount of
calories from salads with oils and vinegar, and regular vegetables and
fruits and fish (oily fish). Maybe excess but nothing like the typical
intake of the typical person supposedly on a weight loss diet.

Of course it is true. I said it. ;-)

My pont being that cholesterol and heart disease is much much more to do
with what is NOT eaten. Even in older studies it waas often pointed out
that there was an imbalance.


jeff