GPSGuided wrote:more pirates.
You might want to check the graph...
GPSGuided wrote:more pirates.
photohiker wrote:GPSGuided wrote:more pirates.
You might want to check the graph...
icefest wrote:photohiker wrote:GPSGuided wrote:more pirates.
You might want to check the graph...
Yeah, the axes are done non-standardly...
icefest wrote:Correlation =/= Causation
photohiker wrote:You might want to check the graph...
wayno wrote:that graph would be about the same if it was measuring percentage of callories from red meat consumption and not too far off dairy consumption, or junk food consumption
wayno wrote:that graph would be about the same if it was measuring percentage of callories from red meat consumption and not too far off dairy consumption, or junk food consumption
perfectlydark wrote:Haha! Yeah that makes perfect sense to me lol
wayno wrote:healthy arteries dont clog with saturated fat, the walls are smooth and fat and cholesterol don't stick to them,
for the arteries to clog they first have to be damaged , they get damaged by poor diet, processed vegetable fats are high on the list of substances that can damage the artery walls. chemicals can also damage. so can rinefed sugar... often refined vegetable fat and sodium sticks to the artery walls, making saturated fat more likely to stick as well. tar and carbon from cigarettes also sticks to the walls
I'm sorry but there is as much support for this explanation as there is for a net global cooling over the past 50 years.wayno wrote:healthy arteries dont clog with saturated fat, the walls are smooth and fat and cholesterol don't stick to them,
for the arteries to clog they first have to be damaged , they get damaged by poor diet, processed vegetable fats are high on the list of substances that can damage the artery walls. chemicals can also damage. so can rinefed sugar... often refined vegetable fat and sodium sticks to the artery walls, making saturated fat more likely to stick as well. tar and carbon from cigarettes also sticks to the walls
LandSailor wrote:
Seriously, read The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. Its a real eye-opener.
geoskid wrote:LandSailor wrote:
Seriously, read The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. Its a real eye-opener.
Make sure not to miss this review, easily drowned out by the choir.
http://www.amazon.com/review/RJNHKNDEFF ... HKNDEFFVQ2
photohiker wrote:lol. So it isn't just BWA that has these discussions.
LandSailor wrote:If read the paper so smugly referred to above by David Katz the carefully worded conclusion summary is:-
Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.
.
Onestepmore wrote:I love this thread.
Moondog55 wrote:LOL The thread has lasted longer than the product that spawned it.
Nutrition does seem to be a science where a lot of people use the "evidence" to support their own pet theories; but as far as I am aware the only "No-No" really is highly processed packaged foods with high concentrations of refined sugars, fats and starches.
Shame that includes most cracker biscuits, ice-cream and Mars Bars
Getting back to my original post of years ago I do wish that there was an affordable packaged meal replacement that wasn't super sweet, i:e less than 10% sugar in all forms
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests